 Good morning. Can I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's meeting in 2015?" Can I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices? It is an interview with broadcasting even when they are switched to silent. Apologies have been received from Gil Paterson. Mike Russell will be substituted by his court somewhere on a motorway. He should be here shortly. This is our final evidence session on the Community Justice Scotland Bill. I welcome Paul Wheelhouse. Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs along with Scottish Government officials. Andy Bruce, Cymru Justice Division, Arnie and Stuart, Cymru Justice Operational Unit, Elaine Hamilton, Cymru Justice Bill Team, Craig French and Caroline O'Malley from the Legal Services Directorate. This is an evidence session, so if the minister wants to invite an official to speak, that's perfectly all rights. It's an evidence session committee. Minister, I believe that you have a very brief opening statement because I had a word with you. I'll do my best to rattle through it, convener. The Community Justice Bill provides a statutory basis for the new model for community justice in Scotland, and the bill will replace the current model, which is based on eight regional CGAs with the new model, which delivers a community justice solution to achieving improved outcomes for community justice to reducing re-offending and supporting assistance. The new model is based on the response to consultation in 2012, 13 and 14 on a much partner and stakeholder engagement, which I'm happy to talk about. The new model seeks to deliver better outcomes for communities by promoting a collaborative approach to the planning and delivery of improved outcomes, bringing decision-making in the hands of local communities and agencies who are best placed to assess local needs arrangements that, at a national level, will provide strategic leadership, enhanced opportunities for innovation, learning and development and assurance on the delivery of improved outcomes. I certainly want to commend the committee for taking extensive evidence from such a wide range of stakeholders and I followed the evidence sessions closely and welcome the broad support from stakeholders for the policy principles in the bill. On the creation of the new national body community justice Scotland, there is clear support for its role in leading the sector, driving improvement and promoting learning and innovation. There is consensus and strong accountability arrangements to ensure that the model demonstrates the improved outcomes for communities that we all want to see have indeed been achieved. A strategic approach to community justice, which is driven by a national strategy and outcomes-focused planning, has also been welcomed. It is clear, though, that there are matters of detail where the views are more mixed and that there are practicalities around implementation that needs to be clarified. I welcome the opportunity to do that today. Funding for the new model has raised many questions both in transition and implementation phases and the Scottish Government is making available significant funding to assist this transition over the next three years, subject to the comprehensive spending review. The transitional funding is intended to build capacity and develop further partnership arrangements across Scotland. The reports against funding will identify how this funding has been utilised in supporting the change process, and that will provide evidence-based to identify what, if any, further funding would be required for future years. I am aware of the impact that short-term funding has on planning in general and in the third sector in particular. The funding mechanism for community justice social work services is currently being reviewed. A move from an annual system of funding to funding over a three-year period is one of the issues being considered by the funding group, which we will be reporting later this year. Such considerations must be seen in the context of the broader financial settlement for Scotland. I want to reassure committee members and the third sector that I value the contribution that the third sector makes to community justice and officials are working with the third sector now to strengthen their role in the bill. On the arrangements for community justice planning, please be assured that I have no wish to duplicate efforts and I would expect to see community justice being planned within the wider community planning structures. Strong partnerships and co-production will be vital to the success of the new model. I also appreciate the definition of community justice requires further consideration and I will explore how we might broaden the definition at stage 2. A very important issue, which I heard mentioned frequently at the committee, is early intervention and this Government has a clear focus on advancing the whole system approach and improving life chances. The drive in community justice to reduce re-offending is therefore part of our wider approach to promoting social justice and tackling inequality, which includes action to improve early years' experiences. This is an important period for community justice in Scotland. We have made clear the Scottish Government's commitment to reduce re-offending and the harm that it causes to individuals, families and communities. That means making use of the evidence-based, increasing the use of robust and effective community sentences, reducing the use of short-term prison sentences and improving the interrogation of people who have committed offences back into communities. I am confident that the changes brought about by the bill will support that ambition. I did that faster than I would normally do. Faster, but quasi-brief. Can I first of all apologise, because I see Caroline O'Malley is not that she's invisible, she is in the ear, so my mistake. Mr French, yes? Yes, Ms O'Malley is here but not as a witness this morning. Ah, yes, I do mean that she was absconding from her duties, unless she was. He's something to tell us. I'm not surprised I'm away. Right, okay. So there we are and now questions from members. Please, John Finnie, Rodi Campbell. I don't know if that's a signal or a pen waving. What's that? Christian Allard and Margaret Mitchell. Right, off we go. Thank you, convener. Margaret, a colleague. Good morning, minister. I think you may well have with your brief, or quasi-brief statement, preempted a number of questions. Can I just cover one with you, please? And that's what the undertaking you gave to explore the definition. That's very welcome. There previously was a definition that included preventing offending. Is there a particular reason why that, whilst the exploration is welcome, is there a particular reason why that wasn't utilised initially? Well, I think it is an important issue, and I welcome the fact that Mr Finnie has raised it. The government does remain very committed to the principles of the Christie commission, including making a decisive shift towards prevention. Prevention of first-time offending has been taken forward on a number of fronts by central and local government with prevention already rooted in community planning. And it's our expectation, of course, that community justice planning itself will be rooted in wider community planning. Across Scottish Government early intervention and prevention are being taken forward to a range of policies and strategies, including the early years and youth justice, a range of other policies that are addressing the causes of offending, such as homelessness and drugs misuse. The new national strategy for community justice will link across to these other strategies, which contribute early prevention and primary prevention. Therefore, we believe that there's no need to include the prevention of first-time offending in the definition of community justice. Or, in the scope of this bill, first-time offending is being addressed, we believe, by this government in other ways, which I've just outlined. So, the bill focuses on reducing re-offending rather than prevention. I hope that that helps to clarify how we've got to the position we have today. Of course, I'll listen to the views of the committee on that matter, but that's the approach we're taking to tackling prevention through the wider work, but focusing this bill on reducing re-offending, and I suppose at that point it's preventative in terms of trying to prevent re-offending on the part of offenders. I'll ask them a nice distinction. I think that's what we meant by prevention, but John, do you hear the question? I mean, I understand you'll not be having a play in words here, but there are a lot of different streams that have to come together there. It's a very clear thing people would understand. You might understand prevention rather than early intervention. I do accept that, and we are considering whether the definition should be expand, as I say, and that could include elements of the systems prevention and early intervention, recognising the role of community justice in secondary and tertiary prevention, but I suppose the point is that the bill itself was primarily focused on reducing re-offending, but I do take the point that Mr Finnie makes, and I'm obviously looking to expand the definition. We can try and bear that in mind. Thank you very much. Roderick, please. Good morning. Good morning, minister. When Dame Eilish Angelini's commission reported in 2002, it talked about community justice operating in a cluttered landscape. We heard evidence from Mr Roberts of Audit Scotland that it's possible that complexity is inevitable in this area, but we also heard evidence from the 4th Valley Health Board that the more bodies we introduce, the more difficult it becomes for our population to understand and the harder it becomes for us all to engage. Our call would be for Parliament to try to make arrangements as simple as possible. What can be done to try and make arrangements as simple as possible so that people can more readily understand how things should operate? We'll certainly identify with the desire to try and make things as clear and as simple and transparent as possible. I think that that's entirely right to try and do that. I think that what we have to do though is reflect that some of the individuals that we are potentially trying to help reduce their re-offending and get them back into a positive place have it themselves extremely complicated and complex needs, and that may inevitably require the needs of a multi-agency approach to tackling it. So there will be in some cases, and maybe not every case, an inevitability about involving a number of different partners in terms of the solution to try and deliver a better outcome for that individual. We do believe that the bill brings coherence by providing a strong leadership function and a strategic collaborative approach to planning, reporting and commissioning of services. And the new national strategy and common outcomes for community justice should, we hope, also lend coherence and strategic direction to what community justice is aiming to achieve. So the bill disestablishes the eight community justice authorities, which are reasonably based, removing one layer. So that does reduce some complexity, but I appreciate that there's still a large number of partners and statutory community justice partners that are involved. If one accepts that, then the bill, I think, does make clear who the community justice partners are, what they're required to do, whom they must involve in taking forward their work. And it also defines the role of community justice Scotland itself, making clear how and when Scottish ministers are engaged as well. And the bill also sets out a role for communities. So we believe that their key relationships are articulated in the bill. I just go back to the point that I made, that because of the complex needs of individuals which may involve issues involving health practitioners, education practitioners, housing, obviously employability issues, there's inevitably, for some individuals, highly complex needs have to be met, and therefore we need to have that architecture there. But find a way, as Mr Campbell articulated, of trying to make the relationships as clear as possible and help people to understand how that process should work as effectively as possible, and we believe that the bill does that. What's the Government's view on the suggestion made by some people that, in each local authority, there should be a lead community justice partner? Well, certainly the local authorities had discussions with COSLA, as Mr Campbell may be already aware. The bill does make very clear about the duties placed on the statutory community justice partners, including local authorities. They were responsible for preparing and delivering on the community justice outcomes improvement plan for the local area, and preparing that plan they must consult with community justice Scotland appropriate community bodies, which will include third sector service users and communities. So local government partners will have a key role to play in that. The statutory community justice partners must also report on the plan annually, having first consulted community bodies and anyone else that they consider appropriate. So there should be good engagement between the local authority as part of that process and the relevant local community partners. We would also highlight that section 30 places a duty on statutory community justice partners and community justice Scotland to cooperate with each other and carrying out their respective functions. There is a clear role there. Collective responsibility is obviously vital to the success of the new model for community justice, and that's why we don't, in the process that we've identified, set out a lead partner for each local area, but on the basis of having a lead agency we'd open up the potential for other partners to avoid their responsibilities and perhaps defer to that one partner to do everything. So we want to promote collaborative working, and hence that's why we've not specified the role specifically for a lead partner. And we believe the model we've put forward vigorously promotes collaborative partnership and generation of evidence as well. So it is ultimately for local community justice partners to decide how they organise themselves and assign roles, and it's possible that they may choose to appoint a lead role for local authority or indeed they have discretion to do that, if that's what they wish. To what extent do you believe or recommend or otherwise that smaller local authorities in particular might choose to co-operate with other local authorities? Well, certainly that has come up in the discussion with COSLA in the engagement that I've had with COSLA. They have suggested that obviously one of the aspects that they find attractive, the current model, has been that they've been able to work together at a local level. So examples were given in areas like Ayrshire, perhaps where two local authorities might want to work together on the basis that they work together on a number of issues already. There's nothing to prevent that happening through the model that you propose that there could be a degree of collaboration and sharing and exchange of information and knowledge. It's for the local partners to determine that and we'll give them discretion in the current model that we're proposing as to how they take forward such matters. But the key role of community justice Scotland in ensuring quality, if you like, quality assurance and giving confidence to the communities and to Parliament about the oversight of activity is also important as well. Thank you. Do you have any supplementary on community partners? I'd like to do so. That was raised Alice in Yes, please. Just really following that up, please, convener. The current model is particularly attractive to the third sector. We don't want to go into that just now. Simply because one of the issues was that the list of community partners that was listed in section 12 we felt was not comprehensive enough. Have you any views on that? Well, convener, I certainly take that point. I've heard from a third sector in particular. I don't know whether you want to focus on the third sector just now, but certainly the third sector and the discussions that I've had with... I'll let Alice in after that, of course you've gone on to it, but it wasn't just the third sector. But certainly, yes. Housing associations are there. We will obviously have the potential to look at... I'm also keen to explore in terms of how the skills matrix for the Community Justice Scotland actually is taking forward as well that we look to see how we can recruit appropriate expertise in housing employability areas, which are obviously going to be important areas of knowledge for Community Justice Scotland and indeed local partners as well to identify how they work more effectively to deliver solutions for individuals. But clearly we can obviously review in operation the listing of those involved. And if additional statutory community justice partners were required at some point in the future, section 12.3 of the bill allows us to modify the Community Justice Scotland and Scottish ministers to modify the list of statutory community justice partners by regulation through affirmative procedure. So Parliament would have the chance to have its view on whether additional partners should be added. But you're not minded at this stage to change it to add. We believe that we have the list, but obviously if the committee had particularly strong views on that, I would listen to that clearly, but we do have a mechanism in place where that could be adjusted in future should that be required to the affirmative procedure. Alison, you were launching into the third sector something. Okay, thank you. Well, the third sector is obviously significant in this particular area. And we have a range of third sector bodies, national ones and small local ones who are all contributing at the moment. They find it reasonably easy to connect in with the community justice authorities because there's only eight of them. They're expressing concern about the need to link in with 32 different community justice partnerships. How would you respond to that and how would you support them in order to be able to do that? Well, I think the first thing to say is I agree with Alison McKinnis. I mean, it's an extremely important sector and partner. I mean, I think I've roughly about a third of the activity that we deliver through community justice already is done by the third sector. I haven't got a definitive figure on that, but I believe that's broadly right. So clearly the third sector have a hugely positive role they're already playing. I know from my work in drugs policy and indeed tackling issues like reducing reoffending the role of third sector is crucial to allowing people employment opportunities as well on a pathway back to demonstrating their employability. So clearly on a number of fronts, the third sector is a vital player. So we believe it is vital to the successful planning and delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals and the sector does make a huge contribution. So section 18 of the bill requires that the statutory community justice partners to consult and enable the participation of the third sector in planning of services and improved outcomes for community justice. However, I do recognise the third sector themselves. I said that perhaps they're not as visible in the bill as they would have liked to have been. And we are listening to the concerns of the third sector and we are exploring now with my officials and third sector organisations how we might amend provisions to provide a stronger participative role for them in the bill and working in partnership with them. So I do know there's some concerns about commissioning as well and the funding, the security funding from the local government sector as well, and to have some concerns. I'm happy to talk about that as well if that's relevant to Ms McInnes's point. I think if you might, if you might not mind, convener, it would be helpful to use for you to discuss how you think these reforms could be used to tackle some of the short-term funding issues that the third sector organisations face. They spend a great deal of time that could be better used invest in their front-line services, chasing funding and following things up. Yes, I mean, I recognise these concerns and say that the likes of SACRO have made that point to me and others as well. I think the issue in terms of financial planning is one that's obviously typically people are working on an annual cycle and indeed to back up Ms McInnes's point. I have heard that up to half of management time at some third sector organisations is devoted purely to securing next year's funding, which is clearly not something that we would see as optimal to delivering their outcomes. There is some work being done to review the funding mechanisms at our place, recognising those constraints. That short-term funding is a significant issue for many in the third sector. Within section 27, funding for criminal justice social work has been protected year on year in the face of significant cuts from UK Government's of the section 27 funding. We have provided a total of £750 million of ring fence funding since 2008-09, but that does not deal with the year-to-year funding issues. So a funding technical advisory group has been established to oversee the work of developing a new formula for section 27 funding to replace the current model. A move from annual system of funding to a funding model over a three-year period is one of the issues being considered by the group to help to reduce the need for year-to-year firefighting on the funding front. The advisory group is due to report to the main funding group this autumn. Recommendations will then be made to the joint Scottish Government in the cause of settlement and distribution group. If proposals are endorsed, we should see a new funding model being piloted in 2016-17 financial year, and a new funding model would then go live in 2017-18 financial year. I hope that that helps Alison McInnes to understand where we are with that issue, but we certainly do recognise both the balance in terms of there are some nationally operating third sector organisations, as Alison McInnes has said, and some very local ones. That has to be reflected in the commissioning arrangements that it may not be appropriate to have national contracts where perhaps a local third sector organisation is doing a very good role at a local level, so that a local community justice operation would require or would desire to keep going and to work with rather than having a nationally imposed model. Who is on the funding technical advisory group? The membership is drawn, and for the technical advisory group, is drawn mainly from local government, so local government finance officers, the criminal justice social work Scotland, COSLA and ourselves. It reports to a broader funding group that has got representation from the third sector and others, including community justice authorities. Who are the voluntary sector that they report to? Whos represent it? I just want to tease this out a bit more detail so that the voluntary sector is not just hearing warm words, but that we know that they are right in the middle of being involved in all this. Absolutely. It is the criminal justice voluntary sector forum who are the representatives. The chair of the forum sits on the main funding group, who is also the chief executive of SACRO. Any other voluntary groups on that? The forum is an umbrella group. Their members, when they appoint a representative in saying that I will be the representative, they commit to feeding back to the entire forum. We have also given the criminal justice voluntary sector forum £50,000 this year to help them to build capacity and capability for the new model and subject to the comprehensive spending review. We hope to do so for next year and the year after as well. They have identified and appointed a post for that, who is actively working with partners to say what will be the third sector's role and how will it work in practical terms on the ground. The technical advisory group reports in autumn. Is that next autumn? This autumn. Of course, we are in autumn. We are in autumn. So when is it? As far as I know, when is it reporting? It is due to report. It is very shortly. It is due to report. The end of October into early November. Okay. Thank you very much. Alice in the U. Christian, followed by Margaret Mitchell and Margaret McDougall. Christian, please. Thank you very much, convener. Just on that particular point, if I may add, we heard from West Lloyd and Committee Planning Partnership who said that it's not only about the third sector but also about the private sector and others. I just wonder that if we receive a lot of calls about making sure that the third sector is more in the well, making sure that we don't lose the fact that there are others as well on part of the private sector, how would you see this changing in the well? Well, of course, it's possible through the process that we can't anticipate as yet who would be on the Community Justice Scotland but that in terms of employing those individuals to provide skills that people with knowledge of private sector and opportunities might present itself. But clearly, I know from work on reducing re-offending how important the role of private sectors in providing employment opportunities, there are some very progressive companies out there, thankfully, who are trying to do their best to support former offenders. You have maybe a conviction that they have to declare to get an opportunity into employment involving companies in the transport sector, such as Virgin and indeed in hospitality sector, a number of hotel groups that are good at actually employing individuals in roles that are appropriate, given clearly the nature of perhaps past offences. So I think there is a really positive role that the private sector can play and indeed we are encouraging private sector companies and organisations and representatives such as Scottish Business in the Community as a kind of umbrella group that represents business community to work with us on trying to help provide pathways for former offenders and people with perhaps substance abuse issues to find an opportunity to get employment. And that's obviously a huge role that can be played in helping them to re-establish a more positive role in community. Thank you very much. And we heard you this morning saying that you might be looking to extend the remit of the bill to prevention. Now, there are the words of Pete White from Positive Prison who say that he would like the word offender removing, removed from the bill. Is that will be something you might consider? Well, certainly I'm aware of the sensitivities around the words. I mean, I'm trying to be careful on what I say myself because I'm conscious I'm using those terms too. Clearly, it's usually sensitive issue because we want to try and get to a point where people who have perhaps served a sentence paid their debt to society are seen again as being a positive contributor to society. And