 Yhoo. Felly, ein daylight agor? Ychydigw ferment agor y mwyaf~? The First Item of the Business this afternoon is consideration of business motion 1,5609 by the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a time table for the stage III consideration of the community justice Scotland bill. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak buttons now. I know a member have asked to be against the motion, therefore I put the question to the chamber. I am sure that we should invite the minister to move the motion first. I will try that. Minister, would you like to move the motion? I'm only moved. Thanks very much. Still no member has asked to speak against the motion and so I'll now put the question to the chamber and the question is that motion number 15609, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes we are. Many thanks. The next item of business is now is stage 3 consideration of the Community Justice Scotland Bill and in dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound as normal and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should also be aware this afternoon that we are very tight for time, so if members could limit themselves to the essential matters if they rise to speak to amendments, that would be a great help, otherwise you will be here much longer. We will start with the marshaled list of amendments and we will start with group 1. I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister group with amendments as shown in the groupings minister to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will now speak to this series of amendments which further refine the meaning of community justice. I'm clear that we need to take a person-centred approach to improving outcomes for community justice and that means having the widest possible scope in regard to the support offered to people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Amendment 2 amends the definition of community justice to provide that it includes helping people to access services that they will need on release from prison. As this new provision is in the definition, it would include healthcare. Subsection 2 ZA is no longer necessary and is removed by amendment 7. Amendment 1 inserts the word relevant before general services in the meaning of community justice in section 1, subsection 1 and amendment 6 makes the change to section 1, subsection 2 C part 2. In consequence of those amendments, amendment 8 makes the same change to the definition of general services in section 1A. My amendment 3 will remove paragraph E from section 1, subsection 1, which sets out the meaning of community justice and paragraph E was inserted at stage 2. It amended the existing meaning of community justice to include, and I quote, designing, managing and arranging general services for persons identified as a serious risk of first-time offending. I fully understand the good intention behind this, and I thank Alison McInnes for highlighting this important matter. However, the bill does not cover primary prevention, which means stopping people from offending in the first place. Primary prevention is being taken forward effectively by this Government to arrange other policies such as early years interventions, raising educational attainments, tackling youth unemployment and our policies in health and housing. Of course, we have a specific youth justice strategy and good work being done on diversion of young people from serious and organised crime and from substance abuse. There are also practical issues concerning the wording of Alison McInnes' amendment, given the difficulties attached to assessing the risk and how we are to identify those at risk without stigmatising individuals. Any such system would have to be human rights compliant, and I therefore do urge the chamber to support my amendment 3. Amendment 4 will remove paragraph F 1 subsection 1, which was also inserted at stage 2. It amended the definition of community justice to include managing and supporting persons covered by the definition in ways that take into account the safety of others in the community, including victims and their families. I thank Margaret MacDougall for highlighting the important issue of safety. Let me reassure the chamber that the Scottish Government is committed to reducing reoffending and the harm that it causes to individuals, families and communities. I very much recognise the concerns of victims and justice-related issues, but I believe that the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014 is the relevant legislation through which to address those concerns rather than through the bill. However, to reassure the chamber, we have worked with Margaret MacDougall to ensure appropriate references to the needs of victims and their families elsewhere in the bill before you today, specifically in group 3. In addition, Margaret MacDougall's stage 2 amendment sought to bring within community justice activity that is not directed at reducing future offending, but instead at activity that is aimed at managing the risk to public safety arising from people with offending backgrounds being in the community. That is not appropriate in the bill, and I therefore urge the chamber to support amendment 4. Amendment 5 amends section 1 subsection 2C so that the meaning of supporting in the definition of community justice also means helping to access emotional and practical support with references that are provisioned by Alison McInnes at stage 2. My amendments 26 and 27 seek to amend the definition of general services in section 1A, while I understand the reason for the listing of the appropriate services that were entirely well-intentioned. I would like to refine the list that was added at stage 2 by Alison McInnes, and I have discussed the rationale for requiring to do so with Alison McInnes. Amendment 26 removes the words looked after from paragraph D of the definition, so that it refers to services and support provided to persons in