 Rhyw bnwysedig ydych yn perthynau i'w pannu'r ddechrau arfnwser 14424 o'r nameu sefydlu i'w Joe Fitzpatrick ar gyfer y parlymedaeth y bũscau ar gyfer sefydlu i'w pannu sefydlu i'w pannu'r ddechrau ar gweithio yn dweithio unigol ac angengarfau ato'r bloearkenant. Efallai mae'n gweithio i'w'r dweud o'r dweud cwyllt fy mwy o ddullol, rwy'n amnihanogu ar gyfer uneinig o'r dweud. Moffit 14424. Moffit 14424. Many thanks. As it appears, no member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I will now put the question to the chamber and the question is that motion number 14424 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Thank you very much. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the human trafficking and exploitation of Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, the martial list and the groupings. Division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds and thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members are wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the martial list and we will now turn to the martial list. We will start at group 1, which is exploitation for the purposes of the offence of human trafficking. I call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group on its own. Cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 1, please. Section 3 of the bill describes cases of exploitation for the purposes of human trafficking offence in section 1. Subsection 8 deals with cases where a victim is used to provide services or benefits for another person on the basis of their vulnerability. The bill that is currently drafted requires that a person using a victim in that way to must have chosen the victim on the basis that they are a child or a vulnerable adult. We have reflected on the concerns raised by Jenny Marra at stage 2 and also on similar concerns that were raised in written evidence by the legal services agency. Although we remain of the view that the package of amendments to section 3.8 proposed by Jenny Marra at stage 2 went too far, we are satisfied that there is a case for modification of section 3.8. Not least, the current provision may require the thought process of the accused or any other person involved in exploitation to be established in evidence in court, which may be problematic and may make securing convictions difficult. Amendment 1 therefore removes the reference to the choice made by the person exploiting the victim. Instead, it focuses section 3.8 on the victim's vulnerability. It would therefore be sufficient to establish exploitation under section 3.8 for a child or vulnerable adult to have been used to provide services or benefits to another person if a person who is not a child or vulnerable adult would have been likely to refuse to provide those services or benefits. Again, I thank members of the committee and Jenny Marra and other stakeholders for highlighting the fact that an amendment in those terms would improve the practical implementation of the bill, and I move amendment 1. As no member has asked this week, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I move to group 2 and call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendment 12. I invite cabinet secretary to move amendment 2 and speak to other amendments in the group, please. As I have indicated throughout the passage of this bill, this Government wants to create a society in which all children and young people have the right to be cared for and protected from harm and can grow up in a safe environment. I will speak to amendment 2, which supports the bill's ambition. Members are aware that section 4 of the bill deals with the offence of slavery servitude and forced or compulsory labour. Section 4.3 provides that a court must, in determining whether a person is being held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour, have regard to any personal circumstances of a person that might make that person more vulnerable than others. Amendment 2 is intended to provide absolute certainty that being a child, as defined in section 36 of the bill, is a personal circumstance that makes a person more vulnerable than others to being exploited in this way. If the amendment is accepted, the bill would be clear that a court would need to have regard to the fact that a victim is a child, given the particular vulnerability of children to exploitation, and I hope that all members can support amendment 2. Amendment 12, in the name of Jenny Marra, seeks to further adjust section 34 of the bill. It would require courts to consider any work or services provided by potential victims of the slavery servitude and forced or compulsory labour offences. That would expressly include work or services provided in circumstances constituting exploitation for the purposes of the separate offence of human trafficking. In determining whether an offence has been committed under section 4, courts and juries are already permitted to consider any form of work or service provided by a victim, provided that its work or service provided in circumstances which amount to a breach of article 4 of ECHR. Not all forms of exploitation listed in section 3.3 or 3.8 will necessarily amount to a breach of article 4, so that amendment will make the scope of section 4 offences less clear. Amendment 12 also links section 1 and section 4 offences. We take the view that the distinction between the offences should be maintained, because conflating those issues may make the scope of the individual offence less clear, and any confusion in that respect could jeopardise the prospect of successful convictions. We have demonstrated that we have been prepared to review the wording of section 1 and 4 by bringing forward amendments to both section 2 and 3, having listened carefully to members and other stakeholders. However, in the case of amendment 12, we are satisfied that no further change is needed and that the scope of section 4 is sufficiently clear to allow for successful prosecutions in appropriate cases. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 2 in my name, and I ask Jenny Marra not to move amendment 12, and I move amendment 2. I welcome the Government's amendment 2, which provides much-needed clarity that the situation of children and their particular vulnerability to slavery and forced labour should be taken into account when deciding if an offence under section 4 has occurred. However, there is another aspect of the offence that needs to be addressed to ensure that section 4 enables the law to prosecute effectively those who exploit children. Section 4 has a much narrower definition than the human trafficking offence, because it contains within it no clear definitions of slavery servitude or forced or compulsory labour, nor does it benefit from wider definition of exploitation in section 3, which pertains only to the section 1 human trafficking offence. I am concerned, Presiding Officer, despite the cabinet secretary's remarks, that this might present an obstacle to prosecuting cases of child exploitation. Children are often exploited in ways that are less defined than forced labour and servitude, including forced criminal activity, such as cannabis cultivation or shoplifting, and to enable others to obtain benefits such as fraudulent benefits claims. Such forms of exploitation can be prosecuted under the section 1 offence of human trafficking through the related definition of exploitation in section 3. However, if the details of the case do not allow a human trafficking charge to be brought, section 4 does not cover those forms of exploitation so clearly. Amendment 12, which I now formally move, specifically allows the court to consider those wider circumstances of exploitation in determining if a section 4 offence has been committed. That will enable prosecutions under section 4, where the form of exploitation may not easily be defined narrowly as forced labour or human trafficking. I am sympathetic to Jenny Marr's amendment, which widens the definition of exploitation from servitude or forced and compulsory labour to include forced criminal activities such as trafficking in connection with the cultivation of cannabis, which I do not think that people are widely aware of, despite the fact that cannabis farms are being discovered practically on a daily basis in Scotland. To me, that makes sense and would be an improvement if her amendment was passed today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It may be helpful if I clarify this matter a bit further, because, as the bill stands at the present moment, any form of work will come within the scope of section 4. Provided that the work is done in circumstances, it means that it amounts to slavery servitude or forced or compulsory labour. I sit out in the terms in article 4 of ECHR. If a person, including a child, is forced to do something in relation to, for example, the example used by Jenny Marr, is forced to undertake work in relation to cannabis cultivation or to carry out something such as shoplifting for another person's benefit, that would come under the offence within section 4 of the bill. The specific example that Jenny Marr made reference to is actually covered by section 4 of the bill, which is why we do not believe that it is necessary to amend this particular section of the bill. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Did someone say no? We are all agreed then. Can I ask the question again, because I am afraid that I did not hear the answer clearly. So the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Now, amendment 12, in the name of Jenny Marr, is already debated with amendment 2. Jenny Marr, to move or not? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. So, there will be a division, and as this is the first division of the stage, I suspend for five minutes. So we will now proceed with the division on amendment 12. This is a 32nd division, and members should cast their votes now, please. The result of the vote and amendment number 12 is yes, 49, no, 61, there were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now move to group 3 and call amendment 3 in the name of Rhoda Grant, group for amendment 21. Rhoda Grant, to move amendment 3 and speak to other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I move amendment 3 and speak to amendments 3 and 21? Sexual exploitation is a major driver for human trafficking. A person can be sold over and over and over again, making them very profitable to traffickers. In recognition of this connection, at stage 2, I brought forward amendments that would criminalise the purchase of sex, seeking to make those who feed the industry directly responsible for their actions. As part of those amendments, I sought to decriminalise those in prostitution, regardless of whether they were trafficked or not, because in Scotland, we recognise that prostitution is violence. It is clearly outlined and equally safe and signed up to by the majority of members of this Parliament. I also tabled an amendment at that time, requiring the Scottish Government to provide exiting services for those in prostitution, again for those who are and are not trafficked. Help for victims should be the utmost priority. In response to calls from those who responded to the Government and Committee consultation on this bill highlighting the need for this approach, the Cabinet Secretary commissioned a review of research in this area in order to make an informed decision. Because of this, I decided against tabling those amendments again in order to allow the Cabinet Secretary space and time to commission and receive that research. I also understand that this research will involve stakeholders. My amendments today are placed in recognition of this work, setting it in a legislative framework to ensure that it is in keeping with the violence against women strategy equally safe, encompassing a gendered analysis of violence against women. The final part of my first amendment today requires the Cabinet Secretary to put on record his response to that research and consultation. Amendment 21 is a consequential amendment. Presiding Officer, those amendments are measured and in keeping with the Scottish Government's own policy. Indeed, they take into account the progress being made by the Scottish Government, albeit turgidly slow, and to take them at their word when they tell us they understand that sexual exploitation, whether or not the victim is trafficked, is violence against women. In light of that, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government and Parliament will accept those amendments, which are in keeping with current Scottish Government policy. Presiding Officer, I would like to speak against the amendment for different reasons. I think that we have heard from Rhoda Grant just now that this is about violence against women. I think that violence against women is abhorrent. I think that it is worthy of a much bigger debate, but not one through passing the bill on human trafficking. I do not doubt that there may well be violence against women in the act of trafficking human beings that is not to be singled out on this case. There is the acts of violence against men and women and children that we hope that this bill will address. There is no evidence to highlight the prostitution as one particular area that is worse through human trafficking than any other. Human trafficking can be slavery of the worst sort in different professions, be they agricultural or other areas of work, where people are driven as slaves and not only prostitution. Whatever the debate around prostitution, it should not be carried out through this debate, which is about human trafficking. I stand to speak in support of Rhoda Grant's amendment. I think that it is unfortunate that Jeane Irker takes a view that she does, but in so doing she will be aware that many others, both in this chamber and out in the public domain, would disagree with the views that she has expressed this afternoon. It seems to me that there has been a huge controversy around this whole area of the abuse of women and the sale of sexual services. The impact of Rhoda Grant's amendments is first of all to acknowledge the Government's work in this field, but to encourage a report back to the very Parliament so that all parliamentarians benefit from that review and that we have the ability to deal with evidence and not supposition. I would support Rhoda Grant's amendments in this case. I would like to speak in support of Rhoda Grant's amendment and point out to the chamber that the issue relating to the bill is about the control of demand for women for sexual exploitation, which is related to the crime of human trafficking. However, Rhoda Grant's amendments today do not specifically refer to the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. It purely asks for a report on the research that the Government is undertaking at this time. The Parliament has a view of that research and has the opportunity to assess whether that sort of exploitation of women, which many of us in the chamber believe is a form of violence against women, has to be regulated. The chamber has never shied away from discussing those things, but it seems to me a most unusual way to try and get a debate to move forward by putting this amendment on to the face of this particular bill. I do not doubt Rhoda Grant's sincerity in this matter, but Rhoda has already had this issue debated at stage 2, when we made it very clear from the committee's point of view that it was not appropriate to bring that discussion into the bill at that late stage. An assurance from the minister has already been given at stage 2 on the record that this research will be carried out, and it does seem to me unusual to press this amendment. Presiding Officer, I am not quite sure how anyone could deny that there is a strong link between the sex trade and human trafficking. Clearly, there are lots of other aspects of human trafficking, but who can deny that there is a strong link? It is necessary to look at the whole issue of tackling demand. Many of the written evidence on the bill highlighted that. The STUC being one example, TARA, which Jenny Marra visited this morning and all credit to them for the great work that they have done, also said that the issue of tackling demand has to be addressed. I, myself, would see the whole issue through a gender inequality prism, but, in a sense, you do not necessarily need to take that particular view in order to believe that research would be helpful in informing the debate about the wider issues. Clearly, Jean Urquhart is introducing this shortly through her bill more generally and a different perspective, but surely research will inform that wider debate, as well as being