if they're wearing a big sign around their neck for the rest of their lives, then it's not necessarily the most constructive of ways of referring to them. But we certainly look at such issues and how we can handle that in terms of the bill and indeed the guidance around the bill as well. But I know that the bill is typically, as bills are drafted in legal terminology, it was sometimes even a bit harsh to those involved in helping those who have perhaps been involved and have a conviction or history of conviction. But we'll obviously look at those issues in due course. Thank you very much. I'm trying to remember what Tim White suggested, but we'll come up with it in a minute when we've looked at the OR. I think it may have been persons with convictions or something along those lines. Persons who have at any time been convicted of an offence. So, I mean, if there are sensible terms that can be used, we can look at those, convener. Right, thank you. Margaret Mitchell followed by Margaret MacDougall. The potential memorandum states that there clearly be £2 million available for the national body and is one of the witnesses very succinctly and effectively said to be absolutely he-haul available for local authorities. Now, I thought we'd get a bit of he-haul, but that would be the last he-haul of the session, I think. Yes. Now, there is the traditional funding of £1.6 million for the 32 local authorities but that seems to be it. So, are you satisfied that the proposed funding for community justice Scotland represents value for money? Well, clearly, convener, I recognise this is one of the key things that have been raised in evidence and, irrespective of the terminology used, the transitional funding that commences in the current financial year is being split equally with an assessment of £50,000 going to each local authority to be used across the community planning partnership in that area. That's based, as I understand, on evidence from Perth and Kinross Council on terms of their estimate of costs. Our intention is for this funding to be available for three years, so it's commencing this year, but it's ending in 2017-18. However, this position will be reviewed at the end of 2015-16 in light of both the outcome of the next UK comprehensive spending review and any evidence that comes forward from the sector between now and then. The third sector also has an important role in planning, delivery and evaluation, hence the point that Arlene made about funding for the criminal justice voluntary sector for a £50,000 per annum intended anyway for the next three years. Again, that is subject to the outcome of the CSR comprehensive spending review later this autumn. We do recognise that local authorities are concerned about the longer-term position. I will point out that the total cost of the current model is £2.7 million per annum, of which the operating cost for community justice authorities is £1.8 million. The total cost of the new model is estimated at £2.2 million, so we cannot deny that there is an assumption of savings in the longer term. That falls both on central spending and also at the local level. We believe that the new model will be an effective means of delivering community justice at a local level, and that the comparability of costs between the two models is not easy to make a direct comparison. You are aware that there is a real sensitivity between the national body and the local bodies and ensuring that the local bodies have the flexibility to deliver local solutions for local problems, so funding is really important in that aspect. Can you provide any more information about the work that is being undertaken just now to identify problems with the transitional funding? For example, is there an issue about those people who are employed with criminal justice agencies now? Are they all going to be re-employed within either community justice Scotland or the new local authorities? I will defer to Arledon on the detail of the discussions that have been taking place, because it is happening at the official level between ourselves and COSLA. We have on-going dialogue with COSLA about the financial package that is available. We have corresponded with them about the evidence base, so we have highlighted the basis for our £50,000 assumption as the figures from Perthek and Ross Council have invited them to come back with their thoughts on that, in case there is any contradictory evidence that they have that is available. We can pass to Arledon convener just to ask her to address the point that Margaret Mitchell makes. I suppose there were two points on that. One point was around the on-going funding and what are we doing in terms of understanding how the transitional funding is being used. On that point, we are working closely with all of the local areas. We funded a post in COSLA to lead on the transitional work, and she is working closely with areas to say what are you doing, how are you managing the change at present. We know that some of the local areas already have appointed, using the funding, some co-ordinators to pull partners together to start their action planning, understand how things are working on the ground, how well things are working on the ground, what gaps they may have and what actions they have. I was just at an event yesterday down in the Borders where they were doing that and they have appointed co-ordinator, others, Midlothian, Fife, Westlothian have done similar. We work closely with COSLA on identifying if there are any particular issues. We have suggested to people that they may wish to report to us next May on how they have used the funding for this year, but we have also asked them to produce transition plans for the transition year of 1617, which we have asked them to send in for January. That will identify what their local arrangements are, what their local priorities are for 1617, but also if they have identified any challenges and obstacles as well and will work with them during that. I suppose that is that point on how we are taking that forward. On the subject of the community justice authorities, obviously there are sensitivities involved in that for the 20 persons who are currently employed by the community justice authorities and we are working very closely with the conveners and those of the treasurers for what that means on the ground for the individuals. There are opportunities afforded potentially through the transitional funding but the recruitment to community justice Scotland would be through open and fair competition. Now many of those people in the community justice authorities working as they have done in that avenue, in that arena, you would hope would be well placed for some of those positions, but obviously recruitment to community justice Scotland would be a matter for the chief executive and the senior personnel when they are appointed. If they do not recruit, what happens to them then? If they do not get recruitment placed, if they do not want to go for even the recruitment place? They may not wish to go. So what we have asked in the establishment of the community justice authorities, we have put it back ten years ago now, we put in place that if there was ever to be any severance for any particular reason along the journey, that they must develop severance schemes and submit them to Scottish ministers for approval. We have asked them to do that over the summer. At present, we are still getting those in in terms of what it would mean for the individuals on the ground. When we have those in in points, once they have gone through that approval route, community justice authorities would then be able to let the individuals know what the situation would be for them and it is the responsibility of the community justice authorities as the employer to do so. Obviously, we are giving them all the support that we absolutely can. It is quite a technical area in terms of both human resources but also finance pensions and so on. If they did not want to accept the severance and they did not get re-recruited to it somewhere, what would happen? I would have to check with the employment law around that. However, my understanding is that if they do not seek employment elsewhere and some have already got some of those co-ordinate posts, some have gone to inspection agencies and others, so if they do not seek employment elsewhere or indeed if they do not wish to go to community justice Scotland, my understanding would be that it would be the severance option unless the local authority who hosts them is not the employer but who hosts them wish to take them on in some form of redeployment or deployment package. That would be for the local circumstances. So you really have to take the severance? No. In the Government, obviously, has no compulsory redundancy policy and I would hope that that would apply in this instance. However, I am concerned to hear that there are eight different severance packages being developed and I would hope that across Scotland everyone was treated equally. We have put out strong guidance around that and what we have said is that it is very clear that it is all available online. We have all said that they must follow the terms of the Scottish Public Finance Manual and that refers down to the civil service compensation scheme. We have asked people that they must be in line with those schemes and that is what they must be in line with in order to go through the approval route. So you would expect therefore to them all to be broadly similar. Obviously every individual circumstances will differ. They are all being in for a different length of time, etc. Sure, sure. That was a point. Right. Are you if you have exhausted your question so far? Yes. Ah, yes. Elaine, please. I just wanted a point of clarification on one of the minister's answers to Margaret that you said I heard you correctly that there was 50,000 allocated to each local authority whereas the indication was that it was 1.6 million split between the 32 local authorities. Is every local authority getting 50,000? Is it irrespective of the size of the authority? That is my understanding, convener. That is certainly so. It is said to seem the fair way of doing it. Dean, do you be happy? Well, I am not happy but she is satisfied. Margaret, please. Thank you, convener. I will just continue on the funding side of things. I think that Peter McNamara made his views quite clear at the session he attended on the funding to community justice authorities. And I think that the feeling is that if there is going to be more prevention and less people actually being incarcerated or locked up, should there then be less funding going to prison services because there will be more work done in the community? I wonder what your views are on that. I make myself very unpopular with my colleague Michael Matheson who is responsible for prisons. I will bring in Andy Bruce basically in a minute, if I may convener, just on that because Andy has a direct line on the prison service. But clearly, where we can reduce re-offending, that will clearly have benefits for wider society, not just the prison estate and Scottish prison service that will have benefits for communities, families, for not seeing their loved ones incarcerated, the impact it has on children so it will have benefits for education provision and potentially generated savings. So I certainly agree that in reducing re-offending there are significant long-term economic and public spending benefits to Scotland from tackling that issue. Both activities are within the justice portfolio and we have to take decisions on a year-to-year basis on what we fund through the Scottish Government budget. But we would look to try to ensure that as Scottish prison services are already doing that they themselves are key players in trying to help to reduce re-offending and that they do considerable amount of work through their own preventative work within the prison estate to try and educate offenders who are still within the prison estate to help them reintegrate back into society. So it's possible that it wouldn't necessarily result in a reduction in Scottish prison service spending because you're maybe putting more money yourselves into helping to further enhance that preventative agenda on reducing re-offending. So I wouldn't want to see reducing re-offending in a little silo on its own. It can be done by a Scottish prison service, can be done by other partners in justice and so it's just it's important that that activity takes place. But if I can bring Andy Bruce in on the on the detail point. I absolutely recognise that logic that if we are trying to elicit the shift of balance from custody to community then it stands to reason there should be a resource flow to accompany out. The difficulty of course is until you actually reduce the number of people in custody it's difficult to actually realise a saving that allows you to then put that in into the community. So there's a couple of ways in which we take to as a minister suggested there one of the ways is to make sure we get the absolute most out of all the funding that is in the community already. So there's the 95 million approximately section 27 funding per year that goes out of criminal justice social work. But also there's all the funding that's in the health system and alcohol and drug partnerships for example in education that can be brought to bear around this area to help with that prevention bit. But we are kind of making steps along the way so members of the committee will be familiar with the work around women offenders. The funding that the government originally put in 1.5 million a year for an initial set of projects to get established that was then extended this year and the way that was extended was by a transfer that was made from the prison service to the community to allow that to happen. So although I recognise it's a small amount but we are starting to make that that balance and that's a very clear example of doing it for women's community based justice services that money is coming from the prison surface budget into the community to allow those services to be sustained and improved. Thank you for that. Before you go on have you not just made the case for early intervention and prevention prior to somebody being sent to prison being part of community justice? So you're making those savings right away. You're not having somebody and I don't I can't recall how much it is perhaps you can tell me to have somebody in prison for the year if you take it. Have you got an annual figure for that? There is one for modelling but I don't have it to hand. 36,000 30,000 so it must be up because it used to be 32,000. It just strikes with what you said is you have to stop people going into me the savings to then do it but that's the carton horse that's all the way around to me. I think that's probably why we were looking at early intervention and prevention in the first place as well as preventing re-offending and then you perhaps would make savings right away that you can plough back into community justice. I'm sorry to recognise the point you make convener however I suppose if we're looking at prevention it's much wider than just the role of community justice partners in the context of the role they would have as a result rising from the pill. Every bit of work that's done in early years intervention potentially has the possibility of reducing the risk of someone offending in the first place so it's about where you set the boundaries on that in terms of the role of community justice Scotland itself and its roles in that sense. I don't quite see why you separate them. I don't quite see why you talk about silos you've got a silo here you've got people who've been in prison they're in community justice people who've not yet been in prison they're somewhere else. They are the same people in a progression and you know that's just the point I'm making from savings to the public purse. Absolutely there are a number of different strands of Scottish Government policy including our policies on youth justice on organised crime where we've got significant strands of work to prevent people offending in the first instance I do recognise that the roles are important and that sense in my response to Mr Finnie that we will look at what form prevention can take and the definition of community justice but the primary function of community justice social work as it currently stands is about reducing re-offending and hence this is a new model delivering it but where we can look for synergies and that clearly is important and clearly the same partners are involved in the model we're proposing statutory partners involved in things like education, health, housing which we know have a significant role to play in preventing people offending in the first instance Just think it's all these local agencies will be able to identify people who are on the brink of having to be put into prison but they will be part of this system and that it seems that the idea of separating the categories it's artificial and it's compounding the problem of people going to prison but there you are that's just my thoughts I do recognise the point, convener I'm not ignoring it I think the point that I made to Mr Finlay earlier on is that we will look to see how we can reflect that in the definition itself Yeah, sorry Margaret Okay Can I just continue I'm glad you did I'm glad you got that of your test In your response to my answer minister you did mention victims and families but victims and families witnesses are not mentioned anywhere in the bill and you know from evidence we've taken for example from families outside you know they did say that and I think rightly say that you know victims and the families witnesses and families of they accused are all part of the justice system at that time so you know why are they are not included in the bill Well clearly I do recognise that that victims and the families of victims have a great interest in what's happening we do have a number of strands of work which have through previous legislation legislation that's already enforced the victims and witnesses act as well which have put in place measures to help the victims and the families of victims understand the process and there are trigger points for communication with families as to the nature of sentences of sentences of somebody's coming to the end of serving their sentence and whether they're going to be released to communicate with the victims and families of victims to let them know what's happening and I think procedures are improving on that front but we certainly do recognise that there is a role there there's also a role potentially for when looking at community sentences community payback orders for example trying to make them robust so we can give confidence to judiciary and to the communities that they are they are viable alternatives to custodial sentences that we work with local communities who are affected by crime to work out what are the most sensible community payback orders in that area you know there may be particular local need that those who have been sentenced can actually help with provide a useful service to the community and in that sense help ensure that there's faith in the process of community sentences where people trust they are not weak options they are ones that are valued to the community so there's a number of different aspects in which we can reflect the important impact that there has been on the victim and the family and indeed the community that's been affected by crime and to work with those partners to ensure that those are reflected we haven't defined the victim support Scotland in the way that we have other community justice partners in the bill that clearly the victim support Scotland are a key organisation that the Scottish Government works with and we have reflected on their role in terms of the support that we give to victim support Scotland across Scotland in preparing the plan we have made clear that community justice Scotland must consult sorry the local partners must consult with community justice Scotland and appropriate community bodies which will include the third sector service users and communities and that could well include the likes of victims groups at a local level to work with them as I say to identify appropriate community sentences and packages to help maintain faith in the system sorry does that mean that it's not going to be in the bill then or you're just saying that it happens but it's not going to be in the bill you know the victims victims will not be specified in the same way as other the community justice partners at local level but we will be requiring the local partners to conduct consultation with key groups at a local level including that potentially includes likes of victims groups and we can obviously reflect that in guidelines guidance around the bill as to you know what our expectations are of engagement with groups at a local level but as I say there's opportunities to work with victim support groups on sentences and that Ray I forgot maybe bringing Elaine Hamilton on this and the detail in the bill she may be able to help Margaret MacDougall on terms of the how that's currently drafted yes thank you section 18 of the bill sets out the requirements for community justice partners to engage and section 181 be community justice partners are required to consult such community bodies in relation to the area that they consider appropriate and such other persons as they consider appropriate so we've drafted quite widely there so that third sector bodies and communities and individuals can all participate in the planning of community justice priorities in their local area so they're not mentioned and you have no intention of including them in the bill for me I think that's not a fair representation what we're doing is giving the discretion to the local partners to determine who they feel is appropriate now truly we can encourage the local partners to a local authority level to work with victims groups and I think that would be potentially an attractive thing for them to do for what we're leaving is the flexibility and people have questioned whether there's a there's too much centralisation in policy here we're allowing flexibility and I would hope that local partners will work with local victims groups to try and help be their confidence in the system producing guidance for the community justice partners because I think where Margaret is getting is to get the community to buy into whatever is being done rather than being done to them being done with them I think is your point and victims in the particular part of that I certainly accept that what Margaret Madougal is saying is very important it has been reflected in the discussion that we had at Murrayfield as well last week with 120 stakeholders where the role of communities was raised in the context of sentencing and you know the giving confidence to community sentences which we recognise has to be there for people to see it as a viable alternative we want to reduce the number of people incarcerated but we need to give confidence to communities that's the right way to go working with local groups at a local level is something I think would help with that to ensure that they have confidence in the sentences community sentences that are passed and certainly we can look to see how we can reflect that and guidance around the bill to help with the point that Margaret Madougal raises and give confidence that those groups will be consulted we just not specified them as a statutory partner for the reasons I've given same as you haven't specified housing or employment those are important factors that I've said earlier on and my evidence already today that in pointing people to community justice Scotland we can look to try and recruit those who have expertise in that area and I would hope that that will help in terms of ensuring that we are integrating those issues into our thinking clearly housing, employability are key areas that are of value local authorities have a statutory function in terms of providing housing let us not forget so I appreciate there's a particular point about registered social landlords but there is clearly a role a statutory role for housing in respect of housing sorry for local authorities through the planning system and local housing strategies so we do have a formal representation on as a statutory partner of a body at a local level that has a statutory role in housing provision and equally to reflect the point that was made earlier on we need to look at how we can involve employers both public and private employers in third sector is clearly already we've indicated we're looking to how we can reflect the third sector as a key employment route for and a wider role that the third sector have in delivering community justice thanks can we just continue the board to just leave out about the guidance when would you be intending minister to publish this guidance would it be before stage 3 could I defer that to to Elaine Thompson please as with Elaine Hamilton sorry just on that respect guidance is being prepared at the moment it will be issued we expect after royal assent but that guidance is being taken forward in conjunction with stakeholders at the moment it is very much a collaborative collaborative effort to ensure that all of the relevant issues are covered and in ways which people will understand so that guidance is on-going in preparation at the present time in conjunction with our stakeholders think it would have been helpful to the committee to even see draft guidance prior to stage 3 when some of the concerns that are being raised by committee members may or may not be a lead but at least it would take it a step further is that possible I'll take that back to my colleagues who are preparing the guidance particularly with regard to transition at the present time and we will ascertain if there's something that we can share with the committee before stage 3 I'll talk about involvement of housing involvement of the witnesses and victims that kind of stuff I mean well if it's one suit the true parliament we'll never know but I think it would be helpful if we knew in advance that would be helpful to the committee and wider wider colleagues in the Parliament convener and we'll look to see what we can do on time for stage 3 Margaret thank you for that the community justice authorities are made up of local elected members is there any intention to include representative of local elected members on the community justice Scotland board clearly the thank you the as was explained by Arlene Stewart once the the organization is up and running and looking to recruit board members there's an opportunity for individuals to put themselves forward in that capacity I don't think there's a specified post on community justice Scotland that I'm aware of but I'll double check with Arlene Stewart that we have specified that a representative of local government should be on there but clearly that's an area where I believe the skills matrix if you like which would be developed for the board's composition would perhaps require an understanding of local government as at least on the part of at least one individual because it's a local government clearly have a a very key role