relation to all children rather than looked after children only. That avoids implying any implied link between looked after children and offending behaviour. While some looked after children do go on to offend, there is no automatic linkage, and that change avoids any such inference in the legislation. Amendment 27 amends paragraph E of the definition by building on the existing reference to alcohol and drug issues to draw those into a broader spectrum of physical or mental health services. Its wording reflects the fact that many individuals in contact with relevant services are no longer dependent on substances but may in fact be in recovery. In a similar way, I have sought to cover physical and emotional childhood and adolescent trauma as set out in existing paragraph F by the reference to mental and physical health, which is amended in paragraph E. New paragraph F provides a more general reference to social welfare, recognising the important role of social services in promoting the welfare of individuals in our communities. New paragraph G makes general provision for any other matter affecting the likelihood of future offending by persons falling within the definition of community justice. That ensures that the definition of general services is not limited to the services listed at paragraph A to F. Amendment 9 is consequential and it removes wording from section 1A that was added at stage 2, which would no longer be appropriate in light of the refinance of the definition of general services made by amendments 26 and 27. Finally, amendments 10 and 11 amend section 1A 4, which sets out what is meant in the definition of community justice by a relevant finding, to reflect that, in certain circumstances, an offence can be committed by omitting to do an act, as well as by committing an act. I move amendment 1 in my name. Thank you very much. In this group, I want to speak to amendments 3, 7, 26 and 27. As the minister says, amendment 3 removes an amendment that I put in at stage 2, which sought to focus attention on first-time offending. The risks of offending are clear and well documented. Putting that in the bill, I felt that we would ensure that services were not deflected from working in this area. Nevertheless, it is with reluctance that I accept the minister's arguments relating to amendment 3, which removes that provision. I recognise that he says that there are a number of other statutory requirements amongst early years, youth, health and housing, to tackle first-time offending. However, I would seek his assurance that there will be clear links between community justice Scotland and those other proposals. Amendment 7 widens the provision of through care, and that is helpful, although it removes reference to continuity of healthcare. It is that continuity that is important. I stress that to the minister. While I accept the amendment, I hope that the spirit of what I was intending will be carried forward. Amendment 27 amends a list of general services. It was always accepted that, when I tabled the list of services that should be provided at stage 2, the minister might want to amend that slightly to make it comprehensive, and I am content to do so. I rise to oppose amendment 3. In the Scottish Government's 2014 consultation on a future model of community justice, the definition was that the collection of agencies and services in Scotland that individually and in partnership work to manage offenders, prevent offending and reduce re-offending and the harm that it causes to remote social inclusion, citizenship and resistance. However, in the bill is introduced, the definition of community justice in section 1 no longer referred to the prevention of offending. That represented a major change that was amended at stage 2, in response to the widespread criticism of its submission from the following organisations. Please Scotland, to be successful, it is necessary to take a whole system approach. It needs to be right from start to finish. That leads to the emphasis on prevention and early intervention. Sacro, there is no statement regarding prevention, public safety or community safety. Turning point, it is disappointing that the bill does not explicitly direct planning at both national and local levels to consider prevention, especially within the wider context of community planning process. Barnardo's, if we are to take a truly preventative approach to community justice, we must start at the beginning and focus on how to keep people out of the justice system and within their communities. Victim supports Scotland. The definition does not allow for a greater focus on prevention and early intervention, in line with the recommendations of the Christie commission. I consider a retrograde step and an opportunity lost that today the minister is now seeking again to remove prevention and early intervention from the bill's provision. It is for this reason that the Scottish Conservatives oppose amendment 3. I had some concerns when I first had a look at the Government amendments, but given that Alison McInnes, who brought the amendments to the committee in the first place, has been persuaded to accept them, we are also prepared to accept them too. However, I would seek assurances from the minister that there will be sufficient focus on resistance, because, ultimately, what every victim wants is that it does not happen to somebody else. Therefore, resistance and focusing on prevention of people becoming involved in the criminal justice system in the first place has to be our priority. I would seek the minister's reassurance on that, but if it is not in the face of the bill, it does not mean that there will be any lack of focus on those issues in terms of general policy. Just briefly, I welcome Alison McInnes' comments and Elaine Murray's comments. In relation to Margaret Mitchell's comments, I did not hear anything about what the financial implications would be of that particular aspect. I do not know if she has had any views on that, but we did not hear any. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I certainly, in response to Alison McInnes and Elaine Murray, I very much would want to put on the record that I do accept that we need to provide assurances to members. I welcome the acceptance of amendment 3 by Alison McInnes and Elaine Murray. I do think that it is important that, in developing the national strategy and the performance framework, we look as much as we can to reflect the linkages between what we are doing in the secondary and tertiary prevention that is covered by this bill and the existing strategies for primary prevention, such as the youth justice strategy and other measures, including early years intervention. In response to the point that Elaine Murray mentioned, I entirely agree with her, that our assistance is clearly a priority and I commend the committee for its persuasion in terms of bringing forward the definition of community justice to include the point of arrest. People are not yet offenders of course at that point. They are still innocent until proved guilty, but we are in a position through that to be able to prevent escalation and perhaps the refining behaviour between the point at which they come formally into the purview of the courts and a disposal is determined. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance. I certainly reiterate today that we will look to see that we can make very explicit the linkages between the work that we are doing within the national strategy and the work of community justice Scotland and the existing strategies that cover primary prevention and I hope that that reassures members. I regret that the Conservatives are not prepared to support amendment 3, but I recognise the points that Margaret Mitchell makes and I know that those are ones that she stands by. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. So I now call amendments 2 to 9, 26, 27, 10 and 11, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I would like to ask whether any... Minister, would you like to move amendments 2 to 9, 26, 27, 10 and 11 on block? Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? You do. We will now take the amendments individually. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division and this will be a five-minute division. As this is the first division of the stage one, I suspend this meeting for five minutes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. This will be a 30-second division. Please vote now. Thank you very much. The result of the vote in amendment 3 is yes, 99, no, 10. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. So I now ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 4 to 9, 26, 27, 10 and 11. As it appears that no member objects, the question is that amendments 4 to 9, 26, 27, 10 and 11 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. We now move to section 2. I call amendment 12 in the name of the minister group with amendments 13, 22, 23 and 24. Minister, to move amendment 12 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendments 12 and 13 amend section 12A of the Bill, which sets out what is meant by a third sector body that is involved in community justice. The amendment adds to the definition of the third sector and section 12A by making clear what is meant by community justice services that are to be provided by third sector bodies falling within the definition. Community justice services for the purposes of section 12A are to be services that are provided to people covered by the definition of community justice in section 1, subsection 1. Minister, if you could forgive me, can I please seek a little quiet for the minister to make his remarks, please? Thank you. Community justice services for the purposes of section 12A are to be services that are provided to the people covered by the definition of community justice in section 1, subsection 1B and D, which involve managing and supporting them with a view to eliminating or reducing re-offending by them and services that prepare persons for release from prison or detention. Amendments 22, 23 and 24 make clear that the services in which community justice Scotland has a commissioning role are those provided to people covered by the definition of community justice. That is to contrast with the services in which community justice Scotland will provide, which are solely in respect of training and education for those organisations that have a role in community justice. Those amendments simply clarify that community justice Scotland will not itself provide services to the people covered by the definition of community justice, and they underline the policy position that community justice Scotland's main role in commissioning will be to work with partners and the third sector to develop and take forward a strategic approach to commissioning. That will ensure an evidence-led and co-ordinated long-term approach to commissioning for community justice in Scotland. I move amendment 22. I take it you've nothing further to say minister. So the question is that amendment 12 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. Now I move to group 3 and call amendment 28 in the name of Margaret McDougall, group with amendment 29. Margaret McDougall, to move amendment 28 and speak to both amendments in the group please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As background to amendment 29, the reference to victims of offences in their families in section 1 is not the same as reference to the third sector organisations supporting victims in their families. It cannot be assumed that this single reference to victims will be enough on an imperative to ensure that those third sector organisations working to support victims and ensuring that their voices are heard at a local and national level by community justice Scotland, CIPs and CPPs, and those within the architecture of community justice generally will be fully engaged in the planning and decision