relevant to this particular bill. I do not think that voting for this amendment necessarily commits you to holding the view that, certainly, Rhoda Grant has put forward. I think that research is important in itself, and it is certainly an issue that is relevant to the trafficking bill, so I support Rhoda Grant's amendment. The issue that has been debated over a number of years and prostitution is very firmly recognised by the Scottish Government as being on the spectrum of violence against women and children. Most of those involved in prostitution are vulnerable with a great many being trafficked, so it is entirely appropriate that the amendment has been brought forward with regard to the legislation. Therefore, it seems only logical to me that purchasers should be criminalised whilst the victims should not be. In my opinion, that would help to stop trafficking. Surely research would be very little to ask, and, if it has already been agreed to, I do not see any reason why we should not be supporting this amendment today, so I rise to support the amendment. Had the amendment stopped really just with commissioning research, we would have supported it. However, it does go on to be more prescriptive. In general, I do not believe that this is the right place for this discussion to take place. In fact, I think that it does it's service to try and promote the amendment in the bill, as it does to talk about the response that is being triggered by legislation. Furthermore, I do believe that there is an opportunity to move this forward, perhaps even in a more timely fashion, by including a discussion of the whole issue and the behaviour and sexual harm bill. For those reasons, regrettably, we will not be supporting the amendment. I reiterate my colleagues' comments that this amendment has been very carefully worded by my colleague Rhoda Grant, so that the cabinet secretary considered the evidence on this. Indeed, the amendment has been informed by how the Government wanted to take this forward. I am very surprised by my colleague Jean Urquhart's remarks on this to deny the link between prostitution and trafficking. We have taken the Government's approach, but I think that it would be fair to recognise that we haven't actually been able to have a full debate or vote on this issue in this chamber before, because the SNP has not supported any moves on to criminalise the purchase of sex. I would strongly encourage the Government benches to support Rhoda Grant's amendment to review the evidence on this and take this measure forward. I expect that a progressive Government stands up to be progressive to do that this afternoon. I think that it would be embarrassing if it did not. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2 of the bill, the Scottish Government made clear our views that the bill is not the appropriate legislation to deal with the substantive and complex issue of criminalising the purchase of sexual services, and I believe that that is still the case. However, I acknowledge that there are wide-ranging views on the matter. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Scottish Government's position regarding amendments 3 and 21 that have been lodged by Rhoda Grant. I would like to begin by making clear that the Scottish Government very much respects the strongly held views on both those in support of criminalisation and those who oppose criminalisation. Rhoda Grant and those who support criminalising the purchase of sexual services point to the research that has been undertaken to show the Swedish or the Nordic model is working to reduce the demand for sex and is preventing sexual exploitation and trafficking. However, those who oppose criminalising the purchase of sexual services point to other research that shows that the Nordic model is not working and sexual workers have become more vulnerable as a result of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. Therefore, it is clear that there is a lack of consensus to the conclusions that may be drawn from existing international research and the relevance of that research to the specific circumstances of prostitution here in Scotland. That is why I committed during stage 2 of the bill that the Scottish Government would commission research into this matter and I also confirmed that the findings of that research would be published in February 2016. When I met Rhoda Grant on 15 September, I explained that the Scottish Government had already commissioned the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research to undertake a desperate review on the impact of criminalising the purchase of sexual services and the review of the existing literature on prostitution in Scotland. To supplement that evidence, researchers within the Scottish Government justice analytical services will be working with relevant agencies and key stakeholders to explore and summarise up-to-date evidence on the nature and scale of prostitution in Scotland. That will include a summary of existing evidence on the scale and nature of sex work, the evidence on the number and profile of victims who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation and links to organised crime, the impact of prostitution on local communities, the scale and nature of the demand of prostitution in services and the scale and nature of existing support services and assessment of those services. That research will involve police, local authorities and key health boards, and researchers also intend to speak to a range of third sector organisations, including TARA, Women's Aid, Glasgow Community Safety Services and Women's Support Project. Both strands of the research will be subject to independent scrutiny by academics to provide a quality assurance check. The implications of the research findings will then be discussed with key stakeholders, an event that has now been planned for February next year. That will focus on the possible impact of criminalisation of the purchase of sex, taking account of the circumstances in Scotland and to determine whether further work is required. Would a grants amendment 3 and 21 under the bill would not assist the conduct or delivery of the research that is already in progress? Indeed, if the Scottish Government was statutorily obliged to undertake the research project in the way that is set out by Rhoda Grant's amendment, I am advised that it would not be possible for the report to be finalised in February 2016, as I have already said out to Parliament. The Scottish Government has not come to a policy decision on the merits or otherwise of criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services. We will not reach such a decision on that until such times as the research and findings of the workshop are published and considered properly. The Scottish Government considers this bill as not the appropriate vehicle for legislating on the criminalising of the purchase of sexual services, including the timescale for research or for making policy decisions, nor do I think that the provisions on the detailed method and content of research are appropriate as a legal requirement within the bill. For those reasons, I would invite Rhoda Grant not to press amendment 3 and 12. A number of people who spoke against the amendment were speaking against my stage 2 amendments, which I explained that I was not placing, but actually taking account of the work that the Government was already doing. The amendment today actually enshrines in legislation the research that was highlighted by the cabinet secretary just there. It follows the same timescales as the cabinet secretary. Indeed, the report back gives him more time than he has outlined today. I welcome that he is saying that he is going to pull stakeholders together in February. There is nothing in this amendment that stops that happening. It only puts in legislation what the Government's position already is, but asks him to report back to the Parliament within a year of that research being published. This is a measured approach, and I urge the Scottish Government to rethink their stance on this, and I vote with myself and on my amendment tonight. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to or are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division, and this will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 3 is yes, 27, no, 79. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I move to group 4 and call amendment 4 in the name of the cabinet secretary grouped with amendment 5, like the cabinet secretary to move amendment 4 and speak to other amendments in the group. Amendment 4 and 5 responds to specific concerns raised by Elaine Murray and others at stage 2, and subsequently with regard to section 7 of the bill. Section 7 requires a lawd advocate to issue instructions to prosecutors on the prosecution of victims. I note that a fresh draft of instructions reflecting stakeholders' views have now been issued by the lawd advocate and shared with the Justice Committee, and a copy has also been placed in SPICE. The concerns related firstly to the fact that, while the draft instructions to be issued under the bill deal separately with adults and children, there is no specific mention in the bill of the application of the instructions to children. There was also a concern in relation to compulsion, in particular that compulsion should not require to be established when determining whether to prosecute child traffic victims. Having considered those issues, we have brought forward amendments 4 and 5. Amendments would therefore adjust section 7 of the bill to make clear that the lawd advocates' instructions now and in the future must always contain provision about the factors to be taken into account or steps to be taken by prosecutors when deciding whether to prosecute children who are victims of the offence of human trafficking or slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and who appear to have committed an offence as a consequence of their being such a victim. Those amendments would accordingly remove the focus on compulsion to commit an offence as far as children are concerned. I would ask Parliament to support amendment 4 and 5 in my name, and I move amendment 4. I want to speak in support of amendment 4 and 5 and thank the cabinet secretary for bringing that forward. That will make the evidential test. Within the lawd advocates' instructions regarding prosecution of child victims, it is different and simpler. Removing the compulsion element reflects the particular indirect pressures that children who have been trafficked might face, and I welcome them. I would like to welcome those amendments. As the cabinet secretary said, the address concerns that were raised with us at stage 2 and were discussed at stage 3, which now recognise the additional vulnerabilities of children who have been trafficked. Therefore, I welcome them greatly. Thank you, cabinet secretary, to wind up. Since the cabinet secretary does not wish to wind up, the question is that amendment 4 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. Call of amendment 5, in the name of cabinet secretary, to move firmly. Moved. Many thanks. And so the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. And we now move to group 5. Call of amendment 6, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, group with amendments 11 and 22. Margaret Mitchell, to move amendment 6 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 6, 11 and 22 would provide a statutory defence for victims on the face of the bill. There is a precedent for such a defence in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and Northern Islands human trafficking legislation. The possible inclusion of this provision was widely discussed with stakeholders at stage 1, and Elaine Murray tabled amendments at stage 2, which aim to introduce a statutory defence. At that time, the cabinet secretary identified a look hole in the stage 2 amendment. That was because it left the listing of offences to be done through regulations. However, that list would need to be composed prior to the commencement of the section. As there was no requirement in the stage 2 amendments for that to be done, it was withdrawn. Amendment 22 remedies that omission. The Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate in particular have continued to oppose the inclusion of a statutory defence for the following reasons. One, it would govern and influence any instructions that were produced. Two, it would place a burden on the victim to raise a defence. And three, it would apply only to a small number of people. Taking each of these in turn, it has been established and accepted by the Scottish Government at stage 2 that the Lord Advocate's instructions and a statutory defence are not mutually exclusive. In other words, you can have both. A statutory defence would ensure that there was additional protection available for victims, which brings me to the second point. Rather than placing a burden on victims, it provides them with a safety net. In fact, the fact that it would only apply to a small number of individuals is not a reason to deny people the right to this added protection. In conclusion, I want to make the chamber aware of one final point and an extremely important one, which was highlighted by the Law Society of Scotland. It argues that, if there is no statutory defence available, the accused may find himself or herself in the situation where the prosecution does not accept the accused's position regarding compulsion, i.e. that they were forced into criminal activity. On the basis that it is the Lord Advocate's decision where, whether or not to prosecute, he in effect becomes judge and jury. That means that the additional protection afforded to victims in terms of a statutory defence, which is available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, would be denied the same victims in Scotland. I move amendment 6, in my name. Thank you. I rise to speak against amendment 6, 11 and 22. When the bill was first introduced, I supported the idea of a statutory defence, and I have wrestled with the issue as the bill has gone through committee. I had thought that the instructions and the statutory defence would not be contradictory and that a statutory defence would perhaps be a safety net for anyone who was not picked up by the earlier procedure. We heard, indeed, from our childcare trust in particular, that some young victims of trafficking had been prosecuted. However, the Lord Advocate has made a compelling case for the alternative approach of instructions, and the cabinet secretary has also at times restated that case. In this instance, instructions, I believe, will lead to a more victim-centred approach and allow us for the earliest intervention and the most support to be available. The Lord Advocate has argued quite clearly, and I quote, if a statutory defence was introduced in legislation, that would result in a two-tier system for potential victims of trafficking, as my instructions would only apply post-conclusion of criminal proceedings. Chamber, we need to keep victims of trafficking outside the criminal cases as much as possible. In this instance, I urge members to vote against the amendment. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. That, indeed, is very similar to amendments that I brought at stage 2, but, as Margaret Mitchell has indicated, she addressed the technical objection that the Scottish Government raised at that time. At the time that we were considering the stage 2 amendment, the Lord Advocate had issued a letter that morning that no one had had the opportunity to discuss with the stakeholders who were supportive of a statutory defence. I subsequently asked both the Law Society and the Faculty of Adverts to have a look at the letter issued by the Lord Advocate. Indeed, the Law Society, as Margaret Mitchell has indicated, continues to have concerns. I quote from their briefing, we continue to question whether the duty of the Lord Advocate, in terms of section 7 of the bill, is amended to issue and public instructions about a victim of trafficking taken on its own meets with article 26 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking. It states that, each party shall, in accordance with the basic principles of its legal system, provide for the possibility of not imposing penalties on victims for their involvement in unlawful activities to the extent that they have been compelled to do so. The Law Society also points out that our bill, as stands, would not give victims the same amount of defence as it would have under the modern Slavery Act 2015 in England and Wales or the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act in Northern Ireland of 2015. I stand to support the position adopted by my colleague Alison McInnes. I think that Elaine Murray is quite right to say that there has been a lot of exchange about legal matters, but we had a very interesting legal debate within the Justice Committee. People might instinctively say that it would be minded to support something headed up defence for victims of offences, but what we want to do is prevent people ending up in the dock in the first place and the approach adopted by the Lord Advocate is a way of doing that, so I certainly do not support Margaret Mitchell's amendments. I welcome the opportunity to address amendments 6, 11 and 22 in the name of Margaret Mitchell and, once again, to set out the Scottish Government's position on a statutory defence for victims of human trafficking, slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. I do not believe that the case has been made that adding a statutory defence would provide any further benefits to victims of those crimes. I would be deeply concerned that, if those amendments were to be accepted, they could have a detrimental effect on victims by placing an unnecessary burden on them. In his letter of 28 April, to the Justice Committee, the Lord Advocate set out three key concerns in relation to the use of a statutory defence. The first is that he was concerned that, as in the UK modern slavery act and the equivalent Northern Island legislation, there would be a large number of exceptions for offences where the statutory defence could not apply. That would significantly restrict the protection for victims. Any decision made or approved by Parliament on the question of which offences are to be outwith the scope of the defence may require to be reflected in the Lord Advocate's instructions as well. Secondly, the statutory defence would require evidence of a standard that could be presented at court for its application. Thirdly, and maybe most significantly, given our desire to take a victim-centred approach with the bill, the statutory defence would require the victim of human trafficking to do the work to establish this evidence itself, requiring them to be proactive in providing information to their slister. Information of human trafficking is challenging, and victims may not consider themselves to be victims. Equally, victims may be reluctant to disclose their status to the authorities through mistrust or fear of reprisal. It is therefore crucial that any mechanism to identify victims and prevent them from being prosecuted does not rely on disclosure by a victim themselves. If we imagine someone who has been rescued from the traumatic situation of having been trafficked and exploited, who may not be able to speak English and who may be unfamiliar with their legal system, why would we want to place a further burden on them in requiring them to raise a statutory defence? The use of Lord Advocate's instructions will provide a flexible and comprehensive safeguard in relation to victims of human trafficking and exploitation who are compelled to commit offences by those who exploit them. Instructions will allow anyone, not only the victim, to bring forward evidence or intelligence that an alleged offender is a victim of human trafficking. I am also concerned about the issue of time limits. A statutory defence would require to be raised in sufficient time so that the court is properly notified of the intention to rely on it. Given the challenges that are involved in identification of victims in this area, delayed disclosure can be an issue that makes strict time limits unrealistic, unhelpful and potentially acting as a limit on the victims' access to protection. Instructions will apply at all stages of the criminal justice process. Even after someone has been convicted and sentenced for an offence, prosecutors may still consider information provided to them, and if it comes to light that the victim was compelled to commit the offence, then steps can be taken to have the conviction quashed. Instructions offer a flexible approach with no restriction on the type of information that prosecutors can consider when making decisions regarding the discontinuation of proceedings. This information could be in the form of intelligence, opinion evidence, hearsay evidence, evidence from other jurisdictions or evidence reported by individuals who do not wish to provide a police statement or to be part of the criminal justice process. By contrast, as made clear by the Lord Advocate, the line saw in the statutory defence would require the defence to be supported by evidence that would be admissible under Scots law. Decisions will be made within the confines of the evidence presented during the trial, rather than with the benefit of all the information available, notwithstanding issues of admissibility. Some members may question why it is an either or situation. Why could the bill not contain provisions for both statutory defence and Lord Advocate's instructions? In his letter of 15 June to the Justice Committee, the Lord Advocate made clear that, if Parliament were to introduce a statutory defence in legislation, that would result in a two-tier system for potential victims. I quote from the Lord Advocate's letter of 15 June to the committee. He stated, "...my instructions would only apply post-conclusion of criminal proceedings, as a statutory defence would be the choice of Parliament in transposing the human trafficking directive in domestic law in relation to the criminal proceedings. My instructions could only apply when the statutory defence was not available." The Government's preferred option is, therefore, to place a duty on the Lord Advocate to produce instructions to prosecutors to meet our victim-centred approach in this issue. As I have made clear, this approach is supported by the Lord Advocate, who made the case against a statutory defence in the strongest possible terms, both in his oral evidence and in subsequent written correspondence to the Justice Committee. Therefore, I urge Margaret Mitchell to withdraw amendment 6 and not to move her other amendments. Lord Advocate has recently written to the Justice Committee in a letter dated 29 September, regarding the statutory defence and his instructions on the prosecution of victims of human trafficking or exploitation. In that, he infers that you can have either his instructions or a statutory defence. That is simply not the case. It was quite categorically stated in evidence from witnesses that you can have both. That is where the argument that it is better to have a victim-centred approach advanced by both my colleagues Alison McInnes and John Finnie falls down. I reiterate that the two are not mutually exclusive. You can have both, and that provides additional protection for victims for whom the Lord Advocate, without the statutory defence, is judge and jury. That is simply not fair. It seems to me that the most bizarre argument of all is the one that the cabinet secretary has just repeated, that it is an unnecessary burden on victims to have the additional protection of a safety net. How bizarre is that? That means that the Lord Advocate alone decides on the credibility and reliability of the information to support the fact that an individual is trafficked. In effect, if we vote down this amendment today, the individual is to be denied the protection of the statutory defence that is afforded in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland. I urge members to vote for this amendment and move it now. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now and this will be a 60-second division. As a result of the vote on amendment 6, yes, 40, no, 70, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now move to group 6. I call amendment 13 in the name of Jenny Marra, group with amendments 14, 15 and 16. Jenny Marra, to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, amendment 13, which I now move 14, 15 and 16, seeks to strengthen the section 8 provision of support to victims of trafficking. The policy memorandum states that the bill will ensure the rights of trafficked victims to access support and assistance, placing a duty on the Scottish ministers to secure the provision of relevant immediate support and recovery services for adult victims of trafficking. I am concerned, however, that section 8 does not actually do what we think it does. Section 8 does not oblige ministers to provide immediate support for a person who identifies as a possible victim. Support is only guaranteed once a decision has been made that there are reasonable grounds to believe someone is a victim, which at present requires a decision under the national referral mechanism. The first few hours and days of a person being identified as a possible victim can be the most traumatic. They may have taken the brave step of disclosing what has happened to them or have been found during police raids. In such moments, the offer of assistance should be automatic and guaranteed, not dependent on a discretionary provision. Amendment 13 will ensure that whenever there are sufficient signs a person may have been trafficked to lead to a referral into the national referral mechanism, then that person should have an immediate right to basic support and assistance from the moment that the referral is made. They should not have to wait for a reasonable grounds decision or a decision to exercise the discretionary power. That is putting bureaucracy ahead of human need. Each situation is, of course, different. Individuals who do not need or want support will not be obliged to accept it. Providing support from the point of referral is the approach that has been adopted in Northern Ireland and the only other part of the UK to have a statutory duty to provide trafficking victims with support. I believe that we would be well to do the same. Amendment 14 addresses two other key problems with section 8. Firstly, it will put into statute a minimum time of 45 days for which a victim is entitled to support. Secondly, it will ensure that victims who receive a positive, conclusive decision before the end of the support period will continue to be entitled to support. Consequential amendment 15 removes the power to provide support on a discretionary basis, where that is superseded by the entitlement in amendments 13 and 14, but retains the power to provide support on a discretionary basis beyond the time when the positive, conclusive grounds decision remains. Amendment 16 introduces a requirement for the publication of guidance about the exercise of the power to provide victims with support on a discretionary basis, and I have already mentioned some of my concerns about relying on discretionary powers. I thank the cabinet secretary, Margaret Mitchell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to support Jenny Marra's amendment 16 requiring the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on the provision and support for systems to victims of an offensive human trafficking. Although I am sympathetic to amendment 13, because I feel that there is a real issue about the first hours of someone who is potentially trafficked and how they are dealt with, I think that there is some difficulty in just determining exactly what the sufficient signs would be. Amendment 16 maybe covers things for the meantime and gives us an accurate reflection of how the discretionary power is working. I welcome the opportunity to set out again the Scottish Government's position in relation to the issues raised by Jenny Marra and her amendments 13 to 16. Amendment 13 to 15 was considered but not accepted by the Justice Committee at stage 2. We did not support those amendments at stage 2 as they went against the Government's approach to providing for compulsory or discretionary support in section 8 of the bill. The Government's own amendment at stage 2, which was accepted by the committee, also provides further flexibility by allowing those issues to be considered and changed through regulations. The Government's position has not changed on those amendments since they were rejected at stage 2. We still have significant concern that those amendments are too wide in the context of the bill. For example, amendment 13 would impose a duty to provide support where our reference is about to be made. That test is insufficiently clear to provide any sort of certainty to victims or support providers on when mandatory support duties will be triggered. In relation to the ending of the period of compulsory support and assistance, amendment 14 seeks to ensure that a victim of section 1 offence would receive support or assistance for a period of at least 45 days. We believe that Jenny Marra's approach would severely restrict the Government's ability to deal with any changes to the national referral mechanism process on which section 8 of the bill relies. The Scottish Government's preferred approach here is to rely on regulation making powers in section 8 2 of the bill to set out the period of support. The power added at stage 2, and now in section 8 8 of the bill, also allows ministers to adjust the way in which a conclusive determination is made. That allows the Government to take into account the outcome of the national referral mechanism pilots. Those pilots are currently under way and looking at how the national referral mechanism can be streamlined and improved. The outcomes from those pilots will help to establish the most effective approach going forward. Allowing the level of support and assistance to be determined under those regulations making powers provides more flexibility to change the minimum or maximum period that support and assistance must be provided under the mandatory support provisions in section 8 2. As background, the national referral mechanism review was commissioned by the Home Secretary in April 2014. The review was asked to examine and make recommendations to the Home Secretary on six key areas—identification of victims, how the access support, the level of support that victims receive, decision making, governance of the NRM and collection and sharing of data. The report of the review of the NRM recommended providing support based on an assessment of the individual's needs of the victim and that consideration should be given to entry and exit timescales and support following conclusive identification. That chimes with the victim-centred approach that we want to take in this bill. Members will wish to be aware that the review also recommended an overhaul of the referral process of the national referral mechanism. We believe that section 8 3 of the bill, as it stands, provides appropriate, flexible approach to discretionary support. Amendment 16 seeks to require ministers to publish guidance on that. We do not consider that a separate guidance document would be necessary or helpful in this context. We should be very cautious about setting out detailed guidance as appears to be envisaged here on the circumstances in which discretionary support is to be provided. That support must be directed towards the needs of the individual victims, and I would be concerned that lengthy guidance on the matter may constrain the provision of that support rather than encourage it. I also do not think that amendment 16 works well with section 8, as it stands. For example, amendment 16 suggests that guidance would cover an external authority making a determination about a discretionary support when it is ministers who exercise the discretion to provide support under section 8 3. It is also the case that, since the duty, the guidance issued is to a duty on Scottish ministers. That amendment would in effect amount to a requirement on ministers to issue guidance to themselves. Such guidance would, of course, have a limited legal effect. Members will wish to be aware that section 31 3C of the bill covers the strategy. That provision may in particular set out support and assistance, which is or is to be available to adults or children who are or appear to be victims of an offence under this act. My officials plan to visit at least one of the pilot areas to find out how the pilots are progressing. On the back of that visit, I am happy to make an offer to Jenny Marra and to Christina McKelvie, who are core conveners of the cross-party group on human trafficking, that my officials will work with the group to get their input and views into this matter. We will carefully consider opinions on how to offer support and assistance and how that should be accessed, delivered and evaluated. Looking forward, we will consult with key stakeholders on the drafting of the regulations. As such, I urge Jenny Marra to withdraw amendment 13 and not to move her other amendments. I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment for his civil servants to engage with the cross-party group, because he knows as well as I do that today is the first step of the legislation in our fight against human trafficking. However, I believe that those amendments provide a lot of clarity. I am slightly surprised that the minister thinks that putting some commitments into legislation could compromise or dissuade from support being given to trafficking victims. Section 8 is a central part of the bill, perhaps the most important part of it. The needs and care of victims must remain a primary focus, not just of our laws here today, but the strategy and the ground level action that will follow. It is an important marker that our legislation gives a statutory basis to victims' entitlement to support. I believe that we need to make sure that those laws that we pass here today do not shortchange the people and the guarantees that people are extremely vulnerable. I will press my amendments, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a 62nd division. Result of the vote on amendment 13 is yes, 33 no, 77, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 14 in the name of Jenny Marra to move or not move. Thanks. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment 14 is yes, 37 no, 73 no, abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 15 in the name of Jenny Marra to move or not move. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment 15 is yes, 33 no, 77, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 16 in the name of Jenny Marra to move or not move. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of amendment number 16 is yes, 47 no, 62, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now move to group 7 and I call amendment 7 in the name of Christina McKelvie, group with amendments 17 and 9. Christina McKelvie to move amendment 7 and speak to all our amendments in the group. First, I would like to thank the cabinet secretary, my parliamentary colleagues and all of the stakeholders who have helped to develop the content of amendments on these issues. I would especially like to thank Lisa Gamble from Barnadows, who has helped us all to understand the particular challenges faced by children who are at risk or have been trafficked. This builds and strengthens what is a very important piece of work, furthering the interests of vulnerable, unaccompanied trafficked children in Scotland. The amendment that reflects amendments that were lodged by Alison McKinnis and Jenny Marra at stage 2 seeks to broaden the pool of children who will be eligible to receive a guardian. The broadening of the criteria seeks to include those children who are at risk of and vulnerable to becoming a victim of trafficking, not merely children who are believed to have been trafficked already. At stage 2, the Scottish Government committed to working with the committee members and stakeholders to get a better understanding of who this cohort of children should be, and I believe that they have done that. The amendment as lodged broadens the scope so that the provision of independent child trafficking guardians will now extend to children who are or might be a victim of trafficking and, crucially, who might be vulnerable to trafficking in the future. That will have the effect of protecting unaccompanied children where a determination of trafficking might not be immediately apparent. Therefore, given those children the immediate support that they need and those unaccompanied children who simply, through their own circumstances, may find themselves very vulnerable to being trafficked. I now call on Jenny Marra to speak to amendment 17 and other amendments to the group. Presiding Officer, I welcome amendment 7 in the name of Christina McKelvie, which extends the provision of a guardian to other children vulnerable to trafficking. I am grateful also to the cabinet secretary for listening to the concerns of those of us who tabled those amendments and pressed the issue at stage 2. The cabinet secretary has moved a long way on this from insisting that the named person was sufficient protection for trafficked children to the much more comprehensive amendment that Christina McKelvie has just moved today, giving a legal guardian to all-separated migrant children, including EU migrant children. Presiding Officer, the migrant crisis that we witness on our TV screens and the possibility of unaccompanied migrant children arriving in our communities becomes all the more real, and therefore the cabinet secretary's shift in thinking on this is very welcome today. I would, however, seek clarification about the terminology used in amendment 7 to confirm that it will indeed ensure that all-separated migrant children will receive a guardian under this section and what criteria will be used to determine whether or not an individual child is vulnerable to becoming a victim. Presiding Officer, amendment 17 in this group will provide the protection of a guardian for children whose parents are suspected of being involved in trafficking or exploiting their own children. The bill currently provides a guardian only for children who do not have anyone with parental rights and responsibilities in the UK. Now, this provision assumes that the parents of a child will act to support and protect a child's best interests in the way that a guardian would. Sadly, for some children, this is not the case, and they are actually exploited by their own parents. I believe that if we leave this clause as it stands, we are leaving some very vulnerable children potentially at risk by not providing them with a guardian, and I cannot think of a more vulnerable position for a child to be in than to be exploited by their own parents. Presiding Officer, in 1689, our court of session heard the case of the tumbling lassie, a little girl who was sold by her parents in this country into the circus. Our court of session just up the road deemed the sale of a person and child illegal in Scottish common law, but today that awful situation where parents are suspected of exploitation still exists. Today, children would be removed from the parents' care for their protection, but I believe that that is insufficient. We must make sure that those vulnerable children are given the same protection as unaccompanied children arriving on our shores. They should be given a legal guardian. However, I cannot see that section 8b would allow the appointment of a guardian, and I would urge the cabinet secretary to complete the protection of children vulnerable to trafficking in this section by supporting amendment 17. I thank both Christine McElven and Jenny Marr for their amendments. I am fully supportive of amendment 7 and its effect on widening the eligibility criteria to include those children who are unaccompanied and may be vulnerable to being trafficked. The services of a guardian as currently provided for in the bill are for children who do not have anyone in the UK with parental rights and responsibilities. However, amendment 17 seeks to widen the cohort of children who are eligible to be appointed a guardian to include children where a person who holds parental rights and responsibilities is not in regular contact or has a conflict of interest with the child. Child protection services, including the police and children and family social workers among others, already have responsibility to work with children and anyone who holds parental rights and responsibilities in relation to them when this is in the investrences of the child. In the extremely serious situation where a person with parental rights and responsibilities has condoned or indeed been actively involved in the trafficking of a child, the child protection mechanisms are available to remove that child in order to protect them from harm. Local authorities also have wider responsibilities to any child in need or to children who are looked after where they are required to provide them with services and support and where necessary accommodation in order to address the child's needs and to support them. That will be articulated in the strategy to be prepared under the bill where we will emphasise the existing support mechanisms and how they should be deployed to ensure the care and safety of traffic children. I therefore want to make clear that, through those existing mechanisms, all children, including those who are not eligible to receive a guardian as provided for in the bill, will receive the support and protection that they require. No child will be excluded as we already have appropriate support in place through Scotland's highly regarded and widely experienced child protection workforce. The services of a guardian as currently provided for in the bill are for children who do not have anyone in the UK with parental rights and responsibilities. Such children may require particular and specialist support, for example for overcoming language barriers or obtaining legal services for an interview with the Home Office to determine their immigration status. I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to extend the provision to children who do not face the same set of challenges or who already have support via existing domestic measures. Therefore, urge the chamber to resist amendment 17. I now turn to amendment 9, which relates to an amendment from Alison MacKinnon at stage 2, resulting in the bill now allowing relevant authorities to make a referral to a point of guardian for a child. The Government's position at stage 2 was that only local authorities should make such a referral. The list of relevant authorities in the bill, as a result of the Alison MacKinnon's amendments, includes local authorities, the police, health boards, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the UK visa and immigration service. The list of bodies that are set out by Alison MacKinnon potentially raises some legislative competence issues in relation to the specification of the UK visa and immigration service, which is part of the Home Office. It is also not appropriate to include the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, as it is not a legal entity. Therefore, I recognise the point here, and that is why I have now brought amendment 9. Amendment 9 amends the definition of relevant authorities in the bill and gives ministers an enabling power by regulation to add to the list of relevant authorities proposed. That will allow time to consider which agencies over and above local authorities should be added as appropriate referring agencies. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 7. Of course, I will give way. I recognise the points that you make about perhaps the legislative competence of including UK visas and immigration agency. Can I ask you just to put on the record that you recognise the need to consider that there will be other organisations that can refer to this system and perhaps indicate a timetable for the bringing forward of regulations? As I just outlined, the purpose for the enabling power and the regulations is to allow us to then consider what enabling authorities should be listed in that provision within the bill, which will achieve the objective that the member is seeking to achieve. The regulations relating to this bill will commence once the bill has actually been approved by Parliament with the due consultation exercise that would normally surround such development of regulations. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 7 and 9 and to ask Jenny Marra not to move amendment 17. However, if it is moved, I would urge members to resist amendment 17. Thank you very much, and I will call on Alison McInnes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I speak in support of amendment 7. At stage 2, both Christina McKelvie and Jenny Marra all had amendments with similar intent to this, with drawing at stage 2 to allow the Government time to explore whether there was indeed a gap in provision. I am really pleased that the Government has recognised the vulnerability of all unaccompanied children. When we spoke about it at stage 2, we felt that there was a need to create a presumption that a child who is travelling alone and who seeks asylum might have been trafficked. If we want all children who have been trafficked to be referred to the guardianship service, we must surely acknowledge that many separated children who present in the first instance as asylum seekers will subsequently be identified as having been trafficked. Those most vulnerable young people will present perhaps with a cover story or they might not even understand that they have been trafficked and they deserve the earliest possible intervention. We are talking about a small number of children who, as I said, might not realise that they have been trafficked. Without that amendment passing today, there would be an increased risk that a child could be re-trafficked before they have been identified, so I will vote in support of that amendment. Turning briefly to amendment 9, I recognise the issues relating to legislative competence, but it is important to recognise that there is merit in organisations having the capacity to refer a child to an independent guardian as soon as is reasonably practical after they have been given grounds to consider that the child may be a trafficking victim. Local authorities are not necessarily the first point of contact for a trafficked child, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to bring forward regulations on that. I now call on Christina McKelvie to wind up and press withdrawal amendments. We need to be very careful about what language we use when we describe unaccompanied young children through this system, especially when we talk about the refugee crisis. It is not a migrant crisis, it is a refugee crisis, and we have to be very careful that we ensure that we describe those people as such. Separated unaccompanied children, as Alison McKenneth just said, are absolutely vulnerable. This morning at the European External Relations Committee, we heard from people who have just returned from Lesvos who said that there are children there as young as 10 travelling on their own. They have been separated or they are unaccompanied, and some of them are being indentured into becoming traffickers themselves. That is a huge issue if we give those young people the right support at the right time with the right guardian, then we can maybe start breaking some of the cycle that happens in islands like Lesvos and Turkey and some of the refugee camps that are across the whole of Europe and beyond. On amendment 9, I want to take up the cabinet secretary's request that we get involved in this. It is extremely important that all children receive the support and protection that they so justly require. A multi-agency approach has always been the best at doing that. When we are looking at enabling authorities to become those eligible people, we should look at the process that we have right now for first responders through the children's hearing system and ensure that the best holistic approach is given to that young person for all the reasons that I have just explained. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. I call amendment 17 in the name of Jenny Marra. Jenny Marra, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. They will therefore be a division and this will be a one-minute division. Result of the vote in amendment 17 is yes, 44, no 62, no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now move to group 8. I call amendment 18 in the name of Jenny Marra, grouped with amendments 8, 19 and 20. Jenny Marra, to move amendment 18 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 18, which I now move, corrects a weakness in section 8B by providing statutory authority for the guardians functions. Section 8B7 contains an enabling power which makes it possible for the Scottish Government to create regulations about a number of detailed aspects of the guardians system, including the guardians functions. I welcomed the commitment to making regulations made by the cabinet secretary at stage 2 in response to amendment 8A, which would have turned the power into a requirement. However, as I have mentioned, the power in section 8B7 enables ministers to bring forward regulations on a number of different elements of the guardianship scheme, and the cabinet secretary has not specifically committed to bringing forward regulations about the guardian functions. Let me explain why I am highlighting this aspect. In order for the guardians to be effective in supporting children, they need to have a degree of authority. Their role and position needs to be understood and respected by other professionals working with the child. That is already recognised by subsection 6, which requires anyone exercising statutory duties in relation to a child who has a guardian under this legislation to recognise and pay due regard to the guardians functions. However, without those functions being clearly articulated and given statutory authority, meeting that requirement becomes much more complicated. Putting the functions of the guardian in statute will facilitate smooth and effective co-operation between the guardian and other professionals and other agencies working with the child. It is for reasons like this that the EU fundamental rights agency handbook on guardianship for traffic children recommends that national law should provide the legal basis of guardianship and define the authority responsible for it. The legal basis of guardianship in national law should include sufficiently precise legal provisions defining a guardian's duty and functions. As it stands, section 8b does not contain precise provisions defining the guardian's duty and functions, nor does the enabling power guarantee creation of regulations meeting this requirement. The modern slavery act 2015, which provides advocates for traffic children and which must await the outcome of trials before that help is available, even that act more widely meets that requirement. The modern slavery act states specifically that the function of the advocate must be set in regulations. Northern Ireland's legislation goes further, setting out the functions of independent guardians in the primary legislation. I think that it would be a great shame to finish this process with a weaker statutory framework than the rest of the UK, after Scotland led the way by introducing the Scottish guardianship service several years ago. I recognise that there are some benefits of flexibility that regulations provide. Amendment 19, in my name also in this group, provides flexibility by including a power for the Scottish Government to add to the list of guardians' functions through subsequent regulations. That allows any additional responsibilities that are considered necessary in future to be added to the guardian role simply. The essential functions of the guardian, included in amendment 18, are based on those of the Northern Ireland legislation, which was recommended as a model by expert groups such as the Scottish guardianship service and ECPAT UK during stage 1. The functions also reflect the responsibilities that are recommended in guidelines from international expert bodies, including the EU Fundamental Rights Agency handbook that I have just referred to, but also guidelines produced by UNICEF and the United Nations. Those functions are not a dramatic departure from those of the Scottish guardianship service, which already operates in line with international principles. Amendment 20, in this group, amends section 37 to require any regulations laid under this clause about the functions of the guardian. That is whether regulations about functions under the existing power or regulations about further functions other under amendment 19 to be made by the affirmative procedure and will ensure that Parliament is able to offer scrutiny of any functions proposed for the guardian role. That will help to ensure that the guardians have the necessary responsibilities to provide an effective support to children and that the role incorporates all the expert recommendations of international best practice. Thanks. I now call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 8 and other amendments in the group. I will first speak to my own amendments in this group before dealing with Jenny Marra's amendments 18 to 20. Stakeholders' views are that guardians will be best able to carry out their role by having access to as much relevant information as possible about the child. Section 8b6 of the bill currently provides that any person providing services or taking decisions in relation to a child for whom a guardian has been appointed must recognise and pay due regard to the independent child trafficking guardian's function. My amendment 8 amends section 8b6 to also oblige such persons to provide the independent child trafficking guardian with access to such information relating to the child as will enable the guardian to carry out those functions effectively. I ask members to support amendment 8. Jenny Marra's amendments also deal with functions. Amendment 18 seeks to put certain functions of the guardian on the face of the bill. Making that provision without proper consultation with stakeholders does involve significant risk. It was for this reason that we wanted to make legislative provision on guardians through regulations to be made under the bill. By specifying the functions in regulations rather than on the face of the bill, we will have the opportunity to consult with and involve stakeholders who will work with those children to properly identify what the functions of the guardian will be. That will help to ensure that we get the secondary legislation in this area absolutely right. It also gives us the flexibility to add to or amend the functions as needed in order to take account of any emerging changes. The strategy being prepared in connection with the bill can help to reinforce the legislation by also referencing the functions. Therefore, our approach seeks to ensure that the functions that are identified will be made via legislation based on consultation and evidence, and will therefore be relevant to ensuring that the guardian is able to undertake their role effectively. For the reasons that I have set out, I do not support amendment 18 and the relevant amendments in 19 and 20. I would encourage Jenny Marra to withdraw amendment 18. However, if pressed, I would urge members to reject amendment 18, 19 and 20, but to support amendment 8 in my name. Jenny Marra, to wind up and press with drop? Nothing further, and I will press. Thanks. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. This will be a 60-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 18 is yes, 42, no 63. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 19 in the name of Jenny Marra. Jenny Marra, to move or not? Moved. Thanks. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division, a 30-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 19 is yes, 41, no 65. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, to move. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Thanks very much. We now move to group 9 and I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group on its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 10, please. At stage 2, Alison McInnes put forward an amendment that looked to put a timescale on of a maximum of one year between the commencement of part 1 and 2 of the bill and the publication of the Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy. Llyrsa was happy to commit to publish the strategy within a suitable timeframe and supportive of the intention behind the amendment to make sure there was no unnecessary delay in the publication of this important document. I had some minor concerns about the amendment as it stood at stage 2. I therefore agreed to bring forward an amendment at stage 3, which would require publication of the first strategy to take place quickly. I considered a number of options as to the timescale and of the view that linking the deadline for publication of the strategy to the commencement of section 1 best delivers what Alison McInnes wished to see. The commencement of section 1 will bring the offence of human trafficking into being and is the logical basis for the clock to start running on the requirement to publish the strategy and therefore move amendment 10. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. Now call amendment 11 in the name of Margaret Mitchell, Margaret Mitchell to move or not move. Not moved. Many thanks. And so now call amendment 20 in the name of Jenny Marra to move or not. Moved. Many thanks. So the question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a 60 second division. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 20 is yes. 42 no 64. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 21 in the name of Rode Grant to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. And so I now call amendment 22 in the name of Margaret Mitchell, Margaret Mitchell to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you very much. And that ends considerations of amendments. Can we now move to the next item of business? Which is a debate on motion number 14421 in the name of Michael Matheson on human trafficking and exploitation. Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak muttons now or as soon as possible. And I call on Michael Matheson to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, you have 10 minutes please. I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland Bill. I would like to begin by thanking the members and clerks of the Justice Committee, Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill. I also want to thank external stakeholders who have engaged in the process of the bill and have, helpfully, taken the time to share their knowledge and expertise. I also thank the information commissioner for Scotland for his assistance and kind offer to work with my officials. If Parliament agrees to pass this legislation to develop regulations, guidance and a privacy impact assessment, this will help to ensure information sharing under the terms of the bill will be carried out appropriately and firmly within the parameters of data protection law. The Justice Committee invited a wide range of stakeholders to give evidence at stage 1. That evidence, as well as the Justice Committee stage 1 report, which supported the general principles of the bill, provided to be proved to be extremely helpful in assisting Government to carefully reflect on how the bill could be refined and enhanced. Stage 2 resulted in a number of improvements to the bill and also provided us with some food for thought ahead of stage 3. The bill will clarify and strengthen the criminal law by introducing a new comprehensive single human trafficking offence. The new offence increases the maximum penalty for offenders to life imprisonment. The bill gives Scotland's law enforcement agencies further tools in their locker to bring about those responsible for human trafficking and exploitation to justice. That enables them to prevent the commissioning of those grave offences through enhanced forfeiture and detention powers, new trafficking and exploitation prevention and risk orders. The bill ensures adult victims of trafficking will now have a statutory entitlement to support and assistance that meets their individual's needs, which may include, among other things, accommodation, medical advice and treatment and legal advice. Scottish ministers will be under an obligation to work with other bodies to publish and keep under review a Scottish trafficking and exploitation strategy focusing on matters such as awareness-raising, prevention and detection of trafficking and exploitation and the support that is available to victims of those offences. Research from the National Crime Agency's human trafficking centre estimates that there are 13,000 potential victims of slavery in the UK. The bill deals with labour exploitation of the most serious kind and is supplemented by the UK-wide transparency and supply chain provisions in section 54 of the modern slavery act 2015, on which we work closely with the UK Government. Beyond this exploitation for the purposes of human trafficking offence, it covers a wide range of exploitative conduct. We are aware that some stakeholders express concern at stage 1 that children are not named on the face of the bill. The majority of provisions within the bill have equally applied to adults and child victims of trafficking. However, it should be noted that those provisions relating to support for victims are explicitly aimed at providing a statutory basis for the support and assistance of adult victims of trafficking. That is because the necessary support for children who may be victims of trafficking is already enshrined in legislation, which provides for all vulnerable children. We welcomed and supported the amendments from Alison MacKinnon at stage 2 that added an aggravation for the offence of human trafficking where a child is involved. We also supported Christine McKelvie's amendments at stage 2 that placed a duty on Scottish ministers to make such arrangements as they consider reasonable to enable an independent child trafficking guardian to be appointed to assist, support and represent a child where it is reasonably believed that the child may have been the victim of human trafficking. We supported those amendments because we know that there is little, if anything, more despicable than the deliberate exploitation of children. It is often the most vulnerable who suffer the most. In contrast, we want to create a society in which all children and young people have the right to be cared for and protected from harm and can grow up in a safe environment. Child victims of trafficking are supported within the well-established system that we have in place in Scotland to support our most vulnerable children. We are absolutely clear that the primary responsibility for child victims of trafficking should remain firmly within the child protection framework. That framework embodies the key principles of GERFIC, which, as early intervention and wellbeing are key factors. We believe that this is the most effective way to support the recovery of children and young people who have been traumatised. The bill provides two duties. It introduces two duties for the provision of a guardian for eligible children. There is a duty on ministers to ensure that there is a guardian service available, and the second duty is on relevant authorities to refer the child to the guardian. On the ferro, the child is appointed a guardian who will represent a point of contact and expertise for them. As those children are unaccompanied, that is that there is no one with parental rights and responsibilities for them in the UK, the role of that guardian will be to provide them with a level of acceptance and guidance that will help them in a very difficult set of circumstances. The role of the guardian will be to advise on all sorts of matters, for instance, to make the young person aware of their rights and explain aspects of the asylum, trafficking and welfare system to them. They will also introduce them to social opportunities to help them to begin to reintegrate into community life. By creating those two duties and not putting the guardianship service itself on a statutory footing, the guardian can act in the best interests of the child first, putting them and not the process to which the statutory body would be bound to at the centre of the service. We amended the bill at stage 2 to ensure that victims of trafficking whose age is uncertain but who appear to be children are presumed to be children for the purposes of receiving immediate age-appropriate support and services until their age is formally established. At a time when many children across the world are being displaced as a result of conflict, poverty and persecution and may fall with a victim to trafficking or exploitation, it seems timely that we are taking these steps to further support young victims of trafficking in Scotland. However, we all know that legislation alone is not the answer to tackling the issue. The Government's programme for Scotland for 2015-16 set out our commitment to work with key agencies to develop a human trafficking and exploitation strategy for Scotland. I can provide the chamber with an assurance that dialogue with stakeholders will continue as we develop our strategic approach in taking forward the development of the strategy. Human trafficking and exploitation is a brutal form of organised crime in which adults and children are treated as commodities and ruthlessly exploited for criminal gain and there is no place for it in a modern Scotland. I move that Parliament agrees that the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Bill be passed. Many thanks and now Colin Jenny Marra. Seven minutes please, Ms Marra. Presiding Officer, as a Parliament and this Government, we have travelled far over the last four years from human trafficking being a crime that not many people in this building talked about to vastly increase political and public awareness of this heinous crime in Scotland. The bill, soon to become law this afternoon, has been instrumental in this process. There are many people who have played a key role in that and I would like to put on record my personal thanks to some of them today. Graham O'Neill, Ross McKenzie, Brona Andrews, the cross-party group on human trafficking, the civil servants and the minister for taking the bill through its last stages. I say last stages because this bill has been nearly four years in the making. It dates back to Baroness Helena Kennedy's inquiry into human trafficking in Scotland, which was published in November 2011. Helena Kennedy's report contained 10 key recommendations to tackle the crime of trafficking in Scotland, many of which can be found in the bill that we passed this afternoon. Following an extensive and comprehensive consultation, we found ourselves with over 50,000 responses to the bill, the third highest in the history of this Parliament. Such was the public interest in the campaign that the number of public responses was eclipsed only by two previous pieces of legislation, equal marriage and the smoking ban in public places. For mobilising public interest, I must put on record my thanks to egg-packed care and walk free and the Scottish churches in particular, who any campaign organisations should look to for examples of excellence in public campaigning. I also acknowledge the sustained reporting of the trafficking issue from the Scottish media, who have taken their responsibility for shining a light on dark corners of our nation very seriously throughout this campaign. On a story that is often not easy to report, so vulnerable are the victims. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to tell their story in a public forum. It is for this reason that I have never met a victim of human trafficking, but it is my duty and the duty of everyone in this Parliament to speak up for the voiceless and to use the powers of this place to improve our society and constantly make our communities more resilient against gendered, exploitative and violent crime, and to constantly strengthen the resolve for human rights respect across this country. Presiding Officer, I think that this bill turned our current political narrative about powers on its head. Because this bill starts from the premise that only by making our communities robust against the crime of trafficking at the grassroots will we combat this crime. Trafficking is an international crime motivated by vast profits. Criminal gangs will always find ways to get people into host countries, and they will be steps ahead of law enforcement agencies to do so. So it was never good enough to lay blame squarely at the door of the border agency and dismiss trafficking as an immigration problem. That is why this bill has taken the approach that if you strengthen communities against the crime, then Scotland becomes an unwelcomplace for the crime of trafficking. Victims are more easily identified, intelligence to catch traffickers improves, and our police, legal and court systems know how to deal with the people responsible. Are we at that stage yet? I don't believe we are, because today is not the end of a process, it is simply the first day in our fight against trafficking in Scotland. We know that law is not enough, because we have another human rights law in this country, which is that female genital mutilation is a crime. Yet there has not been one police report or prosecution of FGM in Scotland, but we do know that it is happening in our communities. That is why it was critical in the human trafficking and exploitation bill to pave the path of the future. Legislation is never enough. The bill includes a duty upon the Scottish Government to publish a three-yearly anti-slavery strategy. I hope that this strategy will include training for our doctors, our nurses and our health professionals to teach them how to recognise a potential victim of trafficking when they present themselves. We know that trafficking victims rarely self-identify through fear, fear of their own safety and fear of reprisals on their families back home. I want social workers to be trained so that they too, when working with vulnerable people, can identify and also know what resources are in their hands to help them. I would like to see the crime of human trafficking taught in criminal law courses in our universities so that our lawyers of the future, when they are marking cases, can recognise a crime of human trafficking when presented with the evidence. I want our police officers, not just borders police, but police in every community across Scotland to have an understanding of this crime so that they can see it, investigate it and refer it up through our legal system. Only when communities are robust like that will the traffickers take note and consider Scotland too risky a place for their crime and human rights abuses. I understand that the Scottish Government already has civil servants working on this strategy. I hope that some of my suggestions can be taken on board, but I would also like the minister to clarify today how the strategy will be delivered, who will co-ordinate it and will there be a group accountable to the Scottish Government that is leading it? More detail on that would be welcome today or in the near future. This morning, I met women in the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Glasgow, who work every day supporting victims of human trafficking. Their working day today will be the same as yesterday and tomorrow, supporting women whose harrowing experiences we can only imagine, but today enshrines the support that they give into a right that can be expected in our country. It is the civilised thing to do for our country to marshal the resources to look after vulnerable people. Today gives legal guardians to children who have been trafficked. Today strengthens our law and increases sentences for criminal traffickers. Today, most importantly, reiterates our resolve to protect and guard human rights in Scotland. It is a proud day for the Scottish Parliament and for our mission as public servants to shine a light on the dark corners of the world, to bring hope and respect to those who need it. Thank you. I am very much welcome to the fact that we are debating stage 3 of this important human trafficking and exploitation Scotland bill. I thank the Justice Committee, convener, clerks and members for their hard work, and in particular I want to pay tribute to the evidence from witnesses at stage 1. There is no doubt that this is a far better bill having benefited from their experience and expertise on the front line. A case in point is a new definition of trafficking in section 1, which is phrased now in such a way that there can be no ambiguity, that the offensive trafficking can happen within as well as out with the country. The Lord Advocate was reluctant to accept that the previous definition was open to interpretation and therefore pleased that the cabinet secretary has listened to the wise comments of those giving evidence on this point. I also want to acknowledge and thank Jenny Marra for the crucial part that she has played in ensuring that we now have legislation in Scotland aimed at bringing trafficking to an end. Without her persistence, I do not believe that we would be voting to pass this bill this evening. This bill becomes all the more pertinent, given the now sadly all too familiar and harrowing refugee crisis, an issue that is increasingly dominating the minds of not just politicians in Scotland, the UK or even the EU, but on a global basis. I am pleased that today we have passed the amendment in Christina McKelvie's name, which extends the provisions of a guardian to other children vulnerable to trafficking. Of the thousands of refugees and migrants now travelling in horrendous circumstances to Europe, it is estimated that one in four of those people are children who are not accompanied by an adult. Those same children are being targeted by traffickers, so in those circumstances it is essential that we do absolutely everything that we can to give them the protection that they both need and have a right to expect. That makes the ability to provide them with a guardian all the more pressing. However, it is particularly depressing that the Government has chosen to vote down my amendment, which would have provided these young people with an additional protection in the form of a statutory defence. That would have been over and above the presumption against prosecution and the instructions issued by the Lord Advocate. As a consequence, an opportunity has been missed to ensure that vulnerable young children and people have maximum protection in this bill or even the same protection that they will enjoy under the trafficking legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Turning now to Rhoda Grant's amendments in relation to the criminalisation of the purchase of sex discussed at stage 2. As I said at that time, I do not believe that this bill affords the proper time to take evidence on this important issue. Although I had some sympathy with the amendment that she lodged today at stage 3 regarding research, I believe more generally that the forthcoming abusive behaviour and sexual harm bill would present an excellent opportunity to consult widely on this issue and to ensure that the necessary scrutiny has been carried out. I hope, therefore, that Rhoda Grant and Scottish ministers can work together to achieve the same. Finally, Cabinet Secretary, you may recall that stage 1 raised the issue of the UK Government's pilot into how the national referral mechanism is working regionally. The two pilot areas for these were Cornwall and West Yorkshire, and I understand from the Scottish Government's response that Scotland was not included because there were not sufficient numbers to make the pilot viable. However, he did, and you did, undertake that time to get some more details from the Home Office. Given the number of cannabis farms being discovered on practically a daily basis and the link between cannabis workers and trafficking, I wonder if he could provide an update on this particular issue in his closing remarks. I confirm, Presiding Officer, that the Scottish Conservatives will be voting for the bill this evening. Many thanks, and we now turn to the open debate, speeches of four minutes, and I call Christina McKelvie to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Presiding Officer, thank you very much. It is a real privilege to be speaking in this debate today, but we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the many, many groups and individuals, the cross-party group, all of them. There are many, a few of them, sitting in the gallery today who have pushed us along, encouraged us along, educated us and supported us to bring us to where we are today. Of course, Jenny Marra kicked off some of this with her bill, and we are really happy to have worked together to get to this point. Today, at lunchtime, Jenny Marra and I collected a petition from ECPAT, Walk Free and Care. At that point today, there were more than 6,000 signatures on the petition. We were very happy to go out and get that petition, because what it demonstrated very clearly is that people right across the whole UK support the aims of this bill, especially when it comes to protecting children. I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept the copy that I have of the petition at the end of the debate today on behalf of those groups who have taken it forward. The horrific crime of human trafficking is sometimes called modern day slavery. The exploitation of humans, women, men and most disturbingly children is one of the most disgusting crimes. Yes, today we make that practice a crime. We came about this, as I have said, from a truly cross-party process, and we have all worked to ensure that this piece of legislation is the best piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues for that cross-party support. Today, at the European External Relations Committee, we had a round table about the refugee crisis in Europe and wider places. Alison Phipps, who is from Gramnett at Glasgow University, told us this morning that some children, unaccompanied children as young as 10, are being indentured by trafficking gangs. They are being indentured and they are then being forced, some of them at the age of 14, 15, 16, some 16-year-olds, they are giving keys to a boat and a gun and told to load up some people and make that treacherous journey across the Mediterranean. It is that point where we come to this, where we understand that the organisation of this but the actual impact on people is huge. What we potentially have in this system is young people who have been trafficked, who are indentured to these gangs, who then subsequently become traffickers themselves. That is where parts of this legislation become very, very, very important when we describe those young people as victims and not as criminals. That is part of the Lord Advocate's guidance and I really welcome that. That current refugee crisis creates so many opportunities for those traffickers. However, that is not a new thing, but it is something that we will see a huge amount of over the next few months when we start to accept some of the people that we should be accepting far more than the 20,000 that I suspect that the UK Government wants to go with. I commend to my colleagues in the chamber finally to watch a film that we screened in this place called Nefarious Merchants of Souls. You will then truly understand how organised this crime is and how absolutely horrific this crime is. I am very happy that we managed to strengthen the bill today to protect children, to bring in child guardians. It is a furrow that I have been plowing long before I was an elected politician via a member of the Glasgow campaign to welcome the refugees in a unison steward. Today, at 5 o'clock, when we press our buttons, we pass lots of legislation in this place. Most times we are very pleased with that, but today what we do is create a system where we say, traffickers, you are not welcome. Scotland is closed. Trafficked people, especially children, this is your sanctuary. We will help you to make this your home. I really look forward to working with all my colleagues across the chamber and all my colleagues in Civic Scotland to make sure that we bring about the best strategy. The cabinet secretary may think that this is the end of a process, as Jenny said. It is for some of us that it is just the start and we are really looking forward to working with them to bring about the best strategy, to give the best support and the best protection. Many thanks and our call to grant to be followed by Alison McLeanus. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's almost 200 years since we thought we'd abolished slavery yet today. We're passing legislation to tackle modern-day slavery human trafficking. Can I start by paying tribute to Jenny Marra, who was the first to raise this issue in the Parliament and pressed forward with a member's bill? She has to take much of the credit for what we have on front of us today in the form of the bill. I also want to pay tribute to the many organisations, groups and individuals who have campaigned for this day. The Scottish Government, who recognised the importance of the issue and took over the bill, hence today, were voting on Government legislation. It's impossible to imagine what it's like to be trafficked. Some people are literally abducted, others believe that they're being assisted towards a new life and are duped into becoming victims. For others, they're groomed to an extent where they believe they're acting on their own free will, working to pay off debts and incurred for being smuggled into the country. That makes them really vulnerable because they believe they're in control of their own destiny and indeed they themselves are the ones committing the crime. It'll take a long time to win their trust and confidence to an extent that they'll accept help and support. As we legislate for one form of human exploitation, others tend to raise their head. Of late, we've heard about people smugglers. Those who pray on the desperation of refugees fleeing for their lives, many of those people are not poor. They have money to pay the smugglers who take them on a hazardous journey. Their risks are testament to the difficulties they face at home. While the bill does not deal with those issues, we need a global solution that is compassionate and practical to help people in those situations. Due to the risks taken, many children and young people may be left fleeing alone because their parents are killed and they are often the target of traffickers who are ready to pray on them in that situation. I've said before that I'm disappointed that the Scottish Government has not strengthened the bill with regard to people traffic for sexual exploitation and that is one of the main focuses for traffickers. It's a hugely lucrative business because those being exploited can be sold again and again. It's only by tackling prostitution and sexual exploitation with regard to the whole of the population that will be able to make this trade less attractive to traffickers. That said, the bill does cover much in the region of sexual exploitation and the industry as it stands, albeit that it doesn't deal with the market for exploitation or, indeed, the complex assistance that is required for victims. The bill is not limited to trafficking from abroad. It covers trafficking everywhere, for example in places such as Rotherham, where young women were trafficked and exploited within the city boundaries. There are powers of use properly that can offer protection and redress to those who are exploited within their own towns and cities, as well as those who come from abroad. The bill is specific that trafficking can take place within the UK. With regard to prostitution section 33 of the bill states, another person exercises control direction or influence over prostitution by the person in a way that shows that the other person is aiding a betting or compelling prostitution. Many of the people in prostitution or who have exited tell me that that was the circumstances in which they were held and therefore I hope that the bill will go some way into offering them protection. The police who have led the way in fighting violence against women will have an additional tool to use to do that. I wish that the Scottish Government would show a vision on that issue. That said, I sincerely hope that the work that is being carried out now by the Scottish Government leads to Scotland becoming a less attractive place for traffickers. The bill that we are passing today will make a huge difference to the lives of the most vulnerable in our society. I want to congratulate Jenny Marra for instigating this process and recommend the bill to the chamber. I now call Alison McInnes to be followed by Sandra White. I too would like to start by commending Jenny Marra on her drive and her determination on this issue. We must not forget that our private member's consultation laid the foundations for this Government bill, but Christina McKelvie's right to point to the cross-party support and determination in this chamber, too. Human trafficking is not new, but it is now the fastest-growing international crime. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission report of 2011 was the catalyst for action to tackle human trafficking through a coherent legislative framework. That report exposed the grim truth about trafficking in Scotland. It shocked us all. At the time, Calleanna Lyle, EHRC Scotland commissioner, said in a quote, "...human trafficking is one of the most severe human rights abuses in the modern world. It operates below the radar and is kept there through fear and deception. The experiences of those who are trafficked here are often nothing short of brutal, and in the main, they are carefully hidden from society. The responsibility for tackling trafficking should be shared across agencies, with Governments and with society itself." Many victims are exploited in the sex industry but also in fruit-picking farms or in the hospitality industry or forced to live in brutal conditions as domestic servants. It occurs throughout Scotland and is not confined to its major cities. The bill has originally introduced failed to recognise the acute vulnerability of child victims of trafficking. The bill did not contain a definition of a child, nor did it specify the support that it would be entitled to. The Government has shown a willingness to listen to those of us who have campaigned on those issues and has largely either supported amendments by Jenny Marra, Christina McKelvie and myself or supported the intention behind our amendments and brought forward Government amendments today. There is no doubt that the bill in its final forum is much improved. It now includes statutory guardianship services, recognition that other relevant authorities have a role in referrals to those services and the provision of guardianship not just to identified victims of trafficking but to those who are vulnerable and may have been trafficked but whose status is still in question. During the earlier stages of the passage of this bill with support from Aberlawer and Barnardas, I highlighted the importance of creating such a presumption, so I am particularly pleased that the Scottish Government reconsidered its position on that, meaning that all unaccompanied children will now have an independent guardian. It is right to pay tribute to the Scottish Refugee Council in Aberlawer for pioneering the Scottish guardianship service and proving its worth. In just five years, it has helped over 70 children and young people who have been victims of human trafficking. The bill now provides for statutory aggravation and sentencing for a trafficking offence involving a child and the presumption of age, which ensures that if a person is detained and there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a child, that they would receive the type of support that a child would get until their age is confirmed. I also support the further changes today that now ensure that the evidential tests within a lot of advocates' instructions for the prosecution of child victims is different and simpler. The bill is an important step on the road to making Scotland a no-go area for human trafficking, but there are many more steps that we will have to take together as a society if we are to end these brutal human rights abuses. Today, coincidentally, the historical child abuse inquiry starts its work. That addresses a monumental failure to understand and to take action. Over and over, we have missed human rights abuses going on in our midst. We struggled in the past to admit that such dreadful crimes as child sexual abuse, domestic abuse or grooming could be committed, and that is why traffickers are today getting away with it. There is still little public awareness of this crime. We need to get so much better at looking and listening to what is going on in our midst and in the margins. The Scottish Liberal Democrats will support this bill today. Many thanks. I now call Sandra White to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that it was really a grant that mentioned the fact that slavery—we thought it was abolished 250 years ago—is a modern type of slavery and something that obviously has to be tackled. That is why I do welcome the bill. I do particularly welcome the bill and the strategy in which we have heard places of duty on ministers to develop and keep the strategy under review. Graham O'Neill from the Scottish Refugee Council was absolutely right when he said that the strategy will be the vehicle for the long-term approach that we need if we are going to tackle such a severe crime and human rights violation. I do highlight the fact that Graham O'Neill is absolutely right when he mentions about the severe crime and violates human rights. It takes many forms. Human trafficking takes many forms. I have heard today in regards to that. Jenny Marra had mentioned that she had met a victim of human trafficking. I have met a victim of human trafficking, perhaps not in the way that a lot of people explain it, but this particular person was brought into the country under false pretenses, passport taken from him and moved from house to house. I would not say what type of industry he worked in, but he did work in a service industry and put it that way. It is very difficult for him and his family, who are still abroad, to have no passport and very little wages. Most of his salary was taken from him to supposedly pay for his rent, which is in a cramped room of something like 10 people and a bed on the floor. We have to be absolutely correct in saying that it takes all sorts and all forms of human trafficking. I want to pick up on what Christina McKelvie said and echo the comments that she mentioned in regards to Alison Phipp's comments. Alison gave a very powerful speech on Tuesday night at the meeting that I mentioned earlier in the debate that we had with the members this afternoon, where she put forward that issue about 10-year-olds not having to, but being exploited by traffickers who are using this situation of refugees to exploit very vulnerable children. I want to touch when I have the time left on Rhoda Grant's amendment. I was on the Justice Committee at the very beginning, not for stage 2, but my understanding was that there was no evidence taking stage 2 in regard to the particular amendment. If you look at the amendment, which is before us today, Rhoda Grant's amendment mentions the fact that it introduced legislation to criminalise the purchase of sexual services. When you look at that, you are not introducing an amendment, you are introducing a whole new bill into one particular act. I sympathise with Rhoda and I have meetings along with her in various groups as well. I do not think that it is a proper vehicle to go through, but I will give way to Rhoda Grant. Just on a point of clarification, the amendment allows for Government to report back. It does not ensure that they have to put forward legislation, as she suggested. Sandra White? Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but I will read it out. It says that it is item 7. The response must, in particular, set out the Scottish Minister's plans to introduce legislation to criminalise the purchase of sexual services. I think that that is where perhaps the problem lies while it might be an amendment. I have sympathy, like Margaret Mitchell mentioned, and others as well, but it certainly, to me, is not the proper vehicle when you are talking about trafficked people in that respect. If you look at the amendment, you cannot ask a Government to introduce a private member's bill that has fallen before. I will very briefly refer the member to section 8 of the same amendment, which allows him not to bring forward the legislation. I would really question why I would put it in if you want them to take it back out again, but I am just relaying what Rhoda Grant has mentioned. After introducing legislation, the bill says to repeal any enactment that criminalises the selling of sexual services. I find that one just puts out the other, so I do not think that the amendment, to me, certainly did not seem competent. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many thanks, and to now call Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, Presiding Officer, as Jenny Marra said, this is a proud day for the Scottish Parliament that has been four years in the making, but as she also reminded us, it is made of the first day in the fight against Cuban trafficking, and it is what happens from now on that will determine how successful this bill has been. There are many people, I think, to thank and congratulate the Government, of course, the committee, the cross-party group, many groups, external groups such as Tara, the Traffic Awareness Raising Alliance, the 50,000 people who responded to the consultation, but most of all Jenny Marra herself, without whom we might not have a bill, and who, I thought a few moments ago, made one of the most eloquent and impassioned speeches that I have ever heard in the Parliament. I think that we are all united today, although, of course, we had differences at the final amendment stage, but I think that we are particularly united round part one of the bill, and we are pleased to see that this grave and brutal offence is now clearly and explicitly laid down in Scott's law with very severe sentencing consequences. Obviously, there were some disputes round part one, the statutory defence issue from Margaret Mitchell, Rhoda Grant's amendment, and I repeat what I said then that there is a strong link between the sex trade and human trafficking. Indeed, one of Jenny Marra's many amendments wanted to make clear that the criminal offence covered all forms of exploitation, but notwithstanding those differences, there was strong agreement round part one. The key issue now, of course, is to have a robust strategy to bring the offenders to justice. Much of the bill is about the protection of victims and vulnerability as a salient feature in all instances of trafficking, and there were some concerns expressed at stage one about that. I among many others made the point that counselling was not strong enough, and I am pleased that an amendment at stage two strengthened that to include psychological assistance and support. I am not sure if those are the exact words of the amendment, but that is certainly the intention of it. There were also particular concerns at stage one about the vulnerability of children, and I think that that is one of those areas in which our committee process and amendment process have strengthened the bill considerably. I think that it was Christina McKelvie who introduced an amendment about guardians at stage two, and then that was further reinforced by various amendments today. Although, again, I regret that 17 and 18 by Jenny Marra were not agreed, which I think was clarifying the role in making sure that it was fully comprehensive. Protection, the right to support and assistance was clearly an important part of the bill, and much of that we had from the cabinet secretaries to be done in regulation. We will take a close interest in that. Again, I regret that the group six amendments from Jenny Marra were not agreed in terms of immediate support and the other proposals that she made there, but hopefully all that will be dealt with satisfactorily when it comes to the regulations. Now, as I said at the beginning, quoting Jenny Marra, this is the first day in the fight against trafficking. The three-year anti-slavery strategy is going to be crucial. Well done, Alison McInnes, for ensuring that that will come within a year of the bill passing. Clearly, we need to have awareness raising, prevention and detection in that strategy and, of course, more about support, which is so crucial. Now, awareness campaign is crucial to ensure that we can help victims to escape the clutches of traffickers. As Jenny Marra said, communities are crucial in this, making communities robust against the cause of trafficking and also making sure that we have awareness raising training for front-line staff, which Jenny Marra proposed. I told her that I would mention her six times. I think that I have exceeded that, but I think that that is not inappropriate in the context of this bill, which I warmly welcome. Many thanks. We now turn to closing speeches. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I may start by apologising for not being here for the opening speech of the minister. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make some closing remarks on today's stage 3 proceedings on the human trafficking and exploitation bill, but before turning to the task in hand, I'd like to thank the Justice Committee for the very good scrutiny of the draft legislation as well as those stakeholders that provided invaluable evidence and contributions throughout its parliamentary passage, including the organisations who provided briefings for today. I particularly welcome the cross-party consensus that legislation is required to combat this insidious practice that is certainly not new, but nevertheless increasingly pervasive, and in May this year it was reported that eight people were successfully rescued in human trafficking raids across Scotland in Lanarkshire, Tayside, Fife and Dumfries and Galloway, and it's further emerged that Scott's cannabis farms themselves, obviously illegal, are frequently using traffic children for labour, and women are also trafficked with increasing regularity from West Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia to Scotland, where a life of servitude and inhumane treatment often awaits them, and it's an appalling practice and one that cannot be allowed to continue. But as a largely hidden crime, it is of course difficult to quantify the exact extent of human trafficking across the UK. My understanding is that there were 55 such victims in Scotland in 2013, and as many as 4,000 across the UK. No doubt there are very many more than that, which go undetected, but action is clearly urgently required, and I'm pleased that the Scottish Government has moved swiftly to legislate on the issue, as have the Westminster and Northern Ireland Governments. The Scottish Government has also rightly recognised the cross-border nature of this crime and is co-ordinating closely with the UK Government to ensure we're practical a co-ordinated approach on the issue. Alison McInnes spoke of the evil nature of this crime, and I agree with her, and we all remember the tragedy of the cockle pickers in Morgan Bay who were victims of people trafficking. Notwithstanding the comments of the protection of victims made very well by Margaret Mitchell in her opening remarks, this is a bill of many strengths. Stakeholders seem satisfied that it will have the desired effect of making Scotland a hostile environment for human traffickers and those who exploit the vulnerable for financial gain. However, that legislation is about to be added to the statute book. However, the fact that it's about to be added to the statute book doesn't mean that we should lose sight of the broader issue, which is that traffickers and slave masters will continue to coerce, deceive and force individuals into lives of degradation at source. The harrying pictures splashed across the front pages of national newspapers and on our television screens in recent weeks serve as a stark reminder that there are hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who would stop at nothing in the hope of creating a safer, more secure life for themselves and their families. Human trafficking is a complex, multifaceted and evolving issue, and our response must adapt to keep pace with it. I therefore urge the Scottish Government to carefully and consistently review the legislation, and I similarly encourage the Scottish Parliament to conduct rigorous post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill over the coming years to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and future proof. For there's no doubt that the perpetrators will do everything in their power to exploit and manipulate the vulnerable to their advantage regardless of any deterrents that are put in place, so that we must keep well awake to it. To the Deputy Presiding Officer and I, I'm delighted to be closing this open debate for Scottish Labour as parliamentary consideration of this very important bill comes to its end. I, too, would like to pay tribute to Jenny Marra, whose proposals to legislate prompted 45,000 responses from across the world. We're described by Barness Halina Kennedy, author of the report to which Jenny referred, as being world leading. I also congratulate CpG for its role in bringing this forward and, of course, the Scottish Government for taking on Jenny Marra's work in bringing forward this bill, which was based on her bill. Jenny has continued her interest in the bill by proposing amendments to further improvement at stages 2 and 3. There can be no more appropriate time than this to pass the legislation combating the heinous crime of human trafficking, where every day our television screens and media outlets offer graphic portrayals of refugees fleeing from both persecution in their own lands and the misery of camps in neighbouring lands. The term trafficking for the illegal and often extremely unsafe transportation of these refugees is not always correct, as Rhoda Grant pointed out. Some of these people are being smuggled rather than trafficked. If they arrive at their destination, they are dumped there and left to fend for themselves, and the bill will not help them. However, those who are being trafficked and being sold on into modern-day slavery in other countries will be helped by that. I have been a number of welcome improvements to the bill since stage 1, as Alison McInnes and Malcolm Chesham referred, in a response to the evidence given to the committee by witnesses. There is an expanded definition of the term trafficking to ensure that people not involved in the actual provision and the arranging of travel but involved in other ways in trafficking will also be caught by the bill's provisions. References to youth and young have been removed, and the bill makes it clear that a child is defined as a person under 18 years of age. Specific reference has been made to child victims of trafficking and an aggravation of the events of human trafficking involving a child has been included. The Lord Advocate will now issue instructions, rather than guidance, regarding the non-prosecution of the victims of trafficking who have been compelled by their captors to perform illegal activities. Crucially, independent child trafficking guardians have been given a statutory basis. A presumption of age clause was agreed at stage 2, requiring local authorities and health boards where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is under the age of 18 to consider them to be a child, even if there is no direct proof of age. The amendments at stage 2 and introducing independent guardians for child victims on a statutory footing were particularly welcome. Child victims of traffickers need someone independent of the statutory agencies, trained to understand the traumatic experience that a child has gone through and able to help them through the many unfamiliar processes that will face them. Relying on a named person who may have little knowledge of the issues faced by trafficked children, as originally proposed, would have been inadequate. I am pleased that that was recognised. At stage 3, amendments enable independent child guardians to have access to information where they need it as a further improvement. I am very pleased that amendment 7 was extended the entitlement of unaccompanied children to independent child guardians, because those children may be particularly vulnerable to trafficking. Some research drawn to my attention by my daughter who is doing work on mental health and nursing qualification. Very recent research on the mental health needs of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children illustrated how particularly vulnerable they are to mental health issues and how difficult it is for those young people to be able to access any assistance or even recognise the problems that they have. Therefore, an independent guardian will be particularly important for those children who have travelled into this country. They may not have already been trafficked, but because of their situation, they will be particularly vulnerable to being preyed on by traffickers when they get here. Jenny Marra's amendment 17 recognises that some children are trafficked by their own family members and also have a need for independent statutory league and guardianship. I hope that, since the amendment was not passed, the legislation as it stands will protect those children who are unfortunately being trafficked by their own families and by people close to them. Rhoda Grant introduced amendments at stage 2 that would criminalise the purchase of sex and decriminalise its sale. While some members myself included agreed that that would reduce the demand for trafficking of sex workers, there was some concern in the committee about the introduction of a very significant new policy at stage 2 of the bill. Rhoda Grant therefore did not represent presser amendments at stage 3. She introduced a different amendment that required the Government to undertake research on the impacts of criminalisation of the purchase of sex on policy areas such as violence against women and the commercial exploitation of sex and to report on that to Parliament. Despite the amendment's rejection, we look forward to the publication of the Scottish Government's research and the subsequent discussion of its findings and conclusions. The issue is not going to go away. That is still going to continue, and I look forward to hearing that. Finally, in conclusion, this is an extremely important bill. It is a trailblazing bill, but, as Jenny Marra, Christina McKelvie, Malcolm Chisholm and others have said, this is only the start of a journey. This is the beginning of, hopefully, the end of human trafficking in Scotland. Many thanks. I now call on Michael Matheson to wind up the debate. Cabinet Secretary, you have until 5 pm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the contribution from across the chamber in the debate this afternoon. I recognise a very strong sense of cross-party support, which exists for this particular piece of legislation. It needs to make sure that we have effective measures and means in place to tackle the important crime of human trafficking and exploitation. I recognise that there has been significant work undertaken over a number of years from Jenny Marra's work through to the cross-party group's work and through a number of other organisations in highlighting and raising the issue of human trafficking. I think that there is absolutely no doubt that collective effort has led to a greater understanding and determination to address that particular issue as effectively as possible. Clearly, from the comments that have been made in the course of this particular debate this afternoon, there is a considerable level of interest in the development and the shaping of the strategy that this legislation has passed by Parliament tonight will place a statutory obligation on ministers to bring forward. I assure all members that we will have a very thorough and detailed engagement process with interested stakeholders in the development and the taking forward of that particular strategy to ensure that it is as effective and that it hits all of the right points that we need to ensure that the strategy delivers on to make sure that we are doing everything possible to tackle human trafficking and exploitation. Jenny Marra made a specific reference to the timing of that. Some of the initial work within Government has already started in looking at the development of that strategy, but the assurance around that is provided for within the legislation itself, because it must be delivered within one year of section 1 of the bill becoming into force. We have a statutory obligation to make sure that it is delivered within that timeframe, and that is why some of that initial work has already started. I am more than happy to give way to Jenny Marra if that is what she is looking for. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I was clear on the timing and the obligations that the bill puts on that. I was looking for further clarification on lead accountability and perhaps if there will be a group of stakeholders that will lead the process. There is absolutely no doubt that stakeholders will have a key role to play in helping to shape that particular strategy. It is not only in shaping the strategy from my perspective, but it is also through looking at the implementation of the strategy over the years once it has been introduced. I want to look at how we can make sure that stakeholders have a meaningful role in helping to make sure that it is effectively being implemented. Although that is in the form of a reference group or otherwise, I am very open to that, but I do not want them to be involved in the shaping of it. I also want them to be involved closely in how it is then taken forward and it has been implemented as well to move towards the three-year review period that will come up as part of the process. The other issue that Jenny Marra raised, which I thought was an extremely important point, is the provision of training, which will be delivered as part of the strategy. Clearly, that will be an important part set out within the strategy itself. There has already been some initial discussions with the NHS in this area and with Police Scotland. I think that there are other sectors that can play their part, and that is well. One of the things that we have to give careful consideration to is the issue of quality and quantity of that training. What I want to do is to make sure that, as we take forward any measures around the training provisions that are developed and implemented, we do not lose sight of the quality aspect in trying to reach a greater number. We need to make sure that we get that balance right and that we have to give some careful consideration to that matter, and that will certainly be a key part of the work that we will look at taking forward as part of the strategy. I want to turn now to—I will give way to the member, of course. Jenny Marra. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for giving way again. I wonder if he noted my suggestions about training for our lawyers. The Faculty of Advocates is holding an event on 10 October this year, but it might also be an idea to speak to the universities and their legal schools about training on statutory criminal law, as well as common law. In some ways, the legislation will help to ensure—it gives us a greater opportunity to ensure—that there is an awareness raised among those who are undertaking law degrees. However, I am more than open to looking at what different groups we should be targeting as part of any training regime that is necessary in this area. I want to turn to an issue that Margaret Mitchell raised. That was an issue around the statutory defence issue. Of course, the difference that we have from the Government's approach, in this matter, from the approach that Margaret Mitchell wishes to take, I say in the strongest possible terms that it is simply wrong to suggest that this bill, as it stands, provides less protection than the modern slavery act does. We have taken a different approach around this matter. We do not believe that a statutory defence is the appropriate approach here in Scotland, that the Lord Advocate's instructions is a better and much more effective way in which to do that. As the Lord Advocate said himself, it is that, by taking the approach to Lord Advocate's instructions, it is less likely that we will see injustices being served here in Scotland as a result. I think that it is fundamentally wrong to suggest that this bill provides less protection, that it is certainly not the case. In fact, if the member will let me finish this point, in fact there are those who are raising significant questions about the workability of the statutory defence provision that is in the modern slavery act because of the 130 exceptions in car routes that are being created within it. We do not have that complexity in what we are providing within our legislation, which is why the Lord Advocate's of the view that it will reduce the risk of injustices being served here in Scotland because of the pragmatic and victim-centred approach that we are taking here. I will give way to remember. Margaret Mitchell The point is, cabinet secretary, that you could have had both. It would have probably made even better legislation than there is elsewhere in the UK, but is not it true? The bottom line was that it would have cost more to provide the statutory defence, and that was the real reason that it was not included along with the Lord Advocate's guidance and instructions. Michael Matheson I must confess that that is one of the most bizarre arguments that I have ever heard on the issue of a statutory defence. There was nothing to do with cost. What it was about was taking the right approach and getting the right balance, and that is exactly what we have achieved. I regret the tone that the member has set around the idea that this bill does not set the right level of protection. It does quite the opposite, and we as a Parliament should be very proud of achieving that in the way in which we have done it. I will also turn briefly to the issue around the NRMs, which Margaret Mitchell raised. That is a matter that we are continuing to have discussions with the Home Office on. There are two pilots, North West Orchshire and in Cornwall, and we will continue to engage with them as that issue moves forward. Just in drawing my remarks to a closed sign officer, a number of members have said that this is the first day, the start of the process, of tackling human trafficking. I do not entirely agree with that, because there has already been a significant amount of work already undertaken in tackling human trafficking through law enforcement agencies and through our prosecution services, some of which were referred to by Jamie MacGregor and also through third sector organisations. What this bill is, is that this is the first day that we have upped the stakes in terms of making sure that Scotland is a hostile environment. For those who want to pedal in the misery that is associated with human trafficking and exploitation, the message is very clear. In supporting this bill tonight, you are not welcome here, and for those who are victims of this appalling crime, this is a haven and a sanctuary that will support them to overcome the abuse that they have experienced. That concludes the debate on the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is decision time. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 14421, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is the effort agreed to, and the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland bill is passed. That concludes decision time, and I now close this meeting.