to play in delivering community justice at a local level so I think there's opportunities there as explained earlier in a previous answer local government will have a key role in each of the 32 areas of Scotland clearly in the community planning partnerships and already do you have a central role there and we see the community planning partnerships and being absolutely critical to the future model so I think through the various roles that local government will have and already touched upon have a key role in terms of delivering housing at a local level and as a potential employer of people at a local level there are a number of different facets in which local government will play a role but clearly we'll we'll see if people emerge that are recruited to the board of community justice Scotland in due course okay thanks for that I'm glad you mentioned community planning partnerships because they are obviously key to delivering this but there is quite a divergence in the performance of community planning partnerships across Scotland how are you going to ensure that they are able to deliver this role? Well this comes I suppose down to role of community justice Scotland and clearly it will work to help support the work of the local community planning partnership and taking forward community justice provide support advice roll out of best practice sharing of information try and make sure everything that can be made available in terms of good practice around Scotland is made available to each local area to take forward their own work and their scope where there is an assessor is to do so for community justice Scotland to provide a more direct role in trying to eliminate any problems that arise at a local level but community justice is obviously if it isn't being delivered by community planning partners coon local government we have a pathway there in terms of local accountability so it's clearly an issue that's important at a local level to residents within each local authority area and the usual democratic accountability will also apply in terms of local government having accountability for its performance at a local level but it's important that each of the partners and the reason why we haven't appointed a lead partner such as a local authority is we believe all partners should support the work at a local level and they should pool their weight including all of the statutory partners not just leave it up to local government or indeed any other partner to deliver the whole thing on their own so we expect we have expectations that all will pool together and they're all equally accountable for their performance in some cases to Scottish ministers in other cases to through other routes to other bodies but that they are accountable for their performance thank you thank you thank you this will be the last lot I think Chris John from Margaret McGill's questioning I mean, we've heard slightly divergent views from witnesses about the balance between the national criminal justice Scotland body and the roles of the local community justice partnerships what balance do you think the bill's actually trying to achieve in terms of who does what and particularly in relating to procurement which was one of the anxieties well we certainly we do recognize that this is one of the key things that has arisen in the evidence and we do believe in the balance of responsibility to set out in the terms of the bill that we struck an appropriate balance we are clear a Scottish Government are clear that local leadership and ownership of community justice is vital to the success of the new arrangements the new model will deliver a community solution to improved outcomes for community justice we believe that very strongly and to reducing re-offending and to supporting assistance and indeed as we've discussed earlier looking at the role in terms of prevention if that's possible as well but therefore this is a first and foremost a local model and it will allow flexibility depending on local third sector organisations I've discussed earlier who may have a particular strength and we shouldn't impose a kind of a national arrangement on a local partnership we recognise that local areas are best placed to determine the outcomes that are their priority and their local area and the activities required to achieve the outcomes and these arrangements will be complemented by community justice Scotland working with local partners to provide leadership at a national level to promote innovation and learning and to provide quality assurance and assurance that outcomes are being delivered at a local level so I think we've got the balance there we're allowing flexibility and when it comes to commissioning I think that's a very important issue clearly there are existing platforms for local authorities to commission and procure contracts both with the third sector and other organisations and we don't want to unnecessarily duplicate that if there's good platforms that can be used already to procure activities and that can continue there may be some opportunities though that may arise to either do something at a national level which would be impossible for either the eight current CGAs to do or the 32 local community planning partnerships to do that we can work with the local partners and Community Justice Scotland to say right is this sensible that we do this at a national level and if so then let's do that but we're possible allow the ability for individual local authority area community planning partnerships to work if they wish on their own right or to collaborate with others as we discussed earlier perhaps Ayrshire's authorities working together or another area working together to jointly procure contracts with the third sector or others so it's a flexible model but it does provide the opportunity should that be appropriate for a central procurement exercise where it's sensible they have been nationally procured that would be Community Justice Scotland would manage the contracts on behalf of the yes I mean there obviously there are other procurement vehicles available at a national level but you know we're working through that at the moment with causal as to the balance but you know we think we're hopefully helping reassure them on that front they were sensitive to that issue but we've explained that we don't want to undo the good work that has been done in terms of local platforms for procurement that local authorities can work together to jointly procure if that's appropriate for them and that's an issue for them but there may well be opportunities that we can take advantage of to do something Scotland-wide that is more efficient from a commissioning point of view and perhaps reduces the need for individual third sector organisations to contract individually with every single local authority there may be groupings that come together or and there are opportunities that may arise from that I don't know whether Arleigh Stewart wants to add anything further on that convener but just she's closer to the detail Just to emphasize that first and foremost because it is a local model than any commissioning and the procurement and contract in which may follow although it may also be in-house services should be done locally where there are opportunities to achieve economies of scale either regionally or between two different local authorities don't need to be next to each other or indeed across Scotland then we would expect that people would look to do so it may be if you're putting in place a service or a contact across Scotland that locally partners may look to community justice to Scotland to provide support and certainly we'd be looking for community justice Scotland to have people with the right set of skills to do so however it doesn't necessarily follow that all national contracts would have to be through community justice Scotland as the minister says it could be using existing arrangements such as Scotland Excel or a lead local authority lead health board national services Scotland and other such arrangements some national contracts which community justice to Scotland may take on early doors are many of the ones that I actually manage myself at the moment so we'd be passing it across from the Scottish Government or Scottish ministers responsibility to community justice Scotland the importance around the commissioning is that there will be for the first time a strategic approach to commissioning for community justice which community justice Scotland will be developing with partners and stakeholders including purchasers and providers and be those providers in the third sector in-house or indeed in the private sector as well so that'll be for the first time we'll have that in place that concludes the questions can I thank you minister and your officials for your attendance I'm going to now suspend for five minutes before we move on to the criminal justice bill item two day four of stage two proceedings of the criminal justice Scotland bill I welcome Michael Massison cabinet secretary for justice the meeting welcome the scottish government officials who are here to support the cabinet secretary but not here to take part in the proceedings so they're silent members should have their copies well as far as we're concerned not to the minister members should have copies of the bill and marshal list and groupings of amendments for today's consideration the government sent purpose and effect notes for their amendments for last week's session we also find them useful for this session I say I aim to complete all amendments today your nail to your chairs if necessary we'll have a little break after an hour or so if I see you're faltering at all now I'm going to move straight on before I do that I've just remembered it's all right I've got two declarations of interest Alison thank you very much can I just draw members' attention to my register of interests in particular my membership of justice scotland Roddick my register of interests is a member of the faculty of advocates anybody else before I forget right first of all call amendment 18 in the name of John Finnie group with other amendments has shown in the groupings can I point out there are various preemptions in this group as a result of which if amendment 18 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 142 if amendment 145 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 20 and if amendment 147 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 21 but I'll repeat that as we go on I expect you to commit that to memory immediately John please to move amendment 18 and speak the other amendments in the group thank you convener amendment 18 and the others cover the section about investigative liberation and relation conditions an amendment my amendment would allow for a period during which a suspect can be released from custody should be any period up to a maximum of 28 days and that differs from the blanket 28 days as outlined in section 141 of the bill Lord Calaway recommended that the period during which a suspect could be subject investigative liberation should not exceed 28 days now the law society support this amendment and they believe that an advantage of a shorter period upon which a person can be released from custody as that in terms of section 142 of the bill it's more likely conditions imposed by a constable will be subject it will be expected upon be accepted by an individual subject investigative liberation on the basis that a shorter period is provided for this is a major change and it's not Lord Calaway's proposal there's a question of proportionality attached to it as regards the government's 146 once again we see it at a diminution of the authority being exercised from inspector to sergeant and we debated last time and we heard what seemed to be a police scotland's view on it well the view is of course that we have equal access to facilities across Scotland and I think it's entirely a reasonable that we maintain it as an inspector authorising that amendments 22 to 27 the effect of would be to allow a sheriff to not only review a condition of interim liberation in terms of section 14 but also the time period imposed and now we know that the bill facilitates a review of terms why not duration as I said earlier Lord Calaway never intended a blanket 28 days thank you could I get you to move amendment 18 please yes I'll follow me and move 18 thank you cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 142 please and other amendments in the group thank you convener amendments in this group relate to investigative liberation this is a new process for the police at present if the police want to liberate a suspect subject to conditions such as requirements not to approach victims or witnesses they must charge the suspect what Lord Calaway recommended was that the police should also be able to release a suspect subject to conditions even though the suspect has not been charged but that the conditions should apply for a limited period only this recommendation recognises that in some of today's complex police investigations the police may need to break off an interview while they wait for laboratory results or mobile phone records for example imposing conditions on a suspect for a limited period only means the police can leave the suspect at liberty while other aspects of the investigation are progressed but it allows the police to take the suspect straight back into custody in event of any attempt to interfere with the victims or witnesses otherwise compromise the investigation My amendments in this group are aimed to ensure that investigative liberation process works fairly and proportionately and I'll speak to those later I agree that it is important to ensure that investigative liberation conditions do not have an unnecessary impact on a suspect's private life but regret that the Government cannot support the amendments in this group in the name of John Finnie or Elaine Murray I'll speak first about amendments 18 to 27 in the name of John Finnie I agree entirely that it would not be appropriate for every suspect released on investigative liberation to be subject to conditions for a full 28 days but the bill already ensures that this will not happen the bill as drafted does not impose a blanket 28 day investigative liberation period what it does is provide what it does provide is that if they have not been lifted before then investigative liberation conditions will fall away automatically after 28 days this reflects Lord Carlaw's recommendation that 28 days is the appropriate maximum period for investigative liberation section 15 sets out that conditions must end after 28 days and can end sooner section 16 and 17 set out how conditions can be modified or removed before the end of the 28 day period in particular section 16 requires that an inspector must keep under review whether or not there are still reasonable grounds to suspect that the person subject to the conditions committed an offence and that the conditions imposed continue to satisfy the demanding test of being necessary and proportionate to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation if the inspector is not satisfied that those tests are met either more proportionate conditions can be imposed or else the conditions must be lifted all together and if a suspect is not satisfied with the police's review of the appropriateness of the conditions section 17 allows a suspect to challenge the conditions before a sheriff who will also have the power to modify the conditions or to remove them completely investigative liberation is all about the conditions imposed and that the legislation makes clear that those conditions can be removed after review by an inspector or by a sheriff this can happen at any time and there is no requirement for them to be in place for 28 days as soon as conditions stop being both necessary and proportionate the bill states that they must be removed or modified 28 days is the backstop the decision about when it is no longer appropriate to keep a person subject to investigative liberation will be made on a day-to-day basis or as the investigation into the offence unfolds what the amendments in John Finnie's name it would do is cause investigative liberation conditions imposed on the suspect to fall away after a number of days not exceeding 28 days which the police are to specify at the time of releasing the suspect it might be possible in some cases for the police to do what John Finnie's amendment 19 would require them to do which is to estimate and specify at the time of release the suspect the specific period of time required to carry out further investigations where the police are able to do so they could set a short period a shorter period at the outset but this would only ever be an estimate investigations are not always predictable the purpose of imposing investigative liberation conditions is to protect the interests of justice and help to protect victims and witnesses if the police guessed wrongly by a day or two and underestimated how long it would be required to carry out the investigation this would mean that the investigative liberation conditions would cease to apply at a time when they are still needed to protect alleged victims John Finnie's amendment 22 would allow a sheriff to review not only the investigative liberation conditions imposed on a suspect but also the period specified by the police during which the conditions would run in other words amendment 22 presupposes that the other amendments in this group in the name of John Finnie will be supported I do not think that it is feasible or in the interests of justice to require constables to have to specify a period for investigative liberation to run and to and it follows that there is no reason for giving sheriffs the power to review any period specified therefore invite John Finnie not to press amendments 18 to 27 Elaine Murray's amendment 47 would change the purpose for which investigative liberation conditions may be imposed conditions would still have to be necessary and proportionate but would have to be for the purposes of securing specific things rather than the broad purposes of ensuring the proper conduct of the investigation I'm concerned that the list of purposes for which conditions could be imposed could be unnecessarily restrictive and may suggest that the detailed the detailed purposes should be linked to standard conditions investigative liberation conditions need to be tailored to the needs of the particular investigation standard conditions could be too restrictive in some circumstances and insufficient in others the thrust of any conditions imposed under investigative liberation is that it should be necessary and proportionate some of the purposes listed in amendment 47 appear inconsistent with that general purpose there is no requirement for a person to surrender themselves to custody as the police already have the power to arrest during the period of investigative liberation whilst it might seem pertinent for the police to take into account a person's protection and wellbeing when setting conditions this could lead to conditions being set which would not be proportionate or indeed necessary for a person not charged with an offence now therefore inviting Murray not to press amendment 47 but I will undertake to consider before stage 3 whether amendment is necessary to expand or to illustrate what the general purposes of ensuring the proper conduct of the investigation under section 14 might cover I will turn to the amendments in my name the bill as introduced allowed a suspect to be subject to a number of periods of investigative liberation provided the total of the period did not exceed 28 days amendments 142 and 145 and 147 changed the position so that investigative liberation conditions can only be imposed on a suspect for a maximum period of 28 consecutive days in relation to a particular investigation it will not be possible to impose investigative liberation conditions over a number of shorter periods adding up to a total of 28 days these concerns were raised by some at stage 1 and the police that the police would be able to subject a person to repeated arrests and periods subject to investigative liberation conditions are dealt with through these amendments amendment 143 sets out certain types of condition that can and cannot be imposed when releasing a person on investigative liberation requiring a person to be in a particular place at a particular time for example a home detention care view would significantly disrupt most people's lives in the government's view that would be too severe an intrusion into the liberty of someone who has not been and may never be charged with an offence so the amendment provides that conditions which impose care view will not be permitted it will however be possible to impose conditions banning a suspect from being in a particular place at a particular time in order to protect victims and witnesses and prevent interference with evidence amendment 146 will allow investigative liberation conditions to be authorised by a police officer of sergeant rank or above the bill presently provides that conditions must be must be authorised by a constable of inspector rank or above but in most cases custody sergeants will make the initial decision on whether it is necessary or proportionate to keep a person in custody like all constables custody sergeants will be under an ongoing general duty to take every precaution to ensure that a person is not unnecessarily or unreasonably held in police custody so having taken the initial decision to keep a person in custody they will need to keep under consideration whether it remains necessary to hold that person at present the bill would not allow a custody sergeant to release a person subject to investigative liberation conditions but this amendment would allow that specialist officer to release the person subject to conditions custody sergeants are under the command of police scotland's custody division which sits separately from the territorial policing division it deals with the safety and wellbeing of those in police custody it has its own management and governance structure which is independent of the territorial division and is commanded by a chief superintendent who is accountable directly to an assistant chief constable who is a member of the force executive this ensures better oversight and management of persons in custody and better decision making on custody matters the independence and increased professionalisation of custody division removes the need for decisions on liberation to be taken at an inspector level the officer best placed to make decisions on a person's liberation and by extension any conditions that are to be attached to that liberation will in most cases be the sergeant in charge of the custody centre i consider these amendments for the management and governance of custody facilities coupled with the procedural safeguards built into the bill mean that it is appropriate that the most investigative liberation conditions to be set by a custody sergeant a custody sergeant will be independent from the investigation so we'll need to consult the senior investigating officer to determine what conditions are necessary for the interests of the investigation and to protect victims this process will ensure that conditions are tailored to the investigation but that the final decision and what is proportionate and necessary will be made by an officer with the right knowledge and expertise in dealing with custody matters the bill sets a maximum sorry a minimum authorisation rank for investigative liberation decisions i believe that the rank should be sergeant but investigative liberation decisions could also be made by more senior officers the bill provides the detailed framework and sets a minimum rank required to ensure good decision making on investigative liberation these provisions have to be flexible enough to cover relatively minor offences complex technical investigations and also very serious offences it will be for the police to ensure that the new option of investigative liberation is used appropriately and proportionately in each case this legislation provides a legal framework but day-to-day decision making will be supported by detailed guidance the police guidance and the standard operating procedures for custody will be revised to take account of this bill in doing that there will be scope for the police to develop more finely grained authorisation processes for investigative liberation conditions in different circumstances higher authorisation requirements could be set before a suspect could be released on investigative liberation for particular offences for example domestic violence types of suspects for example children or when setting unusual conditions but I believe there is practical operational matters for police this is a practical operation matter for police scotland and it would be unnecessarily restrictive to set that detail on the face of the bill there will still be a requirement for any conditions set to be kept under review by an inspector that inspector could modify any conditions set by a sergeant which inspector did not agree where necessary and proportionate authorisation to release the on investigative liberation will be given during the initial 12 hours detention period and I believe custody sergeants are best placed to make those decisions but the requirement to keep conditions under review will ensure that all conditions are subject to detailed oversight by inspectors the amendments in my name in this group are designed to ensure that in all cases correct and fully informed decisions are made and that proper conduct of the investigation is assured and that the rights of the individual are protected and I would invite the committee to support those amendments thank you cabinet secretary Elaine please to speak to amendment 47 and other amendments in the group thanks convener my amendment 47 to section 14 replaces the conditions being imposed for the purpose of proper conduct of the investigation into a relevant offence with a series of conditions required of the person and the reason behind that was that it seems to be more appropriate that when somebody is released on conditions the conditions actually relate to their behaviour when they've released rather than the way in which the police have conducted the inquire and that was actually raised in evidence with us during the stage 1 part of the bill but I have to say that the cabinet secretary's comments on this are helpful in his previous discussion of these amendments so I'll certainly bear those in mind and I know that I have a similar amendment 48 which will be discussed later and I note at that point the cabinet secretary's amendment 155 is similar to my amendment 48 so I wonder whether a similar amendment could maybe come in at stage 3 if mine is too restrictive that there might be a preferable way of doing it at stage 3 because I think it is important that the release on conditions is actually about the way the person pays when they're on investigative liberation on in terms of John Finnie's amendments I'm very supportive to his policy intention again I think the cabinet secretary's comments on that are helpful and I'll be interested in seeing how