making process that are intended to take their safety into account. It is vital that organisations supporting victims are named in the bill as this third sector bodies who must be consulted with, and my amendment to section 1 gives us the lever to insist that this be done. While the minister repeatedly mentioned victims during the stage 1 debate, simply inserting the wording such third sector bodies involved in community justice in various amendments, and then defining a third sector body involved in community justice as promoting or representing other persons who may be affected by community justice, does not adequately cover the inclusion of organisations supporting victims or indeed victims individually or collectively. A blanket reference to the third sector does not explicitly include victims and victims organisations, while placing a duty on various persons to consult with third sector bodies involved in community justice. It also gives them the opportunity to limit which third sector bodies they do consult by qualifying this duty by stating such third sector bodies involved in community justice as it considers appropriate. Unless victims organisations are explicitly mentioned as in my amendment 29, this gives those with the duty a get out clause to ignore victims organisations as not appropriate or to use being not appropriate as an excuse after the event to justify a lack of consultation. Amendments 28 and 29 make this reference and thus the obligation to have local structures and arrangements involved both victims of crime and the organisations supporting them in the various planning and monitoring duties, explicit and clear. Amendment 28 is essentially a technical amendment. I thank the minister for working with me to make amendment 29 and 28 acceptable to all and I move amendments 28 and 29 in my name. I welcome the engagement with Margaret MacDougall, and I am grateful for her work in bringing forward amendments that are acceptable to the whole chamber. The point that she raises about the important role of victims and families is well recognised, and I am grateful for her input at this time. I thank Margaret MacDougall to wind up and press your amendment. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 12. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 29, in the name of Margaret MacDougall. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 14, in the name of the minister, is a group of amendments 15, 16, 18 and 19. Amendment 14, in the name of the minister, is to move amendment 14 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. My amendment 14 seeks to remove paragraph C from section 13 subsection 2. That subsection provides that the national strategy in relation to community justice and I quote, may contain such material in relation to community justice as the Scottish ministers consider appropriate, including in particular statement of the aims of community justice and action that ministers propose to take or consider that others should take to achieve or support the achievement of those aims unquote. Paragraph C was inserted at stage 2, amended the existing list of the material that the Scottish ministers may consider appropriate for inclusion in the national strategy for community justice in section 13. To include information about action that ministers are taking or propose that others take in relation to early intervention, diversion from prosecution and youth offending, I understand that the intention behind this amendment is to ensure that the national strategy covers early intervention to prevent offending and the other items listed. Of course, at stage 2, I proposed amendments to broaden the definition of community justice to cover persons who have been arrested, which will ensure that support can be provided to persons at an earlier stage than the point of conviction. The definition also covers those who are 16 or 17 and subject to compulsory supervision order on the grounds that they have committed an offence. Therefore, those persons are covered by the definition of community justice and will be reflected in the national strategy. However, it is important to note that the bill is about planning for community justice for persons who have been, among other things, given an alternative to prosecution such as diversion. Let me be clear that the bill does not make provision for diversion that is entirely a matter for the Procurator Fiscal. It would not be appropriate for ministers to propose to take action or to propose action that the Procurator Fiscal instead should take in relation to diversion from prosecution. I said at stage 2 that the drive in community justice to reduce re-offending is part of our wider approach to promoting social justice and tackling inequality, which includes action to improve early years' experiences, to raise educational attainment for all and to continue to promote the whole system's approach to youth justice. I gave the Justice Committee my assurance that the national strategy for community justice would naturally link with a range of Scottish government strategies to ensure a joined-up approach. That is a point that is rare to rate from the earlier debate in the earlier group. However, community justice, for the purposes of the bill, stops short of including the matters described in paragraph C of section 13, subsection 2. While they are clearly linked to community justice, the strategy is about community justice and not regarding them. For those reasons, amendment 14 seeks to remove paragraph C of section 13, subsection 2, so that the content of the national strategy will be informed by the broader definition of community justice, which references diversion, early intervention and matters relating to youth justice. I urge members to support my amendment with the reassurance that the linkages between primary prevention and the secondary and tertiary prevention that is covered by the bill will be established in guidance alongside the