John reacts to that when he comes to sum up finally on 143 which no longer permits curf you I'm very supportive of that amendment as well any other members wishing Roderick Campbell just very briefly convener just on Elaine's amendment again perhaps some sympathy with what Elaine was suggesting but I'm also born in mind what the cabinet secretary said this morning on John Finnie's amendments I think he does need to reflect further on the detailed provisions in 1516 and 17 of the bill the moment on the basis that 28 days is a long stop period and it could be a great deal less and there are these safeguard provisions in there and I think we should reflect on that and I just disagree with the idea that there should be an additional test of to determine the length before a sheriff I think it's good John Finnie has raised this point but I think the minister's amendment 142 allays the concerns we had about the provision as it appears in the bill and explains what will happen more fully in terms of Elaine's amendment again the idea behind it is good but it's not flexible enough to suit every situation and I welcome the minister's the minister's offer to look at this again perhaps at stage 3 basically I think the amendment stapled in the minister's name under this section have made the improvements that will help the bill generally thank you John please to wind up thank you I've noted everything that's been said I should stress that Lord Calaway never intended a blanket 28 days and I reiterate that the law society support this particular amendment the cabinet secretary said that this was a new process and he's right and he talks about being subject to conditions what we have heard again is this there's complex investigations while some of us recall a period when the introduction of a six hour detention was seen as a huge draconian step we then moved through the various phases of that and we're now being told 28 days is required I think language is very important and the portrayal of anyone who's not supportive of these measures has been somehow less supportive of victims of crime I think would be unfortunate and entirely inaccurate so for instance when the the cabinet secretary said talked about the implications this would have on the attempt to interfere with witnesses well if you attempt to interfere with witnesses at the moment that's a crime at common law of attempting to pervert and you'll be arrested without warrant and that's the right way to be treated so this particular as yet piece of legislation has no impact on that excuse me the 28 days again we rightly get the assurance from the cabinet secretary that an inspector will keep that under review yet we have a sergeant authorising this and again the same information put out about custody division well I know that police Scotland may feel that that's that's an important use of terminology but people do play a lot of store in the decisions in the supervisory role played in relation to not only detention retaining someone in detention but I should point out that every constable has an obligation to ensure that no one's disproportionately retained in custody it is about the question of proportionality and it is my view that the backstop remains excessive and for these reasons I will press the amendment thank you that the question is amendment 18 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show that's three in favour six against that amendment is not agreed to I call amendment 142 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18 cabinet secretary to move formally moved the question is amendment 142 be agreed to are we all agreed yes we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show eight for one against that amendment is agreed to the question sorry call amendment 47 the name of Elaine Murray already debated with amendment 18 Elaine to move or not move call amendment 143 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18 cabinet secretary to move formally moved the question is amendment 143 be agreed to are we all agreed yes we are call amendment 19 the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 18 move or not move John thank you the question is that's a big burn call amendment 144 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 158 159 and 198 to 204 cabinet secretary please to move amendment 144 and speak the other amendments in the group amendment 144 158 159 and 198 to 204 in this group make no change to the substance of the bill they simply improve its structure the amendments move war is presently chapter 7 of part 1 into a schedule chapter 7 sets out the consequences for someone who fails to comply with conditions imposed on them when they are released from police custody either on investigative liberation or an undertaking the consequence essentially being that they have committed an offence part 1 is mainly concerned with setting down the rules according to which the police are to deal with suspects and the chapter flows better if those rules are not interrupted by a chapter dealing with what the courts are to do an event that a suspect breaches a condition imposed on him or her by the police and I move amendment 144 thank you very much anyone else wishing to cabinet secretary I take you to want to wind up the question is amendment 144 be agreed to are we all agreed call amendment 145 in the name of the cabinet secretary already graded I remind members that amendment 145 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 20 it's preempted cabinet secretary to move formally moved the question is amendment 145 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show and there are no abstentions eight in favour one against that amendment is agreed to the question is that amendment 14 I beg your pardon yes the question is done that call amendment 146 yes I thank you I've got a team here helping them I call amendment 146 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18 cabinet secretary to move formally and it moved questions amendment 146 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show seven in favour two against no abstentions that amendment is agreed to the questions that section 14 be agreed to are we all agreed call amendment 147 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18 can I mind members if amendment 147 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 21 which is preempted cabinet secretary to move formally moved the questions that amendment 147 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show eight in favour one against no abstentions that amendment is agreed to the questions that section I've got this bit right the questions that section 15 be agreed to are we all agreed questions that section 16 be agreed to are we all agreed call amendment 22 in the name of John Finnyel ready debate with amendment 18 John move or not move not move com centre call amendment 23 in the name of John Finnyel ready debate on amendment 18 move or not move not move Rule 10 Wys. others if that helps I have to call them w Ch还有 De C electrolyd call amendment 24 in the name of John Finnyel read debate 114.8. Actu allwad, Cymru 148. Cymru 149 yn gwinein ddwylliant hynny o gynnwys ynメi'n gwybod hynny? Actu allwad 149 yn gwinein o gynnwys i gydag mewn gwneud hynbyn nhw. Actu allwad 149 yn eich serfffaeth o weith adnod 18 ar y bydd. Yn mynd hynny, seith eraill ar y cwestiwn oes amddangosfeydd, yn cyrraedd, pethau di yn ymlaeniad, mae yna yn i gweithio'r gwestiwnur rhagledd ni'n oed i'n gwneud ar y cwestiwnur rhagledd yn cael ei ddweud ynghyrchu. y ffordd o hyd o'r drosio'r cyfan, os yw'r eraill o'ch bywyd yn gallu i'r bywyd, ond yn ychydig i'r bywyd o'r ffordd o'r gwrthfer o'r gwrthfer o'r gyrddol. Felly mae'n fynd i siarad, mae'r bywyd yn gweithio sy'n gwaith gwneud o'r gyrddol, oherwydd mae'n gwneud o'r gwrthfer o'r gyrddol, ac mae'n gwaith o'r gyrddol o'r gyrddol, mae'n gweithio o'r gyrddol, oherwydd mae'n gweithio o'r gwrthfer o'r gyrddol o'r gyrddol. amendment 149 restructure section 182 and clarifies that if it is not practical to bring someone before the court on the first sitting day then the person should be brought before the court as soon as practical after that. I move amendment 149. Any other members wish to speak? I take a cabinet secretary wish to wind up. Questions amendment 149 be agreed to or will agreed. Call amendment 101 in the name of the cabinet secretary already with amendment 173. That was on the second day in case you've forgotten. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The questions amendment 101 be agreed to or will agreed. Questions at section 18 be agreed to or will agreed. Call amendment 150 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 150a, 151, 152, 65, 255, 196, 197 and 222. Cabinet secretary plays to move amendment 150 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Amendment 150 replaces section 434 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, which provides that if a child is to be brought before a court the child should be kept in a place of safety rather than a police station. The amendment will preserve a protection for children when the police decide they must hold them in custody, which they are only likely to do in cases of the most serious offences. Children first have indicated their support for this amendment, which we welcome. We recognise that it has been suggested that consideration should be given to extending this to all 16 and 17-year-olds, rather than only those subject to a compulsory supervision order, and we would be happy to engage on implications of this. Amendment 150a from John Finnie amends amendment 150. Amendment 150 defines an appropriate constable in relation to certification that the tension in a police station is more appropriate than a place of safety, as meaning a constable of the rank of inspector or above. Amendment 150a omits inspector and inserts superintendent, meaning certification will have to be made by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. Currently, certification may be made by an inspector or above, or the officer in charge of the police station in which a child is brought. It is important that decisions are made in a timely, efficient and proportionate way, making basious of knowledge, skills, experience and training of inspectors, while ensuring that they are supported in decision making if needed. Such an approach is in the interests of the children and young people. There are a limited number of superintendents, and requiring a superintendent to make a decision may not be in the interests of the child, as a superintendent will not necessarily be at a station, so a delay may be to the detriment of the child. Requiring certification by a superintendent or above would constrain the police's operational flexibility and does not make basious of the skills, knowledge and capability of appropriate officers of the rank of inspector or chief inspector. It is important that we support effective decision making at the appropriate level of seniority, and for the reasons given, I would ask Mr Finnie to withdraw his amendment. Amendment 151 replaces section 42-3 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. The amendment requires the police to notify at least one parent or guardian if they can be found of the court where the child is to appear, the date on which the person is to be brought before the court, that their attendance at court may be required, and in supplement to existing law, the general nature of the offence for which the person has been charged. The police may withhold such notification if they have grounds to believe that doing so would be detrimental to the child's wellbeing. Amendment 52 replaces section 42-7 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. The amendment requires the police to notify the relevant local authority as to where the child is to appear, of the date on which the person is to be brought before the court, and of the general nature of the offence with which the person has been charged. The relevant local authority being the local authority for the area when the court sits. In line with other provisions of the bill, this protection has been extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, subject to supervision. Turning now to section 42 of this bill, this is a progressive and significant provision in the bill, which requires a constable to treat the need of safeguard and promote the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration. With reference to Elaine Murray's amendment 65, the term wellbeing is consistent with the language used in the children and young people's Scotland Act 2014, and is understood by the police. The term wellbeing was given full consideration by Parliament in the context of the children and young people's bill, and there was strong support from children's groups around its use. Well-being is at the heart of getting it right for every child, which itself is rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The principles of UNCRC are the foundation for any assessment of a child's or young person's wellbeing. Our approach is consistent with a wider assessment of the needs of children. It is this wider assessment that the bill requires the police to make a primary consideration as they decide whether to arrest, detain, interview or charge a child. The factors that they will consider will be dictated by the circumstances of the investigation that they are dealing with. It is right that the wellbeing of the child should be primarily considered in all those circumstances. Any assessment of wellbeing must seek to identify all the factors in the child's or young person's life that may be benefiting or adversely affecting their wellbeing. That can potentially help further children's rights as it is more inclusive. Consistency is important in this area and the forthcoming statutory guidance on wellbeing in respect of the Children and Young People's Scotland Act 2014 reinforces the value in aligning with the 2014 act on this issue. There is a danger in creating confusion around terminology on both the 2014 act and this bill provides consistency and clarity around expectations. The committee highlighted concerns regarding the lack of consistency in use of terms welfare, best interests and wellbeing of the child in this and other legislation. As demonstrated through amendment 151, 170, 188 and 196, I have taken that on board to ensure consistency. If the fee's best interest is amended into section 42, then that inconsistency is reintroduced. Taking account of those points, I would therefore ask Elaine Murray to withdraw amendment 65. Amendment 196 replaces the protections in section 42.9 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, ensuring that where it is practical and not detrimental to the wellbeing of a child who is officially accused of committing an offence, that child should not associate with an adult when in custody. Amendment 197 replaces section 43.5 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 and continues to ensure that the principal reporter is notified of cases where the procreator fiscal has decided for whatever reason not to proceed with the prosecution against a child. The purpose of this is to enable the principal reporter to consider where their other appropriate action should be taken. In particular, the amendment makes clear that where a constable nonetheless reasonably suspects that the child has committed an offence that has led to their detention, then, despite the decision not to prosecute, the child may be kept in a place of safety in accordance with the provisions of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 until the principal reporter has decided whether it is necessary to make a compulsory supervision order in respect of the child. The effect of this provision largely reflects the status quo. Amendment 222 adjusts the meaning of police custody as a consequence of amendment 197. The effect will be that a person not being prosecuted will no longer be in police custody within the meaning of part 1 of the bill. This would apply if the principal reporter has directed that the person should remain in a place of safety under section 65 of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011, pending a decision on whether to make a compulsory supervision order in respect of the person. Amendment 255, in the name of Alison McInnes, is an amendment to section 42 of the bill, which relates to safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration. The amendment would add a subsection stating that a decision to hold a child in custody or interview a child about an offence must be exercised for the shortest possible period of time. I am not entirely clear about what exercising the decision means, but I take the general point about ensuring that children are not kept in custody or interviewed for longer than is necessary. There is already a general duty under section 41 of the bill to ensure that people are not held unnecessarily, which already has that effect, but, importantly, this is in light of the test of necessity. The phase shortest time possible has no such test and could lead to a release where that was not appropriate. Section 10 also sets a carefully balanced test, which must be considered before anyone is held in custody and in deciding whether that test is met in relation to a child. The police will have the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration, as provided for in section 42. Amendment 255 therefore adds nothing further to the bill and does not work as a matter of ordinary language, and I therefore invite Alison McInnes to withdraw it and therefore move amendment 150. John Finnie, please, to move amendment 150A and to speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I formally move amendment 150A. I warmly welcome amendment 150 from the cabinet secretary. I am sure that most police officers will acknowledge that one of the most challenging things to do is to deal with young people in circumstances like this, and this background is very important. It may seem that it was a change for changes sake to put this particular amendment in, given that I fully support everything that is there before. The thinking behind it was that it was a decision of such importance that would be done from someone detached from the operational experience. The cabinet secretary says that a superintendent will not be at every station. I sincerely hope that that would be in far too many superintendents, but, likewise, an inspector will not be at every station. I am quite sure that the cabinet secretary is not trying to say that a superintendent would not be available to make timely decisions, not least because a duty superintendent has to make timely decisions in very sensitive matters that we do not need to go into here. To my mind, there is nothing more sensitive than a decision to formally detain a child like that. I will maintain the amendment. Elaine Murray, please, to speak to amendment 65 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The cabinet secretary said that children first supported his amendments, but originally they did not support his amendments because they looked as if they would be discussed with others that are coming out. Later on, on the rights of under 18s, predominantly that is because those amendments do not go far enough. They would protect a very small number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are under compulsory supervision orders, but not other 16 and 17-year-olds. However, because of the way in which that is placed within our discussions, I will support those amendments at this point, but I think that they need further amendment at stage 3 to give greater protection to 16 and 17-year-olds. As far as amendment 65 to section 42 is concerned, section 42 is called the duty to consider a child's best interests. If my amendment introducing the concept of best interests in the text is inconsistent or confusing, I cannot see how having best interests in the title is any less. The meaning of best interests has been determined by the body of case law and is internationally recognised. It has been used since 1959 and is in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Best interests, as I have said, is used in the title for section 42, but not in the text. I think that that is inconsistent. Well-being is a relatively new term. It is not well-defined, although it is in past legislation, but it is not as well-defined as best interests and it could be difficult to define the context in the context of section 42 and therefore difficult to implement. The use of best interests of a child is in line with international human rights obligations. On 15 and 50A, I was prepared just to listen to what John Finnie has to say and I think that he has convinced me that his amendment is appropriate. Alison Leitch, please, to speak to amendment 255 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Section 42, as we have heard, places a duty on a constable to consider a child's best interests in the early stages of the criminal justice process and it currently states that, in taking decisions on arrest, custody, interviews and charge, the constable must treat the need to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration. My amendment 255 would require the constable to exercise their power to hold the child in police custody and interview them for the shortest possible period of time and the intention is to quite clearly make it explicit that that has to be a consideration. The amendment is supported by Justice Scotland and the intention is obvious. It is to ensure that, when constables are making decisions, they bear in mind the unique vulnerability of children and the potentially damaging impact of their being held in custody or interviewed for long periods of time. I think that that is even more important following the revision to the bill last week, which I opposed. Children could be held for up to 24 hours and it is to emphasise the need not to use up all of that time. I will continue to press my amendment. I also support Eileen Murray. Eileen Murray, you are not moving yet, but you are just speaking to anyone else who wishes to come in. Margaret Mitchell. Just on John Finnie's amendment, I do understand the intention behind it. It is a serious decision that should be taken by a high-ranking officer, but I wonder if he is considered the unintended consequence where a inspector could make the decision faster if he happened to be there and could make a decision that it was not appropriate to keep the child in custody and, therefore, to actually wait until he got a superintendent. It seems to me that we are widening the scope by having inspectors, superintendents and personnel more readily available to take this very important decision more timeously. It is just something to consider. I was persuaded that the minister more or less had that right with his amendment. In terms of Eileen Murray's, I think that there is an issue about the terminology, especially if best interest is used in the title, but the minister is very sure, or the cabinet secretary is very sure, that the phrase well-being is the more appropriate one, so perhaps that is a drafting issue, or there might be something more fundamental there, but it certainly needs to be looked at. In terms of Alison McKinnis' 255, again, the sentiment is absolutely right. It is the shortest possible time, but I wonder just how you define that. Is there some test that can be devised? Is it more relative, and, therefore, if it is vaguer, is it adding anything? I am certainly uncertain about that listening. I would be interested to listen to the cabinet secretary's comments. Roderick. Just in relation to John Finnie's amendment, introducing a requirement of using a superintendent will be unnecessarily restrictive, and not necessarily the best interest of the child. Regarding Eileen Murray's amendment, I have to say that I have some sympathy with this, and in terms of consistency, I think that we are struggling a wee bit. I am persuaded by the cabinet secretary, however, that we will at least be consistent with the 2014 act. What I still cannot quite understand is what consideration might have been given in 2014 to the use of wellbeing and the implications for the 1995 children act, which refers to best interests. I think that it would still be helpful for further clarification on the point before stage 3. Nobody else? Cabinet Secretary, wind up on amendment 150. Okay. It may be helpful if I deal with the issue about the title. First of all, that has already been changed within the Bill. It is not a matter of amendment within the legislation. It is a matter that is dealt with through printing. It has been changed from best interests to wellbeing to ensure that there is that consistency. I hope that that addresses the concern that members had regarding the title within the Bill. There would be a reprint. It is a matter of printing, yes. It is not a matter of amendment to the Bill, and there will be a reprint of the Bill, which will be before stage 3. It has not been changed yet, but it will be changed with the permission of parliamentary authorities. Is that correct? Yes. It is a technical process that goes through for that. Right. Just to clarify for the record. It will be wellbeing rather than best interests. I hope that that clarifies it. However, notwithstanding that, there is the issue about consistency and a number of the amendments that I have brought forward to try to achieve that consistency and read across with other children's legislation, which I think is important in order to ensure that there is a consistent approach that has been taken by the police and other organisations in their understanding of that particular term. Turning now to the issue that John Finnie raised with regard to the rank, I made the point last week that it is about the quality of the decision that is made. It is not always the best place with the individual who is best informed to make an informed decision at that particular time. I believe that the rank at which that can best be made is at the inspector or chief inspector level. Clearly, it could actually be higher than that if necessary, but that should be the minimum level at which a decision of this nature should be made. There is no need to move up to a superintendent rank. Of course, superintendents operate on an on-call basis for operational matters, but I think that there is an issue about the speed at which decisions can be made in those instances. That is why I believe that it is appropriate that it should be made as early as possible. The rank of inspector and chief inspector allows us to maximise the potential speed at which that decision can be made in those important matters. Returning to the issue that Elaine Murray raised about some of the other aspects, I am more than happy to have dialogue with her between now and stage 3 if there are areas where she feels that there is a need for some further aspects of change to be made and to consider what those are. Turning to Alison McInnes's amendment, for the reasons that I have already outlined in terms of the language, it is unclear in terms of the definition of how it would apply in particular circumstances. Legally, it does not add anything to the bill in terms of protections to a large extent. Therefore, it does not fit well within the bill, but I understand the general thrust to which the member is trying to achieve through that. I am more than happy to explore that with her between now and stage 3 to see whether there is a way to address that issue and whether there is even a need for it to be addressed. However, I think that, as the amendment stands at the present moment, the language and also the way in which the draft do not fill anything additional to the bill and do not sit well with the terms that are presently used within the bill. John Lennon, please to wind up on amendment 150A. I certainly—there is not any way meant to be disparaging about the federated ranks. This was about the importance that was being attached to treating a young person in this way. In practical terms—in the area that I represent—it just means phoning someone. It is going to be a phone call, because there is not going to be an inspector on in the vast majority of places. I am sure that you are not wishing to give the impression—I say again, cabinet secretary—that a superintendent is not instantly available to answer a phone to deal with the many challenges that modern police service has to face without routine office hours, not that that is how the service works. In practical implications, I think that you show the significance of taking a decision to detain a child by having it done at that rank, and I maintain that. The question is amendment 150A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. It is four in favour, five against, and no abstentions, that amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 150A. Ysgolwyddon yn y mwyfyrdd y cyfnod, mewn uddiwch, 1.54, 1.55, 5.48, 1.56, 1.57, 1.60, 2.16.4, yn cy defnyddio hyn簿 dyl iawn ify invent, 1.55 ygroddi i fynd i gaelianethwyr 401, oedd wrth pleiddiol Cymru yn allu'r hyffordd, yn festu'r ddau nhw o ffynolledd i fynd yn gweithio'r ddau. Ysgolwyddon yn y grwp o aelodau aelodau aelodau o'r ddau. L 게fnod o ddau nesaf, mewn addysgu gwir o'r fre trulyf, Under chapter 2 of part 1, investigative liberation is a new concept which will allow the police to release suspects on conditions who have not yet been officially accused of committing an offence. In contrast, the power to release on an undertaking in chapter 3 of the bill restates existing police powers to release suspects who have been officially accused. Those powers are used by the police under the oversight of Procurators Fiscal. This reflects the fact that once a suspect has been officially accused, the police initial investigation phase is complete and it is for the Procurator Fiscal to decide whether further inquiries are required and how to prosecute. The amendments in this group, which are in my name, add more detail to that process of liberation by the police. Section 19 of the bill deals with police powers to release suspects who have been officially accused. At present, it allows the police to release such persons with or without an undertaking. Amendment 153 provides that a person who has been arrested under a want cannot be liberated from police custody without being subject to an undertaking. Most persons arrested under want will require to remain in custody to appear at court. However, there are limited occasions when the police may wish to liberate a person who has been arrested under the terms of a court-issued warrant. These decisions are undertaken in consultation with the Procurator Fiscal. This amendment makes it clear that if liberation is desirable, the person must be liberated on an undertaking to appear at a specific, a specified court at a specified time and not simply liberated to be cited. Amendment 154 is a very minor amendment simply to emphasise on the face of the bill that conditions set by undertakings have a limited lifetime. Amendment 155 adds what is commonly known as standard conditions to be attached to an undertaking. Those currently exist in the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 and may mirror some of the conditions set on a person liberated from a court on bail. The conditions include that the person must not interfere with witnesses or evidence or behave in a manner that causes harm or distress to witnesses. The conditions are a useful feature of the present system and reiterate to the person signing and undertaking the standards of behaviour that are expected of them while liberated. This amendment states the standard conditions with more precision and at the same time retains the flexibility to impose any further conditions necessary and proportionate to ensure that those standard conditions are observed. Amendment 156 makes clear that the sort of undertaking conditions which can be imposed include requirements to be in a specific place at a specified time or to refrain from entering a specified place or type of place for a particular period. Those are curfew type conditions. The bill has introduced stated that curfews could be imposed as undertaking conditions. Amendment 156 simply rewards the non-curfew conditions as they can be applied in undertakings for consistency with the counterpart for investigative liberation as amended by amendment 143, debated earlier. Amendment 157 provides that undertaking conditions can generally be authorised by a constable of the rank of sergeant or above, but that curfew conditions require a suspect to be in a specified place at a specified time must be authorised by an officer of the rank of inspector or above. I consider that the arrangements for the management and governance of custody facilities coupled with the safeguards provided in the bill mean that it is appropriate for most undertaking conditions to be set by a custody sergeant. The arguments for allowing sergeants to set undertaking conditions are similar to those that I made for investigative liberation conditions although the context here is different. Once a person has been charged, the police need to consider whether it is necessary to keep that person in custody until they can be brought before a court under section 18 of the bill or whether they can be released either with or without an undertaking. That assessment of release options should be made by a specialist custody officer in consultation with the senior investigating officer and in accordance with the Lord Advocate guidelines on liberation by the police. This process will not ensure that any special conditions are tailored to the particular case but that the final decision on what is proportionate and necessary will be made by an officer with the right knowledge and expertise in dealing with custody matters. The bill already allows a specialist custody sergeant to decide to keep a person in custody or to release them without undertaking. This amendment would allow that custody sergeant to release a person subject to undertaking conditions. The independence and increased professionalisation of custody division removes the need for decisions on liberation conditions to be taken at inspector level. The officer best plays to make decisions on whether a person should be released subject to undertaking conditions will in most cases be the sergeant in charge of the custody centre. I believe a high level of authorisation is justified when imposing curfew conditions. There may be cases where it is necessary and proportionate to impose a curfew on a suspect but it's important to recognise that this would place very significant restrictions on the suspect's liberty. My amendment 157 therefore requires curfew conditions to be authorised by an inspector. These provisions have to be flexible enough to cover the full spectrum of criminal offences but there is scope for the Lord Advocate and the police to set out in guidance more finely grained authorisation processes for undertaking conditions in different circumstances. I believe these are matters for the Lord Advocate and Police Scotland and it would be unnecessarily restrictive to set that detail on the face of the bill. I believe that these amendments reinforce the robust and comprehensive system for police liberation set out in the bill. Now come to amendment 160 to 164 also in my name. These amendments restructure the provisions already in the bill about the procreator fiscal's power to rescind or modify an undertaking and about the expiry of undertakings. Amendment 160, 161, 162 and 164 are primarily drafting improvements which clarify the powers of the procreator fiscal and restructure the provisions about the rescinding and expiry of undertakings to make them easier to navigate. Amendment 163 is more substantial. In addition to restating provisions about rescisions of undertakings it gives a new power to the police to arrest people who are reasonably suspected of being likely to breach an undertaking. This is based on an existing power the police have to arrest suspects in anticipation of their breaching bail conditions. It will ensure that people who are likely to breach an undertaking can be arrested in the same circumstances as people who are likely to breach bail conditions. That could be used if, for example, the police consider it likely that the person will interfere with witnesses. Actual breach of undertakings is already an offence in respect of which the person can be arrested. I now respond to Elaine Murray's amendment 48, which sets out the purposes against which the necessity and proportionality of conditions can be tested. It restricts these to securing that the person surrenders to custody if required to do so, that the person does not interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of the investigation into the offence in connection with which a person is in police custody. The protection of the person or of the person is under 18 years of age, the welfare or interests of the person. As I explained earlier, amendment 155 will provide more flexibility to prevent interference with witnesses and evidence and therefore I would ask Elaine Murray not to press her amendment. I believe that taking together the provisions on release on undertaking and amendments in my name provide clarity and help to balance the interests of justice with individuals' rights and I would invite the committee to support them and I move amendment 153. Thank you very much. Elaine Murray, please to speak to amendment 148. I'm hopeful. Can I just say, because I'm wearying a little, is I'm going to go on to the end of the grouping on release and undertaking the end of a five minute break if that's suitable for everybody else apart from me because I want a five minute break after that. Elaine Murray, please to speak to amendment 148 and other amendments in the group. As the cabinet secretary said, amendment 48 refers to standard conditions and is very similar to the cabinet secretary's amendment 155, which I agree is probably more flexible. I do believe, however, that the protection of the person or the welfare or interests of a person of under 18 are important enough to be on the face of the bill. Although I am prepared not to move 48, in fact 48 would be superseded by 155 anyway if 155 gets through. I'm happy to support 155, but I still believe that there may be a case for amendment at stage 3 to include the protection of the person and the best interest of somebody who's under 18. Any other members? Cabinet secretary, do you want to wind up? Other than to say that I'm more than happy to explore that further with Elaine Murray post stage 2 process and the 155 amendment, if agreed by the committee, has been placed into the bill. Question 1 is that amendment 153 be agreed to or we all agreed. Question 19 be agreed to or we all agreed. Call amendment 154 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated 153 to move formally. Question 154 be agreed to or we all agreed. Call amendment 155 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated 153. Can I remind members that if amendment 155 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 48, which will be preempted. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Question 155 be agreed to or we all agreed. Call amendments 156, 157 and 158 all in the name of the cabinet secretary in all previously debated. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move the amendments 156 to 158 on block? Does any member object to a single question to be put on amendments 156 to 158? Thank you. The question is that amendments 156 to 158 are agreed to or we all agreed. The question is that section 20 be agreed to or we all agreed. Call amendments 159, 161, 161 and 162 all in the name of the cabinet secretary in all previously debated. Invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question to put amendments 159 to 162? Can I? The question is that the section on block is agreed to or we all agreed. Call amendment, 16 and 158 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated 153. Can I? The question is that the amendment 163 be agreed to or we all agreed. Is any member object to a single question to put amendments 159 to 162, or we all agreed. Can I? Chwanes y byddiol 164 yn gynllun mwy yn dal. Ewan hear y byddiol 22 yn gynllun, ac mae'n ddod oes ar ddod. Mae'n ddiddordeb ym Mwneud g�osiddio i yw newidiad, sy'n ddelch i 5 mwneud. Os ydych chi'n mynd i gael Ym Cwrdd Ym 48, ddiddor John Finnight Mwneud yn cymdeithasol y byddiol 165 o 166? Mae ym gweithio i Ym 28 i gael Ym Mwneud y gynllun yn gweithio. Ym Mwneud ei ddechrau gylai gondol am ddatingol ym yngyrch. a oeddwn i fod yn iawn i gael i chi'n credu cystafell yn ei gwneud penderfyniadau ag dislodd. Rwy'rinysc yn ymwyfo'r gyniyl g Breeh Llywodraeth wedi'r mynd yn gweinig, mae'r cystafell yn amgueddwyr aialig i gael unig iawn i gael. Ond, mae'n gweithio'r gyda'r cystafell, wrth gael, ac mae hyn i'n eu cyflwytoedd gyda'u cyflwsaniadau fel bod gan defnyddio gyrfaen o bwrdd eich cyfrwyngau ond cyntafol o'r gwn, oedd gwybod siwr, i wneud yn trwy pethau'r ffordd, mae'r gimbod rai o heddiw gyfresgol unstable, yn gweithio ar y cyfresgol oherwydd rhywbeth, mae'n allu'u bwysig o bach yn bach. Rydyn ni'n angen eu angen amdanoeddau cael rhai o'r cyfresgol, ac rydw i, cael unrhyw y bydd i fel rai. Rhyw gweithio'r dda, maen nhw, rungi'n gweithio, maen nhw, darlodlus. iawn i ni'n gwybod yn dweud ar ein cyddiadau ac yn ei fod o'n ddyn nhw, fel aethwn gwyrd, ac yn ei bod yn ddyn nhw, yn cyffredinol, yn ddyn nhw. Mae'n dweud, dod yn oed ac mae'r cyddiadau i ni nhw yn ymgyrch. Mae'n ddyn sydd i'r cystadion, ac mae'n ddyn nhw rydych chi mewn. Mae ysgrifennu o dda chi i gwybod yn ddyn nhw, ac mae'n ddyn nhw yn gwybod i ni nhw, yn weithio'r cysgwrth gan ddyn nhw yn gyflosu. I do understand the reason for John Finnie's amendment, as set out in amendment 28. I'm sure we all agree that the intention behind these provisions in the bill are to ensure that anyone arrested or attending voluntarily at a police station is fully informed about their rights. The issue in respect of this amendment is whether it achieves that aim in a proportionate way. It could require the person to be interviewed, to be informed of their rights twice in the space of the hour prior to the interview. While fully supportive of the principle that individuals should fully understand their rights, I do not believe that it's necessary for them to be informed of them twice in such a short period of time. There are other safeguards of individual rights in the bill. A person must be told on arrest and on arrival at the police station that they are under no obligation to provide any information to replace other than their name, address, nationality and date in place of both. In addition to that, the letter of rights includes information about the right to remain silent and that any information will be recorded and may be given in evidence if the matter proceeds to trial. I therefore ask John Finnie not to press this amendment. I would hope that the Government's amendment in this grouping will also provide some further reassurance to John Finnie and also to the committee. We are fully supportive of the aim to ensure suspects and accused persons are regularly advised of their rights and relevant information. In this respect, amendment 165 adds to the information that a person must be told before they are interviewed. This amendment would require a police officer to also inform a suspect of the general nature of the offence that they are suspected of committing. This information is already given when a person is initially arrested under section 3 of the act, but for consistency, we consider it appropriate that this information is stated again prior to the interview. I consider that this is to be a particularly important change for suspects who attend a police station voluntarily, as such persons may not have been already given this information, but amendment 19165 will now ensure that they are. Amendment 166 enhances the protection of the persons who are to be interviewed under the post-charge questioning procedure. The pillar to allow the police to question and accuse about an offence after he or she has been charged with that offence was included in the bill, as recommended by Lord Callaway in his review. An application to carry out questioning after charge has to go before a court. Where the court grants such an application, it must specify the length of time for which questioning is permitted and can add other conditions to ensure that the questioning is not unfair, such as, for example, limiting the scope of the questioning. The amendment will ensure that a person being interviewed by the police in that situation will be told of the time limit for the questioning and of any other conditions imposed by the court. It is therefore an additional protection of the rights of the accused. As mentioned, I hope that those amendments will add to the information given to suspects that it is sufficient to satisfy members that amendment 28 is unnecessary. It is my intention to press this amendment that enjoys the support of the law society. It is a very modest provision. It is not to tell that it is under the section rights of suspects. It obliges a constable to not only caution on a person one hour before, but caution in advance. That is simply to reinforce that someone is not obliged to say anything. It is not an onerous task in its entirely proportion to support this amendment. I hope that people will. The question is that amendment 28, we agree to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Two, four, seven against. No abstention, as that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 165 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debate with amendment 28. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is amendment 165, we agree to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 166 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debate with amendment 28. To move formally. Moved. The question is amendment 166, we agree to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 23, we agree to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 29 in the name of John Finnie group with amendments 243 to 248, 250, 251 and 253. Can I point out that if amendment 29 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 243 and 244, which will be preempted. John Finnie, please, to move amendment 29 and speak the other amendments in the group. I formally move amendment 29, convener. As concur with the number of representations that I have received regarding the proposed threshold as outlined in section 24A and B, it is inappropriate. As presently worded, if the constable is satisfied that it is necessary to interview the person without delay in the interests of A, the investigation or the prevention of crime or B, the apprehension of offenders, that wording could and I would venture likely will be legitimately used to cover a huge percentage of instances. The amendment will ensure that the interview of a person without a solicit present would only take place in the most exceptional circumstances, again something that I would consider a fair and balanced approach. Alison, please, to speak to amendment 243 and other amendments in the group. Thank you. Both John Finnie and myself are concerned about the same things as we have taken a different tack to try and address it. All of my amendments in this group seek to strengthen the rules around a police's ability to interfere with fundamental rights of adult and child suspects. I am talking about the right to be assisted by a solicitor during an interview, the right to have a consultation with a solicitor, the right upright of adults to have an innovation sent to another person and the right of children to have access to their parent or guardian. Section 24 currently states that constables may in exceptional circumstances proceed to interview a person without having a solicitor present if a constable believes that it is necessary to proceed in the interests of investigating or preventing a crime or apprehending offenders. It grants them the right to override a suspect's request for legal assistance. Section 36 is drafted and also establishes that constables may delay a person's right to a private consultation with a solicitor on the same basis. I firmly believe that the phrase, the prevention or detection of crime and apprehension of offenders is far too broad a basis on which to deny someone their right to be assisted by a solicitor, and that is why my amendments 243, 244, 245, 250, 251 and 253 switch the whole thing to a kind of interference-based definition of the need, which stresses that the restriction of these rights must be to prevent interference with evidence or another person, and they also elevate these decisions from constable to superintendent level. Members will note, and the convener has already indicated that my amendments 243 and 244 are preempted by amendment 29 in the name of my colleague John Dfinney. His amendment is contrasted to mine. He would allow constables to proceed to interview a person without a solicitor in exceptional circumstances and does not seek to specify what those might be, nor does it raise the sign-off ranks. In my opinion, still grants the police too much leeway, though it is obviously better than what is already in the bill. The bill is drafted to suggest that the denial of these fundamental rights could become routine, and my amendments highlight the significance of these decisions and would ensure that there are proper safeguards in place to discourage the powers being misused. I agree that there is a need for the police not to routinely abuse their powers. I do not believe that the bill, as it is written, actually encourages that, because it does not make it quite clear that it is in exceptional circumstances. Obviously, things such as the prevention of crime are important circumstances may be necessary to act very quickly. Similarly to Alison MacKinnon's amendments, I do not disagree with what she is saying about the interference and connection with the offence and so on, but I think that those to certain extent are encompassing them. There might be an argument for expanding it at stage 3 to include some of these. I am not very sure, but on stage 2, 4 and 5, on the appropriate constable being a superintendent who has not been involved in the investigation of the offence, I do not see how somebody who has not been involved in the investigation of the offence can make the judgment whether or not the exceptional cases have actually arisen, so I would tend to resist that amendment also. I do not really have much to add beyond what Elaine MacKinnon has said, but I support that. The amendments in this group relate to authorisation for interviewing suspects without a solicitor present, delaying intimation of the fact that someone is in custody or delaying consultation with solicitors. I appreciate the intention behind the amendments to protect suspects. That is a key purpose of part 1 of the bill, which aims to strike the right balance between protecting the rights of suspects and ensuring the effectiveness of investigation of a crime. In order to do this, chapter 4 and 5 of part 1 can fair crucial rights on suspects, ensuring the right to have a solicitor present during interview, the right to have someone else informed that they are in custody and the right to a private consultation with a solicitor at any time. There will be exceptional circumstances in which these rights cannot be delivered, but we should set a high bar before this can happen. Amendment 229 and 244 would amend section 244, which deals with circumstances in which a person could be interviewed without a solicitor. Section 244 only permits such an interview in exceptional circumstances and does not define those circumstances. This reflects the recommendation in the Callaway report that interviewing a suspect without a solicitor against the suspect's wishes should only be possible in exceptional circumstances. Lord Callaway recommended that the exceptional circumstances should not be defined because case law has made it clear that it means in very rare cases, for example, where an immediate interview is required in order to protect persons or property from serious harm. Section 244 also includes an additional test so that, before proceeding to an interview where there are exceptional circumstances, police must also be satisfied that it is necessary to interview without delay in the interests of investigating or preventing crime or apprehending offenders. John Finnie's amendment 29 would remove that additional test of necessity. In doing so, it would remove protections for suspects and reduce transparency in decision making, although I do appreciate that this probably was not the intention of the amendment. Alison McKinnon's amendment 244 would leave the exceptional circumstances element of the test in place but would narrow the perimeters of the necessity test. The effect of that would be, for example, to prevent the police deciding that it was necessary to interview in exceptional circumstances where there was an additional suspect on the run. Amendment 251 substitutes the same narrow test into section 362, which deals with circumstances in which a suspect exercises of their right to a private consultation with a slister could be delayed. Amendments 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250 and 253 all seek to require that decision to interview without a slister or to delay intimation or consultation are made by constables of senior rank. The assumption underlying these amendments seems to be that requiring particular decisions to be made by very senior officers is necessary to ensure good decision making. All constables go through professional training throughout their career to ensure that they are fully able to carry out whatever role they have to undertake. All custody facilities across Scotland now come under the command of the custody division and there is a corporate approach to dealing with people in custody with a national standard operating procedure and training for all officers who work in those facilities. The committee agreed last week that sergeants should make the initial decision to keep people in custody. It would be during this initial authorisation process that any request would be made to delay notification to slisters or named persons and potentially to interview without a slister being present. The person who makes that initial custody decision would be best placed to consider these other rights-based decisions. The decisions covered by this set of amendments relate to rights afforded to people held in custody. I believe they are best made by specialist custody officers within custody division as at present. The decisions affected by this set of amendments may also need to be made in exceptional circumstances where time is of the essence. One example might be a kidnapped scenario. Requiring authorisation from a superintendent before interviewing a suspect could endanger life by creating delay in a situation where time is critical. There are a relatively small number of the superintendents in Scotland and while there will be always be a superintendent on call, that superintendent may not instantly be available to make such a decision. I appreciate that we are talking about very important decisions to be told or delay the delivery of crucial rights to suspects. The bill already sets high tests to ensure that these powers can only be used when absolutely necessary. However, I have also listened to the arguments put forward by Alison McInnes and I agree that authorisation by a police constable may not be appropriate in all cases. Therefore, I would urge John Finnie and Alison McInnes not to press his amendments and I wonder to consider the matter further and to bring forward amendments at stage 3 to ensure that these decisions are made by constables of the most appropriate rank. I don't know if that's the body language from John Finnie was. He was not persuaded. I don't know whether that's done it. John, to wind up, please. Well, I'm grateful for the cabinet secretary for his comments. He says that it's not defined what exceptional circumstances are, but, likewise, he quite rightly alludes to Lord Carlawy's recommendations in the reference to case law there, where there's ample—I suppose this is the challenge where you're trying to make a statute and have reference to case law and not have it volumous every time. There's no definition, likewise, of what a constable's satisfaction is or what constitutes necessity in regard to the interview of a person, but I acknowledge that you've seen that there are issues around this, and I'm happy to wait to see what you can come back with at stage 3. I won't press if they're— No, you won't press. I would seek permission to withdraw, then. John wishes to withdraw. Are you agreed? A call amendment—I'm going to amendment 243. A call amendment 243, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already to amendment 29. Alison, move or not, move. I will move this one. I understand that the cabinet secretary has asked me not to move 245. The question is amendment 245—we're all getting a bit of battle with you here. I can hear it in your voice. The question is amendment 243, we agreed to it. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Oxygen, please, for everybody. Those against, please show. 247 against that—no, no abstention—that amendment is not agreed to. A call amendment 244, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already debated with amendment 29, move or not, move. The question is amendment 244, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If you're not agreed, there'll be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That's 247 against no abstention, that amendment is not agreed to. A call amendment 245, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already debated with amendment 29, move or not, move. Not moved. The question is section 24, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 55, in the name of Elaine Murray, group with other amendments as shown on the groupings. I'll take a deep breath here because I point out that there are various pre-emptions in this group as a result of which, and you'll be tested on this immediately after I've read it out. If amendment 58 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 168. If amendment 63 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 184 and 185. If, in the group, rights of under 18's minor amendments of amendment 38 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 32. Now, you all took that in, I take it, yes, by looking your faces. Elaine, please, to move amendment 55 and speak to the other amendments in the group. I'll try and get through this as quickly as possible because there are several amendments in this section. My amendments aim to afford the same protection to 16 and 17-year-old children as the bill does to children under the age of 16. My amendments 55 and 56 apply to section 25, the ability to consent to interview without a solicitor present. This bill treats older children aged 16 and 17 differently to those under 16, despite a child being defined in much of the legislation that we've passed as somebody under the age of 18, such as the Victim Witnesses Act, the Children and Young People Act and the Human Trafficking Act, which we passed last week. We know that young people who have contact with the criminal justice system are often very vulnerable in different ways. Many young offenders have poor literacy and numeracy skills, some may have chaotic home lives. Recent research by the British Psychological Society indicates that many have neurological conditions or acquired brain injury and some will have taken substances either legal or illegal, which render them less risk averse than normal. Apart from that, a young person under arrest with the prospect of an interview by the police may be frightened, worried that their parents, school or employers are going to find out and distressed. That in itself could lead to panic rather than rational behaviour. Access to come informed legal advice from a solicitor is particularly necessary when a young person is vulnerable or not thinking clearly. My amendments 55 and 56 would protect older children aged 16 and 17 from making the wrong decisions to consent to an interview without a solicitor being present by ensuring that no one under the age of 18 can give such consent. They are compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that children who are accused of breaking the law have the right to legal help and fair treatment. In addition, amendments 57 and 58 remove children under 18 from the provisions excluding people who appear to constable to have a mental disorder or who cannot communicate effectively with the place or understand what is happening from consenting to an interview without a solicitor. Those provisions are not necessary if 55 and 56 are passed. Amendments 167 and 168 are inadequate, in my view, offering additional protection only to young people aged 16 and 17 who are on a compulsory supervision order. The vast majority of children on CSOs are under the age of 16, and the number who will be protected by those amendments is very small. I agree that young people need protection, but they will receive it if my amendments pass. Amendments 59 and 60 to section 30 are similar and will ensure that all children under the age of 18, rather than 16, have the right to an intimation sent to another person that they are in custody. The child's parent, or another adult named by the child, will receive intimation as quickly as practical. The arguments for these amendments regarding the vulnerability of under-18s are the same as those of 55 and 56, and an appropriate adult should be aware that a child has been taken into custody. Amendment 61 prevents 16 and 17-year-olds from requesting that no intimation be sent to their parent or other named adult. Exactly the same arguments can be made regarding the varied vulnerabilities of older children, as for amendments 55 and 56. Those amendments would ensure that compatibility with the rest of the bill and with recent legislation, as stated previously. Amendment 62 gives a parent or other adult who has been sent into mediation that a child under 18 is in police custody, the right of access to the child, changing the age to which that right is applied from 16 to 18. Amendment 63 removes subsection 2, referring to 16 and 17-year-olds, as that section will not be necessary if 62 is passed. Amendment 64 is consequential to 63. Amendment 38, in the name of John Pendland, removes any reference to the age in the section on support for vulnerable persons. All persons who have equal rights to support should, consensibly, believe them to be suffering from mental disorder, though that condition would be removed by John Finnie's amendments, which incidentally we also support, or if that person is unable to sufficiently communicate with the police. Amendment 32 is an alternative to changing the age of 18 in that subsection to 16. That is a backup in case my other amendments and John Pendland's amendment 38 are not passed and would provide vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds with support. I move amendment 55. Thank you very much. You have actually spoken to amendment 38. Yes, I have. I do not need to talk much about that. Cabinet Secretary, to speak to amendment 167, please, and other amendments in the group. Convener, within Scots law, there are a number of definitions of a child, and those are put in place for different purposes. Under the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, a child generally means a person who has not attained age of 18. However, under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 and the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, a child generally means a person who is under 16, extending that definition to 16 and 17-year-olds subject to a compulsory supervision order. The bill defines a child as being a person who is under the age of 18 years for the purposes of arrest, detention and questioning. In everyone of any age has the right of access to a slister in the context of this part of the bill. However, the bill reflects the self-evident fact that 16 and 17-year-olds do have greater capacity, maturity and autonomy than younger children, and it is common reflected in other rights and responsibilities. Age-based laws, which allow for 17-year-olds to live independently, vote, work and marry reflect the extent of self-determination that can exist at 16 years of age and beyond. With that greater right of self-determination should come the right for older young people to have a bigger say in the major issues and incidents in their life. The bill seeks to respect, reflect and act on young people's individual views in a meaningful yet responsible way. Currently, the bill provides that a child under 16 cannot consent to an interview without a slister being present. The bill further provides that everyone aged 16 to 17 can decide to be interviewed without a slister, but there is a safeguard. In order to do so, they must have the agreement of a relevant person. While I sympathise with underlying tension, the effect of Elaine Murray's amendment 55 to 58 will be to remove the right of any 16 or 17-year-old to consent to be interviewed without a slister. The Scottish Government prefers an approach which would allow young people aged 16 and up to make their own decision with safeguards in place to support them in this. This is consistent with Lord Calaway's recommendations and takes account of article 12 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, the right to an opinion, and for that to be listened to and taken seriously. Crucially, the effect of Elaine Murray's amendment would not oblige these young people to take on a slister. While these young people couldn't be lawfully interviewed, they can still be charged, released or released on investigative liberation. On balance, it's preferable to allow for the greater level of self-determination of 16 and 17-year-olds while also providing additional protection for those subject to compulsory supervision. I can assure committee that we plan to have further dialogue with partners, including children's organisations, in respect of these issues ahead of stage 3. The wider needs of 16 and 17-year-olds who may be vulnerable but not subject to compulsory supervision will also have to be reflected in guidance, practice requirements and fully implemented on the ground. I would ask then that Elaine Murray not press her amendments 55 to 58. We also take seriously the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds are more mature than others. After further discussions with Police Scotland and the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration, we are persuaded that amendments are required to improve protections afforded to 16 and 17-year-olds in custody who are perhaps more vulnerable. I therefore lodged amendments 167 and 168, which relate to young persons aged 16 and 17 years of age, who are subject to compulsory supervision order under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011. Our amendments provide that the bill should specifically set out that all children who are subject to such orders and specifically those aged 16 and 17 years of age should be treated in the same way as those aged under 16 years of age. Most significantly, this will remove their right to waive access to a sluster. The Scottish Government amendments are a positive and proportionate change. I believe that they strike an appropriate balance between respecting individual autonomy and affording protection to the most vulnerable youngsters. Section 30 of the bill sets out the rights of a person in police custody to have another person told that they are in custody. Section 32 sets out the rights of under-18s in custody to access the person sent intimation under section 30. The bill, as introduced, did not allow a 16 or 17-year-old to notify a responsible person that they were in police custody without requiring that person to be asked to come to where the young person was being held. Amendment 173 allows young people to intimate without requiring the relevant adult to attend at the police office. I recognise and acknowledge Elaine Murray's amendment 59 to 64, which also seeks to deliver a raising of the relevant age, but this at time in section 30 and 32 to include at all those under age 18. As I have already mentioned, I do not believe that such a blanket approach is appropriate when dealing with 16 and 17-year-olds. I would ask Elaine Murray to consider the package of Government amendments which I have brought forward. I would ask her not to press amendment 59 to 64. Amendment 38 and 32, in the name of John Pentland and Elaine Murray respectively, both relate to the age at which the vulnerable person provisions in section 33 apply. Section 33 places a duty on the police to seek support for vulnerable adult suspects who, as a result of mental disorder, are unable to understand what is happening or to communicate effectively with the police. That is intended to reflect Lord Callum's recommendations in relation to vulnerable adult suspects. As he defined a child as under age 18, it followed that adults should be those aged 18 or over, which is the approach that this section currently takes. In the written evidence, however, the Scottish Appropriate Adult Network, Police Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health, suggested that the definition of vulnerable person should be expanded to include 16 and 17-year-olds. They note that this would reflect current practice, whereby appropriate adult provision to support vulnerable suspects aged 16 and over. The Bill already makes important distinctions between those aged 16 years of age and those aged 16 and 17 years of age. On reflection, therefore, I am now persuaded that the Bill should provide an additional safeguard by including vulnerable children suspects aged 16 and 17 in the vulnerable person's provision at section 33. Amendment 32, in the name of Elaine Murray, achieves this and I'm happy to support it. However, I am unable to support amendment 38 in the name of John Pentland. This amendment would remove the age criteria from section 33 entirely, resulting in support being sought in relation to children younger than 16. While I completely understand the desire to ensure support for all vulnerable persons in custody, section 33 is aimed specifically at those vulnerable adult suspects who are currently supported by appropriate adults and to put this support on a statutory basis. Those support arrangements are simply not designed to cater for the specific needs of children, needs which are met through other means. The Bill strengthens support for children and young people with a range of provisions in relation to intimation, access and support. For example, children under 16 would apply, would always have support from a relevant person and a slister, even in cases where they do not have particular communication difficulties. There are also protections for 16 and 17 year olds, some of which are specific to children subject to compulsory supervision. Given that the particular support needs of children are addressed elsewhere, I consider that the focus on section 33 should remain on those aged over 16. I would ask Elaine Murray to consider an oppressing amendment 38 in John Pentland's name. The cabinet secretary makes a very strong case. He refers to 16 and 17 year olds being more mature and makes reference to both the Children's Hearing Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. I welcome his amendment that looks at vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds. I think that that strikes the right balance, as does Elaine Murray's amendment 32. First of all, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for accepting amendment 32. However, he has not persuaded me that my other earlier amendments are not necessary. As I said, other legislation such as the Victim and Witnesses Act and the Human Trafficking Act recognise the vulnerability of people under the age of 18. Although we have age-based laws, I would point out that maturity is not necessarily the same as age, so somebody of age 14 could be more mature than somebody aged 17 in terms of their life experience and so on. I still remain of the opinion that children under 18 who are being interviewed by the police will be vulnerable for a variety of reasons, not least the circumstances in which they find themselves in. Children who come to the attention of the criminal justice system are often vulnerable in a number of ways that are not absolutely obvious on first inspection, so I will press my amendment 55. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour, please show. Those against please show. Four in favour, five against. No obstentious, that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 56, name of Elaine Murray, already agreed to amendment 55. Move or not move? Yes, moved. Yes or forward? No, move, sorry. Yes, I am not moving. Yes, I am moving. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. I will not hear you. We are not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Four, four, five against. No obstentious, that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 167, the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to debate on amendment 55. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment... Sorry? The question is that amendment 167 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 57, the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendment 55. Move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 30, the name of John Finnie Group, with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Can I point out, because I know he'll love pre-emptions, that if amendment 31 is agreed to, I can't call amendment 169, and if amendment 34 is agreed to, I can't call amendment 190. John, please, to move amendment 30 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This is in the section police interview consent interview without a solicitor, and this amendment, I propose, removes the mental disorder requirement when it appears to constable that a person over 16 years of age is unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or communicate effectively with the police for the purposes of that person not being entitled to waive their rights to be interviewed without having a solicitor present. The law society and others believe that it's difficult for a police officer to assess whether a person is suffering from mental disorder, and indeed it's a challenge for many people, so the support of a solicitor should not be restricted as it is presently. Indeed, anyone unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or unable to communicate effectively with the police should not be interviewed without a solicitor present. I move the amendment. Thank you, John. Cabinet Secretary, please, to speak to amendment 169, other amendments in the group. At stage 1 report, the Justice Committee highlighted concerns that the definition of vulnerable person in the bill may not capture all those needing additional support when in custody, and asked that the Scottish Government give further consideration to that. In particular concerns raised during stage 1 was about the use of the term mental disorder as part of the definition of a vulnerable person in section 25 and 33 of the bill. There were suggestions that this term should be removed and that the only criteria for identifying a vulnerable person in custody should be that they are unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or to communicate effectively with the police. Amendments 30, 31, 33 and 34, in the name of John Finnie, seek to do this. While I can appreciate those concerns and the desire to ensure that all those who require support to communicate with the police receive it, it's worth revisiting the intention behind sections 25 and 33, an underlying recommendation by Lord Calaway. When discussing the support needs of vulnerable suspects, Lord Calaway's report noted that individuals who are intoxicated through alcohol consumption or drug use or who are experiencing short-term illness may be unable to communicate effectively, but that such difficulties will be cured through the passage of time. It also noted that some individuals may not be able to understand what is happening as a result of language or hearing difficulties, but that this could be resolved through the use of an interpreter or by other means. A deliberate and crucial distinction was made between these scenarios and cases where an individual has a permanent or semi-permanent condition, which results in them being particularly vulnerable and requiring additional support to ensure that they understand what is happening and can communicate with the police. It is at those cases that the relevant provisions in sections 25 and 33 are aimed. That is why, as part of the definition of a vulnerable person, the term mental disorder was used. This term encompasses mental illness, personality disorder and learning disabilities, and reflects the current basis on which support for appropriate adult services is offered. The police already have considerable experience in identifying those at risk and arranging for support where necessary. Equally, they have experience in dealing with those who, for reasons that I have mentioned, may be experiencing communication difficulties of a more temporary nature. In the reference to mental disorder, if the reference to mental disorder is removed, the requirements of section 25 and 33 would apply in relation to those who are temporarily intoxicated or who simply require an interpreter or other assistance. This would result in communication support being sought where it is simply not required, with potential significant practical and financial implications for current providers of appropriate adult services. It may also have an impact on the legal profession as a result of an increase in the number of adults unable to consent to be interviewed without a solicitor present. I consider that a requirement that communication difficulties be linked to permanent or semi-permint conditions is vital in order to identify those who genuinely require the support and protection offered by sections 25 and 33. For that reason, I am not persuaded that the term mental disorder should be removed. However, for the reasons mentioned by John Finnie and others at stage 1, we do intend to keep these provisions under review as part of wider, on-going work examining the remit and provision of appropriate adults. The criteria for support under section 33 can be changed by subordinate legislation if that is considered desirable in the future. On that basis, I would ask John Finnie to consider withdrawing amendment 30 and not to move amendments 30, 1, 33 and 34. My amendments 169 and 190 make minor changes to the definition of mental disorder in section 25 and 33. This term is currently defined by reference to section 3281 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003. However, subsection 2 of this section contains further context to the definition, in particular setting out characteristics which do not of themselves signify mental disorder. In order to ensure consistency with the Mental Health Act, I think it is desirable to make reference to the definition of mental disorder in its entirety. Amendment 189 is a minor technical amendment to ensure stylistic consistency between sections 252b and 331c, which are worded in similar terms. Amendment 191 and 220 relate to regulation-making powers in section 34 of the bill. Removing that section from the bill and replicating it after section 53 with a number of changes. At present, the powers in section 34 allow Scottish ministers to amend parts of the definition of a vulnerable person in section 33, which currently provides that such persons are those who are unable to understand or communicate effectively as a result of a mental disorder. Section 252b, which describes persons who may not consent to being interviewed without having a slister present, also uses this definition but without any means of altering this by subordinate legislation. I consider that such a power should be added to ensure any changes made to section 33 can, if appropriate, be replicated at section 25. I also consider it prudent to further extend this regulation-making power to allow Scottish ministers to amend the definition relating to mental disorder and the police at sections 256 and 335, as those terms are also used in sections 252b and 331c, which themselves can be amended by regulation, so consequential changes may be required if those powers are ever used. Amendment 249, in the name of Alison McInnes, relates to concerns raised at stage 1, including in the committee's report that although section 33 places a duty on the police to request support, it does not identify where responsibility for ensuring the availability and adequate provision or suitably trained persons lies. The committee will also be aware that, more recently, Lord Bonomy recommended that the bill should identify a body with responsibility for ensuring the adequate provision of appropriate adult services. Amendment 249 seeks to place such a duty on local authorities, which currently provides such services. When the bill was introduced, it was considered that the appropriate adult system was working well and that a like-touch approach should be adopted, essentially placing the referral process on a statutory basis but going no further. However, further evidence, including that submitted at stage 1, has persuaded me that the current model of appropriate adult service is not suitable over the longer term. Concerns have been raised around the accessibility, consistency of service provision, the exact remit of appropriate adults and the funding of this service, all of which warrant further consideration. Therefore, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment and I agree that action is required. However, if we are to ensure that an effective and sustainable appropriate adult service is in place, it is absolutely vital that we get the model right. To that end, we are currently leading work with local authorities, the health service, Police Scotland and the Mental Welfare Commission and other interested parties to identify the best way to provide a sustainable service taken into account and consideration Lord Bornymi's recommendations. Workshops have been undertaken this year with key interests at a national and at a local level, and this has informed the development of potential service delivery options. We recently sought comment on these options, including from those who currently deliver the services on the ground. Over the coming weeks and months, a more detailed analysis, including consideration of financial implications, will also be undertaken. For that reason, while I am sympathetic to the issue raised by the committee and others, it is important not to allocate responsibility for the appropriate adult service without completing the work that is currently underway and reaching a consensus with those who currently deliver and use the service. I expect to be in a position by stage 3 of the bill to set out our preferred approach for the sustainable delivery of appropriate adult services across Scotland. On that basis, I ask Alison McInnes not to consider not pressing her amendment today. Thank you. Alison, that is your cue to speak to amendment 249 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. As we have just heard, Lord Bornymi's post-corroboration safeguards review recommended that the bill be amended to identify a body or an organisation with the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of persons with appropriate skills and qualifications to provide support for vulnerable people in custody. He said that it was a vital safeguard for the vulnerable suspect, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's recognition of the need for that. My amendment 249 is supported by the Law Society, and it is intended to give effect to that recommendation by proposing that we specifically enlist local authorities to provide that support. As we know that the provision is patchy, there is little co-ordination, and we do not know where to turn to to necessarily get it. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary's response. It was without a probing amendment, and I think that it has done its job. If, by stage 3, we can have some sort of answer as to the way forward, I will be more than happy. I will leave it at that. Anyone else wish to speak? Delane? Briefly, on John Finnie's amendment 30, I do not quite follow the cabinet secretary's argument on that. At the moment, it is only if a person has a mental disorder. I do not like the term mental disorder. I appreciate that it is defined in statute, but it is a slightly derogatory term for people who have mental health issues or learning difficulties, but I know that it is in law. The only reason that a constable could decide that a person could not be interviewed without a solicitor was because they did not understand what was happening or communicated effectively because they had a mental disorder. Now, there are other circumstances when somebody might not be able to do that. That does not mean that somebody was drunk or under the influence of drugs. Somebody might not be able to speak English very well and therefore have difficulty in communicating particularly under those stressful circumstances. I am still quite, if John wishes, to press his amendment. I am quite entitled and inclined to continue to support it. John Finnie? I know what the cabinet secretary said about subsequent subordinate legislation. It is important that we keep all legislation under revision. However, with specific regard to that, the problems are well known and they are absolutely well documented. Can I say that the police deal with the responsible animals? Certainly, on the basis of my case load, a number of cases that I have dealt with, they deal with it very well. The cabinet secretary talked about additional support to communicate. I hope that we want informed decision making so that that will legitimise information that is obtained. There is ample case load to say that information that is obtained under GRS is inadmissible. I go back to the word in there. Anyone unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or unable to communicate effectively with the police should not be interviewed without having a solicitor present. It just seems fundamental. I will press the amendment. Thank you. There to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour please show. Those against please show. We have an abstention so it is four in favour, four against and an abstention. Oh yeah, so it does. I cast my vote against that amendment so there we are. It is not agreed to but I hear what the cabinet secretary has to say and I hope there is developments in that area to John Finnie. Amendment 58, in the name of Elaine Murray, already agreed with amendment 55. Can I remind members if amendment 58 is agreed to? I cannot call amendment 168. It is preempted. Move or not, move Elaine. Not moved. Amendment 168, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already agreed with amendment 55 to move formally cabinet secretary. Question is amendment 168. We agree to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 31, in the name of John Finnie, already agreed with amendment 30. Can I remind members that if amendment 31 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 169 which will be preempted. Move or not, move. Amendment 169, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already agreed with amendment 30. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Question is amendment 169, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Question is section 25, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Question is section 26 to 29, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 59, in the name of Elaine Murray, already agreed with amendment 55. Move or not, move. The question is, amendment 59, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. If we are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. It's 445 against no abstention that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 60, in the name of Elaine Murray, already agreed with amendment 55. Move or not, move. Move. The question is, amendment 60, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There will be a division. It's not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Your hand was still in the air. I didn't know where you were going with it. It was still in the air. Right, so that's... Can we do that again, please, just to make it clear? Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. 4 in favour, 5 against, no abstention that is not agreed to. Call amendment 246, in the name of Alison MacKinnon, already agreed with amendment 29. Move or not, move. The question is, amendment 246, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I think that's a classic question. If you are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That's 3, 4, 8 against, no abstentions. That's a big apart. No, I know, I know, I'm just getting weary. That's 3, 4, 6 against, no abstentions. That amendment is not agreed to. It keeps you awake if I make mistakes. It just all yell at me. Call amendment 170, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already agreed with amendment 120. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Move. The question is amendment 170, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 171, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already agreed to. 120, Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Move. The question is amendment 171, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are? Yes. Go ahead. The question is, Call amendment 247, in the name of Alison MacKinnon, already agreed with amendment 29. Move or not, move. Not moved. Call amendment 172, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, group with amendments 174, 175, 177, 178, 179 and 182 to 187. Can I remind members that amendments 184 and 185 in this group are preempted by amendments 63, already debated in a previous group? Cabinet Secretary, please, to move amendment 172 and speak the other amendments in the group. Those are minor amendments in relation to under-18s, which follow from the earlier consideration that the committee has given to the two groups on social work involvement in relation to under-18s in police custody and rights of under-18s with reference to consent to interview without solicitor present, sending of intimation and access to other persons and other support. Those amendments complement and give effect to the provisions in the bill for the protection of child suspects while in police custody. Amendment 172 is a minor technical amendment, which clarifies that the person being referred to at section 30 is the person in custody. The effect of amendments 174, 175, 177, 179 as well as being minor amendments as part of the group on social work involvement in relation to under-18s, is to add to the circumstances where alternative arrangements to contacting the person requested may apply. Those are where it is not practical for the police to contact the person that they have been asked to contact, where the person contacted refuses to attend, or where the local authority advises against contacting the person that the police do not have to contact that person or continue to try to contact that person as may be the case. That case, intimation must be sent by the police to an appropriate person, as defined by section 315. Minor amendments in his group on social work involvement in relation to under-18s in particular amendments 176, 180 and 181 are associated with this. Section 30 of the bill sets out the rights of a person in police custody to have another person told that they are in custody. Section 32 sets out the rights of under-18s in custody to access a person sent intimation under section 30. It is possible that more than one person might be sent intimation under section 30. In that event, amendment 182 to 184 and 186 to 187 make clear that the police must give only one person so that intimation access to the child's suspect at a time through, though they may, in their discussion, give access to more than one at a time. This approach strikes the appropriate balance between facilitating support and not being unduly burdensome on police to manage the matter. Amendment 185 provides that the issue of whether the person contacted can attend at the person in custody in a reasonable time does not prevent the person being contacted by the police. I ask the committee to support those amendments, and I move amendment 172. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to come? Cabinet Secretary, I take you no one to wind up. Questions at amendment 172 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Questions at section 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendments 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 177, 178, all naming the Cabinet Secretary in all previous debate, and I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? There are no objections. The questions at amendments 173 to 178 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendments 61, the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendments 55, move or not move. The questions at amendments 61 be agreed to, are we all agreed? There are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. It's 4, 4, 5 against no abstentions that the amendment is not agreed to. Call of amendments 179, 180 and 181, all naming the Cabinet Secretary in all previous debate, and I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move amendments 179 to 181 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? The questions at amendments 179 to 181 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Questions at section 31 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendments 62, the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendments 55, move or not move. The questions at amendments 62 be agreed to, are we all agreed? There will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. 4, 4, 5 against no abstentions that the amendment is not agreed to. Call of amendment 182, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with 172, to move formally please. The questions at amendment 182 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 183, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with 172, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The questions at amendment 183 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 63, in the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendment 55. I remind members that, if amendment 63 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 184 and 185, which will be pre-empted. Elaine Murray, move or not moved. Call of amendment 184, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 172, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The questions at amendment 184 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 185, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 172, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The questions at amser cymdeithasol a bod yn tyfnio'r awl, yn rwyf. Yr angrifennid ym Y 58 yn amser cymdeithasol. Yn yw'r angrifennid ym 148 i mewn i'r angrifennid ym 149 i mewn i'r angrifennid ym 149 i mewn i'r angrifennid ym 149 a of Alison McInnes, who has already made her amendment 29. Alison, move or not, move? Not moved. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Move. y byddwch fod yn ymlaen. Mae cymryd aethodol, maen nhw'n fhorffod gyda y byddwch a gael eu cyfryd, a phwy o'ch tympydd sydd wedi ymlaen. Rhyn i'n credu lle, nid i'n credu lai arbennwyd. Pwy o'ch tympydd yr un o'n credu lle. Y byddwch yn ynny i'n credu lle. Mae'r cymryd yn ymlaen, maen nhw'n credu lle. Pwy o'ch tympydd yr un o'n credu lle? Mae'r cymryd yn y byddwch yn ni arbennwyd. Mae'r cymryd yn ni arbennwyd yn y bêl. Saeth雪fnaeth, mae'n adeiladau i gael yn ei aa yn maith i ddaach. Gweld hynny yn ymwinech ddweud â'r drwy Ilion – ddweud hynny yn yr ymwyfyr, ddweud ymwinech drwy Elen. Yn yr ymwyfyr, ddweud ymwinech ar W189 – ddweud ydw i'r desmar yw ymwyfyr. Felly gwnewid i'r syniad wedi ymwyfyr? Rydym yn ymwyfyr. Yn ymwyfyr, ddweud yr ymwinech drwy Elen yn yr ymwinech drwy Elen. oedd yn iddynt i fy mwyfyrdd hynny, yn ddechrau, mwyfyrdd plants, yn roedwn i fynd i fy mwyfyrdd Ieithiol wrth yr aeth wedi eu call, amnynt i fy mwyfyrdd. Nae, mwyfyrdd. Cymru. Ac Fynau am mwyfyrdd? Mae ni'n ddim yn bwysig. Mae gweithio i fy mwyfyrdd hwn. Mae, cwrin. Mae, yr i fy mwyfyrdd hwn. Mae, mae, mae yn gweld. Mae, mae, mae, mae. Mae, mae, mae, mae, mae hynny i fy mwyfyrdd, aeth iawn i fy mwyfyrdd. amendment 190, ar r diferentes afweld wych olygofnydd y cydeithfish, ac ystafell yn canuach ynghylchai, traddwl dd repent ganエri modd, aktiwch eich meddwl. amendment 190, ar go가ethau ddiwedd Oeta i'r wych o du'r rheunion Downloads. amendment 230, Fy taw audio sydd yn ochr sydd ati'r doednt o ddent yfafdd yma,rosoft amendment 249 yw valistonmacinus ar fpsd y vedd y meddwl Cydebeth 39, r féin ryech o, Head street Theft amendment 190,ere bydd wedi youlav Metdletlydd Yn roz impossible Os yw'r awgrffod amser ond yw'r ddweud yma. Mae'n wneud o'r iawn a'r awgrffod os ydych chi'n ceisio'n cael mblyneddau'r FF180. Mae'n gyllid dda'r awgrffod yn ymwneud. Mae'n ddweud o'r awgrffod? Mae f changeryn o'r awgrffod. Mae'n ddweud o'r awgrffod. Mae'n ddweud o'r awgrffod��iad hon gwheilio wedi chi'n bod yn dwad.ol am crawlysoeth tygfeydd,丹 dechaf? Ar Myfestog arteru, Maeeth y bnw imod. eifonlus darumu ddwyhaith. hanes locul o meiffyiw rip tygfeydd, y meddwl? rhi so railwayw, gaeth Freerys, beak gyd, yn barth meffaith, I agree to, I cannot call amendment 192, which will be preempted. Alison, please, to move amendment 252 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Section 36 establishes that a person who is in police custody has the right to have a private consultation with a solicitor at any time. At present, the bill states that this consultation should be in a quote, by such means as may be appropriate in the circumstances, for example telephone. I note the cabinet secretary's amendments 192 and 193 are drafting improvement, but they don't alter the meaning of this provision. In contrast, my amendment 252 amends the definition of consultation to stress that this should take place in person unless there are exceptional circumstances. It suggests that initial consultations can still take place over the telephone. My amendment highlights the importance of face-to-face advice, and just as Scotland has stated that solicitors are unable to adequately advise their clients by telephone alone since they are unable to assess the suspect's welfare and demeanour, nor does the solicitor have the same opportunity for access to information from the police concerning the suspected offence. Furthermore, the solicitor cannot readily make effective representations to the police concerning the decision to charge or further detain if they only advise their client by telephone. Cabinet secretary, please to speak to amendment 192 and other amendments in the group, please. My amendment 252 deals with an amendment to section 36 of the bill to provide for solicitors to be physically present during the police interviews, except in exceptional circumstances. As members will be aware, the bill extends the rights of access to a solicitor to all suspects held in police custody, regardless of whether the police intend to question the suspect, and this was welcomed by the committee in its stage 1 report. While it recognises that it is important for suspects to access legal advice in a timely manner, amendment 252 would require solicitors to attend police stations every time a suspect is to be interviewed except in exceptional circumstances. It is not clear from this amendment what would be considered to be exceptional circumstances. The Government has given extensive consideration to the appropriate means by which access to a solicitor should be provided to a person whilst at a police station to enable advice and assistance to be delivered in an efficient and effective way. Lord Callaway recommended that, subject to what can be reasonably funded by the Scottish legal aid board, or the specifics himself, that it is ultimately for the suspect to decide whether the advice from the solicitor should be provided by telephone or in person. Furthermore, Lord Callaway explained that initially the person will be expected to speak to a solicitor in private over the telephone, which will enable the solicitor to give immediate initial advice and to discuss whether the solicitor's attendance at the police station is necessary or desirable. As members will be aware, the current means by which suspects can secure legal advice is through the solicitor's contact line. The contact line is administered by the Scottish legal aid board and legal advice to suspects is provided through a mixture of solicitors employed by the legal aid board and private practice solicitors. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Suspects can either receive legal advice over the telephone or in person if so required. Not every suspect will want to or require a personal attendance by a solicitor. Solicitors are likely to want to consider what is in the best interests of their client, whether that is advice by phone or a personal attendance. The Scottish Government favours provision that allows for the most appropriate means of securing legal advice and to allow for the preference and requirement of the particular suspect. A telephone consultation will be appropriate for some individuals and in some circumstances. It is acknowledged that it may not be suitable for all, which is why the Government has chosen the most flexible, cost-effective and efficient means for suspects to secure legal advice. As I have just explained, the choice of personal attendance lies with the suspect in conjunction with the solicitor, which I consider to be a proportionate and fair approach. Finally, amendment 192 and 193 are technical drafting adjustments to avoid slightly awkwardness, the slight awkwardness of expressions in relation to consultation with a solicitor prior to interview. As I said at the start, this bill extends the right of access to a solicitor to all suspects held in police custody, regardless of whether the police intend to question the suspect. I consider this to be a significant step in demonstrating the progress and commitment that is being made to safeguard the rights of suspects and detained persons. I also consider that there should be time for the new provisions in the bill to bed in before making what could be unnecessarily or proportionately inappropriate changes. For this reason that I have explained, I would ask Alison McInnes not to press amendment 252. Any other members? Roderick, John. Just very briefly to say that, to emphasise what the Cabinet Secretary has just said, the choice really ought to be for the suspect in conjunction with his solicitor, and we haven't heard anything from Alison about the cost of these proposals, but I suspect it will be significant. John. There is a cost of services itself with not having the highest standards are just as applied to people, and I don't think Mr Campbell, for instance, would, given the choice of phoning someone or meeting them face to face and assessing the entire set of circumstances as laid out by my colleague, I know which he is likely to choose. Of course there will be challenges associated with this, but I think we should start off with new legislation with the best possible standards, and for that reason I will be supporting Alison's amendment. Alison. Thank you. Well, in closing, amendment 252 does not specify what the exceptional circumstances would be, and that is quite right, Cabinet Secretary, but the term is used elsewhere in the bill without any definition, so one must presume that the phrase is well known and can be readily interpreted. Just as Scotland's briefing suggests that without amendment 252 we would be condoning the provision of inadequate advice and I have a great deal of sympathy with that argument. As I noted last week in committee, a 2013 study by Police Scotland and an analysis of interviews conducted in the autumn of 2013 have both shown that the fact that 75% of suspects waive the rights to a solicitor, and I think we should all be very worried by that indeed, and this amendment would help address that imbalance that's in the system. It's important that interviews are not only conducted fairly, but are seen to be conducted fairly, and I will press the amendment. Questions amendment 252 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. There'll be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. 247 against, no abstentious. That amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 192 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I've already debated what 252, Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Questions amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There's groans coming from you. Call amendment 193 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I've already debated with amendment 252. Cabinet Secretary, move formally. Moved. Questions amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? You're saying yes before I'm even asked a question. Yes, calm down now. Calm down. Call amendment 253 in the name of Alison McKinnis. I've already debated with amendment 20. I move or not moved. Questions at section 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Questions at sections 37 and 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 194 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I've already debated with amendment 116. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Questions at section 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 254 in the name of Alison McKinnis in a group in its own. I'm pleased to move and speak to that amendment. Thank you very much. Amendment 40 seeks to update the definition of biometric information and improve how the use of samples is regulated. Members will recall my concerns about the use of facial recognition technology by Police Scotland in conjunction with other forces around the United Kingdom. The effect of my amendment would be to ensure that the retention of individuals' images by the police is subject to the same law as the retention of DNA and fingerprints. My amendment draws upon the arguably more up-to-date definition of biometrics contained in the last UK Government's protection of freedom acts 2012 and extends the regulatory regime to a wider array of relevant physical data. In 2006, the Scottish Liberal Democrats introduced the law governing the use of DNA. In 2010, that was extended to cover fingerprints, but new biometric technologies are being developed quicker than primary legislation can keep up with. For example, gate and ear recognition software may, too, soon be a very real possibility. We're seeing ear. We didn't realise our ears could be recognised, but there we are. That's why my amendment is future proofed as best as it can be, because it would also ensure that any new collection and use of biometric information and technology by the police must be subject to the agreement of Parliament through the affirmative procedure. In England and Wales, the biometrics commissioner recently stated that proper consideration should now be given to the civil liberties and other issues that arise as regards to the new biometric technologies. Urgent steps should now be taken to ensure that they are governed by an appropriate regulatory regime. In the absence of such steps, there must be a real risk that the considerable benefits that they could be derived from their use will be counterbalanced by a lack of public confidence in the way in which they are operated by the police and or by challenges to their lawfulness. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that Scotland is any further forward than the rest of the UK in regulating the use of emerging biometric technologies. Those technologies could obviously be a useful part of the police's toolkit, but they must be properly regulated to ensure that civil liberties and privacy are protected, and I move amendment 254. Thank you. Any other members? Roddie and Margaret? Thank you, convener. Just to say that in the long distant time when we consider things at stage 1, I don't remember this kind of issue being discussed at all, but it is an important issue. Obviously, I'd be grateful for some comment from the cabinet secretary on it. Margaret. Again, I think that what Alison McAllister makes sense is important. We keep pace with these new technologies and the proper protections that are in place. As Alison McAllister explained, amendment 254 would provide for how biometric information is used, retained and destroyed. I support the intention behind that. However, the effects of the amendment 254 would be significantly wider than that. The amendment could add significantly to the list of physical data that a constable can take from a person who has been arrested or detained. It would do so by adding other biometric information to the list of physical data in section 18 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995. The amendment uses the very wide definition of biometric information, including any information about a person's physical or behavioural characteristics or features that could be used to identify someone. That would be a significant change and implications could be far-reaching. I'm also conscious that we have carried out no formal consultation on this particular matter. This amendment would cover the type of physical personal data the police can take, the way it is used and the way it is disposed of. As always, we need to strike the right balance between the need to prevent and detect crime and the need to protect civil liberties. I believe that, at the moment, we have the right balance. However, introducing the changes provided in amendment 254 without the necessary consultation and consideration could alter that balance as an unintended consequence. Alice McKinnis will appreciate that we have had very little time to consult stakeholders or considered implications of this amendment. However, the limited discussions that we have been able to undertake have already raised a number of issues. I believe that we need to look at the whole area of biometrics in the round. We need to ensure that we have the right balance and the necessary safeguards in oversight in place. As Alice McKinnis is aware, I asked her inspector of constabulary in Scotland to consider including scrutiny of Police Scotland's use of facial recognition technology in its work programme, and they are currently carrying out that review at the moment. I expect that this review will be published in the next few months. The remit for this review goes beyond facial recognition alone, though, and considers the wider policing and societal opportunities and threats that arise from the police use of new and emerging biometric technologies. I would suggest to Alice McKinnis and the committee that it is sensible to wait for that review. Once we have seen the recommendations, we will consider options and can look at wider biometric issues in the round. There may be a need, for example, for a full public consultation at that particular point, and I am happy to discuss this with the committee once HMICS has published its report. In summary, I support the intention that lies behind the amendment. However, I believe that the effects of the amendment could be far-reaching with the high risk of unintended consequences, and it would not be appropriate to embark on such a major change without full consultation. I would ask Alice McKinnis not to press amendment 254. As the cabinet secretary said, HMICS is conducting that independent inquiry to look at biometric images. That was commissioned at the urging of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and I look forward to reading its findings. We have led the way in Scotland over governing the use of DNA, and we were taken belatedly to extend that to cover fingerprints. We always seem to be playing catch-up now, and I am anxious that we do not, but I am glad to have been able to air the issues and to hear the cabinet secretary's views on the matter, and I will not press the... You want to withdraw it. Alice McKinnis wishes to withdraw it. Is that agreed? Call amendment 195 and name the cabinet secretary and a group in its own cabinet secretary to move and speak to that amendment. Amendment 195 inserts a new section into the bill under which the police will be able to take drunk people suspected of committing offences to a designated place where they can receive help to recover from the effects of their alcohol intake and on-going alcohol issues can be addressed. This replaces a power that the police already have under section 16 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, which will be repealed through the effect of amendment 208. Therefore, I move amendment 195. Call amendment 41 and name of Mary PANT and redded debate box 39. Call amendment 43, name of Mary P story, redde debate box 39, move or not. Call amendment 45, name of Mary P story, redded debate box 39, move or not.暖faith dw i ddweud. Ac rwy'n ddweud o'i ddweud yn Cymru i ni stablen R150. Y stefno y mae ddweud eich amser. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Y Cymru i ni ddweud. M glyfwng â'i ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud. Diolch yn fwy o rimbodol eich ffordd yn Caerdydd. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n gweithio arall gwlad cymdeithas Personal 1-9-6. Rwy'n gweithio arall gwlad cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7. Cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7 rwy'n gyffredinawyd a gan 50 peth, ac mae'r Cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7 yw i'r dweithio arall gwlad cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7. Ieg yn bryd y bydd unig cymdeithas Personal 1-9-6. A ben merlyw, yn y maes yn ymgyrch ar gyfer ein maes yn ein bod yn ar deimlo yr Amyn Paul yng Nghymru yn fawr ar gyfer 36 yma. Felly yn ddych chi'n diwethaf y byddwyr 35, a chwyfio gyda'r gyfyfyrredig ac yn ddysgu boeddwyr 34 yn ganodau. Ie. Ydych chi'n dydag 35 ac 36 ar gyfer 36 ymyau i gweithiau cyfaeliaethau aethau, acille yng Nghymru efallai ei wneud i gwyseud bod yn brwysig ac yn ti'n gyffredig. Rydyn ni, cymdeithasol biadau ladw i chi'n holl gŵel Cymru a chwyfio beth yna ffordd, cyfleidwyd ei bwysig hynny ac mae hwn yn gweithio gyda'r llwyddiant sydd yn arwihodd dyma. Ac mae'n byw'r gwaith i gyd yn ddiwyllg ymddiadau gyda'r llwyddiant cyfryd yn gweithio gyda'r llwyddiant cyfryd ymddiadau cyfryd yn gweithio cyfryd yn gweithio cyfryd yn gweithio cyfryd ymddiadau gyfryd yn gweithio gyfryd yn gweithio gyryd. Y corffordd mewn cwrs digwydd ei gwaith ag gorffordd neu chi yn gweithio gychwynent yn gweithio gyfryd, maen nhw'n England arrested but not charged?" It is suggested that it is assumed that a person arrested is guilty or that a suspicious individual is at least a suspicious person. Amendment 35 therefore requires a constable not to disclose information that might allow a person arrested but not officially accused to be identified other than when that was in the public interest. Any decision to disclose information would be made by a constable of the rank of inspector or above. amendment 36, allwz y constable to disclose information regarding the release of a person, not officially accused to victims and witnesses if this is in the public interest or promotes the self-safety and wellbeing of the victim or witness, and such information would be released by a constable of the rank of inspector or above. I move amendment 35 in my name. Thank you and Lach. Other members? We came around. Nobody else wishes to speak, Cabinet Secretary. The convener of the pubs of amendment 35 is to protect the privacy and reputation of suspects during an investigation. I sympathise with the intention behind amendment 35, but I consider that such provision is unnecessary. The committee previously accepted Police Scotland's assurances that they do not and would not release a suspect's name to the media when they have not been formally charged with an offence. I have seen no evidence that runs counter to that and, like the committee, I am reassured by Police Scotland's approach on this subject. In addition, we have always had a very strict contempt of court regime, which applies after charge to cases which are progressing through the courts and which prevent the release of information to the media. This regime will apply in relation to suspects who have been arrested and will continue to apply during the entire time of investigative liberation. The protection of the contempt of court act 1981 is statutorily afforded to the accused from the time of arrest. No one will be released on investigative liberation unless he or she is in police custody after being arrested for an offence, at which point the protection of the act is in full effect. The same protections will apply in the case of someone liberated on a police undertaking, since they too have been arrested. Amendment 36 seeks to ensure the safety of alleged victims when a suspect is released on investigative liberation. Again, I am sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment, upholding the rights of alleged victims and ensuring their safety is crucial to ensuring a safe criminal, a fair criminal justice system. This includes ensuring that, where they may be at risk, alleged victims are informed of the suspect's release on investigative liberation and any other conditions. However, this proposal has to be considered in the context of existing measures to notify victims of the release of the accused person by the court on bail, which were recently put into place as part of the work to implement the European Protection Order Directive and the Lord Advocate's guidelines to replace on liberation. We are currently considering how investigative liberation will fit into this landscape and are discussing with stakeholders to ensure that a consistent and proportionate approach to victim notification is put in place, taking into account the risk to and safety of such individuals. I would therefore ask Elaine Murray not to press the amendment. However, I would be more than happy to meet with her to discuss the issue in more detail and to provide an update on our proposals as we approach the stage 3 process. With respect to amendment 35, I appreciate that Police Scotland has given assurances, but assurances are no good if somebody has released the information. That does not help the person whose name may be smerched by information being out there that they have been arrested in a circumstance when they are never officially charged. I am inclined to press amendment 35. With regard to amendment 36, I appreciate that there will be some overlap between the Victimal Witnesses Bill, so I will not press 36. I hope that there will be some discussion prior to stage 3, in order to clarify what is happening. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Four, four, five against, and there are no abstentions, that is not agreed to. Call amendment 36, the name of Elaine Murray, or Regivate amendment 35, move or not, moved. Call amendment 198, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 198, be agreed to, are we all agreed? I am getting your yes's and no's muddled up. Call amendment 199, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Question is amendment 199, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 200, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 200, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 201, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 201, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 202, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Question is amendment 202, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 203, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 203, be agreed to, yngnewisio ddoa i amddangos. sticksion overl бл allocate 144 meant 40 quesant 404 à derbydd 50 mwy oed 100 ned I  closet .... y gawdd hynny i gael Mae o'n dweud i'i gyd? Felly mae 5a oes iawn. Mae gyd yn ffrind â gwiseg a'r gwaith, oes iawn. Mae gennym unig, mae feddwl am gyfryd, nid yn maen nhw? Mae un uchymai'r Ymmogwr pwysig, mae yna llun los i'r Fwydd, maen nhw'n ddau? Mae'r mewn ym canonical. Y cwestiynau felly y yw'r ef i fawr yn gyngerweithio ni nhw? Y cwestiynau felly yw'r ef i fawr yn gyngerweithio ni nhw? Mae ydych chi'n ddweud y cwestiynau cymryd yn gwybodaith ar gyfer mi ar 7, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 5, 2, 1, 6, y cwestiynau cymryd yn gwybodaeth ar gyfer mi ar 2, 6, ac mae'n bwysig i gwrth各位 yn y cwestiynau cymryd yn teimlo. Rydyn ni, mae'r cwestiynau cymryd yn ddweud gyda'r gwestiynau gan gwybodaeth The amendment 206 amends a special statutory form of citizens arrest found in section 59 of the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. It talks about a person who has been arrested by a member of the public under that power being delivered into the custody of a constable. The new general power of constables to arrest without warrant under section 1 of the bill means that there is no longer a need for the 1982 act to make that provision. So amendment 206 provides for the repeal of this unnecessary provision. Amendment 207 and 213 amend the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 respectively to remove them from certain references to arrest. The types of arrest in question are quite different in nature from the types of arrest part 1 is intended to deal with. The word arrest is therefore removed from the provision in question so that the consequences of arrest provided for in the bill are not attached to those provisions. Amendment 208 and 215 are consequential on the previously debated amendments, which move the rules about giving information to suspects and sexual offences cases from the Criminal Procedures Act 1995 into the bill. Amendment 209 is a very minor amendment to make consistency within the bill. Amendment 210 and 212 provide for the repeal of provisions in the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995 relating to the police's duties in relation to child suspects. It is in consequence of the previously debated amendments, which move the rules about child suspects into the bill so that they are no longer required in the 1995 act. Amendment 216 deals with the other side of the coin. That is, it amends the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 to update its cross-reference to procedures under the 1995 Criminal Procedures Act so that they instead cross-reference to the equivalent provision in the bill. Amendment 211 is a set of consequential amendments to section 18, 18d and 19a of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, which gives powers to a constable to take samples and prints. The amendment removes reference in those sections to detention, because, as members know, the concept of detention under section 14 of the 1995 act is being dispensed with. I move amendment 206. I take your orders to wind up, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed to are all agreed. I call amendment 207, the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to debate with the 206 to move formally, please. The question is amendment 207 be agreed to are agreed. I call amendment 259, the name of Margaret Mitchell, ready to debate with amendment 234, move or not, move. I call amendments 208, 209, 202, 201, 212 and 213, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. Can I invite cabinet secretary to move these on block? Does any member object to a single question that we put to these amendments? She says, we're worn out, we're not objecting anymore, no. The question is amendment 208 to 213 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 214, the name of the cabinet secretary, group of amendments 217, 218 and 219, cabinet secretary, please, to move amendment 214 and speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendments in this group deal with interaction between the provisions in part 1 of the bill and the rest, which are able to be made under other enactments. Generally, part 1 will not apply to people arrested under the terrorism act 2000. This is already provided for by sections 53, but schedule 8 to the terrorism act cross-references to the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 to apply certain protections under that act. Amendment 214 updates a reference in schedule 8 to the terrorism act to refer to the bill and its concepts instead of the 1995 act. Amendment 218 is in consequence of amendment 214 and simply puts beyond doubt that the disapplication of part 1 of the bill in relation to people arrested under the terrorism act does not mean part 1 does not apply to the extent previously provided for by schedule 8 of the terrorism act. Amendment 218 provides that part 1 of the bill does not apply to people arrested for service offences under the armed forces 2006 act. This act sets out its own rules for the treatment of suspects arrested for service offences. Amendment 192 provides ministers with the power to use subordinate legislation to apply some or all of the part 1 of the bill to arrest under the terrorism act 2000 and service offences under the armed forces act 2006 and, conversely, to disapply some or all of the part so that it does not operate in relation to people who have been arrested otherwise in connection with an offence. The terrorism act and, as mentioned, the armed forces act set out its own rules for people arrested under them and generally the bill does not impinge on those rules. There may, however, be some aspects of part 1 that it would be appropriate to apply if they are not already covered by the procedures in the other acts. For example, for service offences under the armed forces act it may be desirable to ensure that provisions relating to access to a third party or information to be recorded at the time of arrest do apply for the short period that someone suspected of a service offence is in police custody in the custody of police Scotland before being transferred to the custody of military police. Amendment 119 would allow ministers to disapply some or all of part 1 using secondary legislation for arrest that are not in relation to offences. There are many powers of arrest that do not relate to a person being suspected of committing an offence. For example, under the Adult Support and Protection Act 2007, there are powers of arrest stemming from the ability of a court to grant a banning order against a subject, prohibiting them from doing a variety of things, including prohibiting them from being in a specific place. There are other examples and it may not be appropriate in every case for part 1 of the bill to apply in its entirety. The additions of this power will allow the interaction between this bill and each individual piece of legislation to be specifically tailored as is most appropriate. I move amendment 214. Can I just say, Cabinet, that I'm glad to see you're wearying too, because I think you twice said 119, you said of amendment 219, so I think the official report will be suitably amended, but we forgive it, we understand that. Any other members wish to come in. I take you don't want to say that. So the question is that amendment 214 be a greater, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 215, named Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 206. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Question is that amendment 215 be a greater, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 216, named Cabinet Secretary, already debated with 206, to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 216 be a greater, are we all agreed? The question is that should one be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 258, name of Alison McKinnis in a group in its own. Alison, please to move and speak to that amendment. Thank you, convener, and I know that members are tired, but I hope they'll bear with me for this final amendment of mine today. It would introduce a code of practice in connection with identification procedures and interviewing of suspects, similar to that that is established by PACE in England and Wales. The post corroboration safeguards review stated that the evidence points persuasively towards the inclusion in this bill of a statutory requirement that there should be codes of practice relating to the interviewing of suspects and identification procedures, and it argued that further regulation through the introduction of codes should be introduced regardless of the abolition of corroboration requirement. My amendment seeks to implement the draft legislation set out in that review. It would require the Lord Advocate to issue codes of practice on the questioning and recording of suspect questioning and the conduct of ID procedures. It requires the Lord Advocate to regularly review the code, consult and lay a revised code before Parliament, and in the event of a breach it states that the common law fairness test would apply to the admissibility of evidence. The Lord Advocate last published guidance on the conduct of visual identification procedures in 2007. There are no such guidelines at all in relation to suspect interviews. Lord Bonomy observed that the standard operating procedures and practices implemented by each of the legacy forces were not uniform and that these regional differences persist within Police Scotland. Lord Bonomy's review highlighted that some practices in these areas are inconsistent. I think that that is worrying, given how critical those aspects of an investigation are. ID procedures and interviews often provide crucial incriminating evidence. My amendment would ensure that the interview and the ID operating procedures across the country are predictable and consistent, as the public would expect, and it would serve to improve standards. I move amendment 258. Alison McInnes has explained that this amendment is based on recommendations made by Lord Bonomy's post-corroboration additional safeguards review. When Lord Bonomy's report was published, I said that we would consider whether any of its proposals could be taken forward in this parliamentary session. However, on the whole, our preference was to take time to consider all the recommendations in detail and carry out a more holistic review of those recommendations alongside other reforms. I have advised the committee that we will therefore only take forward a small number of his recommendations this year. For example, we have introduced an amendment that requires the Lord Advocate to publish the prosecutorial test. I still consider that there is great value in many of the other recommendations, but such substantive and important changes to our justice system are required to be looked at in the round and alongside other potential reforms. For example, as members will be aware, the Scottish Court Tribunal Service is currently conducting an evidence and procedural review. In my view, the work that we are starting later this year should take into account recommendations from both those reviews to ensure that any future packages of reform is comprehensive and strikes an appropriate and fair balance. I do not consider that there is a significant gap in the law in the meantime while that wider package of reform is being looked at. I understand that the Lord Advocate already issues guidance to the police in relation to identification procedures, and this particular guidance is available to the public. The police produce guidance to officers for interviewing suspects and witnesses with numerous safeguards built into ensuring that human rights legislation is adhered to. The interviewing of suspects already receives significant scrutiny during the judicial process, and police procedures are constantly updated based on stated cases in the courts. The police are in the process of collating and investigations, standard operating procedure document, which will bring together the various legacy documents on interview and other matters relating to investigations. This guidance will include the specific guidance on the interviewing of children and vulnerable persons. Once completed, the intention of Police Scotland is that this guidance document will become publicly available, subject to any redactions for technical or security reasons. The recording of interviews is a subject area that would require careful examination to establish what measures were deemed appropriate and necessary. Any recommendation relating to an increase in audio or visual recording would lead to significant financial costs to upgrade infrastructure training and retention facilities. Again, I consider these issues. These are issues that should not be looked at separately, but as part of the wider set of recommendations by Lord Bonomy, alongside other relevant reform work. I also do understand the good intention behind this amendment. I hope that members understand why I do not think it is appropriate at this time to require such a code of practice to be published. This substantive issue should be considered alongside the other outstanding Lord Bonomy recommendations, as part of the wider criminal justice review project, due to start later this year. It will also be considered in the context of the justice digital strategy. I therefore ask Alison McInnes not to press this amendment. I am disappointed in what the cabinet secretary has had to say on this particular amendment. He says that the Lord Advocate already publishes guidance on the conduct of ID procedures. That has not been updated for eight years, so clearly not operating appropriately. I think that the conduct of interviews and the conduct of ID parades are fundamental issues in a different order to many of the other things that Lord Bonomy recommended. The cabinet secretary is saying that we will take together in a holistic way. I think that we should move ahead with this amendment. My amendment sets out that there must be full consultation ahead of the code of practice coming into place. We have seen during the stop and search debate the importance of statutory codes of practice and the benefits that they can bring in terms of consistency, transparency and accountability. I believe that there is considerable scope for interviewing codes governing how other procedures should occur without risking interfering in operational matters. It is essential in the interests of justice that interviews and ID procedures are conducted fairly and in a uniform manner. There is evidence that that is not the case at present. I will press my amendment. We are all yeses. The question is that amendment 222 be agreed to or are we all agreed. The question is that section 56 be agreed to or are we all agreed. Call amendment 216 in the name of Mary Fee already debated with amendment 39. Elaine, move or not move. The question is that sections 88 to 91 be agreed to or are we all agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to or are we all agreed. That ends, here are the words you have been waiting for. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill and not in my script is thank you all and we can now and all move into a darkened room in the lie down. We are not away yet committed the next meeting will take place on 27 October when we will consider an issues paid from the community justice bill before we finalise the stage 1 report. We will also consider a number of SSIs, discuss the work programme and options for budget scrutiny and I formally close the meeting.