bill. My amendment 15 seeks to amend paragraph D of section 13, subsection 2, which was inserted at stage 2 to specify that the things that the strategy might contain might include action that the Scottish ministers consider that others should take to facilitate access to housing services for people on release from serving custodial sentences. I fully recognise that suitable housing and support to sustain a tenancy for owner occupation where relevant are vital to provide stability to people with a history of offending. I also believe that access to other services such as healthcare, welfare and employment assistance to name but a few are also vital in supporting people to desist from committing further offences. Therefore, amendment 15 replaces the specific reference to housing services in section 13, subsection 2d, with a reference to relevant general services. That is something that I have discussed with Alison McInnes in advance of today's debate. That amendment would mean that the national strategy might include material relating to action that should be taken to facilitate access to relevant general services rather than just housing services. My amendment 16 then makes it clear that the term relevant general services has the same meaning as in section 1, and as a chamber would recognise the new definition of that term, of course, includes housing, as we discussed in the debate on group 1. Crucially, while putting housing services on the face of the bill, section 1 does not create a hierarchy of those services. For the same reasons that I have just mentioned, amendment 18 also replaces the specific reference to housing services in section 15, subsection 3a, with a reference to relevant general services. That means that the national performance framework might contain material regarding performance, including in particular other indicators that might be used to measure performance to facilitate access to relevant general services rather than just housing services. Finally, amendment 19 again makes it clear that the term relevant general services has the same meaning as in section 1, which, as I have just said, includes housing, and, hopefully, that provides reassurance to members across the chamber. I move amendment 14 in my name. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. Now, amendment 15, in the name of the minister, is ready to debate with amendment 14. Minister to move, please. Formally moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call of amendments 16 in the name of the minister. Minister to move, please. I moved. Thank you. Question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Many thanks, which takes us to group 6. Now, amendment 17, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 20, 21, 25 and 25a. Minister to move amendment 17 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendments 17, 20 and 21 insert sub-sections into sections 13, 15 and 21 respectively, which concern the national strategy, the performance framework and the guidance on community justice planning and reporting. The purpose of those new sub-sections is to ensure that the requirement to consult in each section is complied with even if the consultation begins or takes place before the relevant section is brought into force. Those amendments are necessary because much consultation has already taken place with stakeholders over the past 12 to 18 months. I therefore wish to ensure that extensive consultation can be taken into account in relation to meeting the consultation requirements set out in sections 13, 15 and 21. If those amendments were not agreed to, further consultation would be required, which would lead to significant delay in the finalisation and publication of the national strategy, the performance framework and the guidance and a necessity at reinventing the wheel to a considerable degree. Further consultation would also create additional work for our stakeholders who have already given generously of their time. I therefore ask the chamber to recognise the extensive consultation activity that is already undertaken with stakeholders and to support amendments 17, 20 and 21 to ensure that this work is taken forward. Turning now to amendment 25, section 36 of the bill makes provision for commencement. Amendment 25 inserts a reference to section 31, subsection 1 to sections 1, 1A, 12, subsection 1, 12A, subsection 1 and 2 sections 13, 15 and 32 to provide that those sections will come into force on the day after royal assent rather than following the usual convention of waiting until two months after royal assent and commencing by regulations. That is not a request that I make likely and I shall therefore explain my reasons for doing so. The bill requires community justice partners to prepare a plan in relation to community justice for their area and to have regard to the national strategy, the national performance framework and any guidance issued by Scottish ministers. Naturally, the community justice partners must also know who is to do the planning, who to plan for and who to consult. To give the community justice partners the opportunity to comply with the requirement to produce a plan in spring 2017, it will be necessary to have the national strategy, the national performance framework and the guidance in place prior to that. The availability of those key documents in early summer will allow community justice partners to begin preparations to meet the planning duties placed in them by the bill, and the extensive consultation that has already taken place means that the community justice partners will already be aware of the general content and direction, so nothing in those documents should be unexpected. Accordingly, amendment 25 amends section 36, subsection 1, so that sections 13 and 15 can be commenced the day after royal assent. Sections 1, 1A, 12, subsection 1, 12A, subsection 1 and 2 and 32, which contain definitions relevant to the national strategy and performance framework, require to be commenced at the same time, and so reference to those sections is also inserted into section 36, subsection 1, and therefore urge the chamber to support amendment 25 to ensure that a smooth transition takes place. Finally, amendment 25A, in the name of Margaret MacDougall, is consequential on her amendments 28 and 29. It amends my own amendment 25 to provide that section 12A, subsection 1 to 2B, would be commenced the day after royal assent, and this is necessary because the definition of a third sector body involved in community justice is relevant to the requirement in sections 13 and 15 to consult such bodies. I therefore support amendment 25A in the name of Margaret MacDougall. Again, thank her for working with the Government on the amendment and urge the chamber to support it. I move amendment 17. Many thanks. I now call on Margaret MacDougall to speak to amendment 25A and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you. Amendment 25A supports the minister's amendments and I move amendment 25A in my name and the other amendments in the group. The question is that amendment 17A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 18, 19 and 20, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated, invite the minister to move amendments 18 to 20 on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 18 to 20? There is no member object. The question is that amendments 18 to 20 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. I move to group 6. I call amendment 30 in the name of Margaret MacDougall, group with amendment 31. Margaret MacDougall, to move amendment 30 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you. The third sector plays an invaluable role in delivering vital services in relation to community justice, not only for victims and their families, but also for those convicted of an offence and their families. I therefore very much welcome the minister's comments at stage 2 when he said, I fully recognise that the third sector is vital to the successful planning and delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals. I am grateful for the positive contributions that the sector makes to community justice at local and national levels. Amendment 30 puts in place a reporting mechanism whereby community justice partners must reflect and report on the actions that they took to facilitate the participation of the third sector and to state which third sector bodies were involved in the development and preparation of the community justice outcomes improvement plan, in line with part 183 of the bill. Amendment 31 ensures that, where a local improvement plan is revised, the same statement is required for that revised plan. The intention of those amendments is to ensure that the good intentions contained within section 183 of the bill on participation of the third sector and community justice outcomes improvement planning is not lost in practice. Too often, the role of the third sector can be confined to service delivery, but more often than not, the third sector has the skills, expertise and knowledge to contribute to the strategic development and planning of services, as well as front line delivery. My amendments will ensure that community justice partners provide a statement to community justice Scotland on how they have fulfilled their duties to facilitate the participation of the third sector under section 183 of the bill. If the statement indicates a deficiency in the participation of the third sector, I would hope that community justice Scotland would use its powers under section 25 of the bill to rectify that. I believe that those amendments will strengthen the bill, introduce a necessary level of accountability for community justice partners and ensure that the crucial role of the third sector in community justice planning is upheld. I would like to thank the minister for community safety and legal affairs and his officials for their constructive dialogue with regard to my amendments in the group. I urge all members to support those amendments. I move amendments 30 and 31 in my name. I am grateful to Margaret MacDougall for agreeing at stage 2 to work with me on this important amendment. I know that the third sector bodies and community bodies play an important role in community justice. It is therefore right that the community justice partners should not only enable their participation in the preparation of the community justice outcomes improvement plans but should also be required to evidence how that participation took place. I am content that Margaret MacDougall's amendment makes absolutely clear how important the third sector bodies role in the preparation of the plans is. I am very happy to support Margaret MacDougall's amendments 30 and 31, and I urge the chamber to also support them. Margaret MacDougall, to wind up and press your amendment, please. I do nothing further to add. I move the amendments in my name. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 31, 22, 23 and 24 are all in the name of the minister on all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 21 to 24 on block. From the moves on block. Thank you. Is there any member object to a single question being put in amendments 21 to 24? As it appears, no member does, the question is that amendment 21 to 24 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Many thanks. I now move to group 7. I call amendment 32 in the name of Dr Elaine Murray and a group on its own Dr Murray to move and speak to amendment 32, please. At stage 2, I submitted a number of amendments proposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Those include an amendment to section 30, requiring each local community justice partner to demonstrate co-operation with the other partners. The minister at that stage recognised at section 20 on reporting on performance did not require community justice partners to state how outcomes had been achieved. He therefore amended that section to require the report to include activity undertaken by community justice partners individually or jointly to achieve or maintain outcomes. As that amendment went some way to address the concerns expressed in my stage 2 amendment, I did not press it and agreed to discuss with the bill team an amendment that reflects the principle concerns that community justice services locally should be tailored to local need and should not be imposed by CJS. Amendment 32, amendment section 30, require community justice partners when undertaking their duty of co-operation to have regard to the desirability of community justice being best suited to the needs of local areas. That would mean that there is no one-size-fits-all approach imposed by the community justice Scotland on local groups and that local community justice partnerships will have that flexibility to tailor the services that they offer to the needs of their area. I thank the bill team and the minister for their consideration of how those concerns could be addressed within the bill and I move the amendment in my name. I thank Dr Murray for agreeing to work with me on her amendment 32 and this amendment seeks to ensure that when Community Justice Scotland or the community justice partners are co-operating with each other that they do so having regard to what is best suited to or most appropriate for the local area. I think that that was an important point that Dr Murray raised. The new model for community justice is first and foremost a local model that places decision-making with those who know their community's best and understand the problems that are unique to their area. That is why it is so important that Dr Murray's amendment highlights the need for the co-operation between the community justice partners and with Community Justice Scotland to take account of what is best for the local area. I support Dr Murray's amendment 32 and urge the chamber to support it. I thank Dr Murray to wind up and move your amendment please. Nothing further to say other than to press the amendment. Many thanks and so the question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. We now move to group 8 and I call amendment 33 in the name of Margaret Mitchell in a group on its own. Margaret Mitchell to move and speak to amendment 33 please. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Although many of the amendments vastly improved the bill, certain questions and uncertainty remain about its provisions. Those include something as basic as the funding for the 32 criminal justice partnerships. In particular, at this stage, it is not clear whether the two-pay option is to be adopted for the staff previously employed in Scotland's eight criminal justice authorities to transfer into the new model. I would be grateful if the minister could give a definitive answer on this point, as it would be totally unacceptable if those affected at this late point are still unaware of what the future holds. Furthermore, the bill is being introduced before the new penal reforms and re-offending, which the bill's model of community justice will be asked to deliver, have even been finalised. In addition to this, there is still some unease about the relationship between the centralised community justice Scotland and the 32 community justice partners. For all those reasons, and in view of the almost total lack of post-legislative scrutiny in this Parliament since its inception, it seems entirely reasonable and sensible to introduce the sunset clause proposed in my amendment 33. The amendment sets out that the bill must be reviewed after five years and no letter than six years after it receives royal assent. Who knows? Perhaps, at that point, it will be deemed appropriate to take the opportunity to add provisions that include prevention and early intervention. I move amendment 33, in my name. Thank you. Amendment 33 seems to be the introduction of a sunset clause repealing sections 132 of the bill after a period of six years, unless ministers have, by regulations, allowed the provisions to continue. While I share Margaret Mitchell's concerns about funding, I do not understand how this amendment would address her concerns about Tupi, because staff will already have been transferred at the time when this becomes legislation. I do not really understand where the driver of this amendment comes from, because I do not recall any evidence at stage 1 suggesting that there should be a sunset clause, nor, indeed, was there much evidence opposing the changes to the community justice system proposed by the bill. Most witnesses welcomed the bill, although many felt that it could be improved. It actually has been improved. It seems to me to be very odd to insert a clause into a bill that would simply allow the community justice system to disintegrate after six years. It would not revert to the current arrangements, and even if it did, we have heard significant criticism of the way community justice is working at present. The bill provides for annual reviews, reports on the exercise of the functions of community justice Scotland, a national strategy that must be reviewed within 35 years, a national performance framework that must also be reviewed within five years, community justice outcome improvement plans and reviews of those after the publication of our revised national strategy or framework. The provisions in the bill contain several opportunities for evaluation of whether those provisions are working satisfactorily. Of course, organisations such as Audit Scotland will be able to review performance of community justice Scotland and the local organisations, as it indeed did of the current community justice authorities. The Parliament's Justice Committee would even be able to consider those reports, and possibly if in future it is less burdened with primary legislation, it could conduct some sort of post-legislative scrutiny of the bill. Now, I believe that there is a place for sunset clauses in legislation, but quite honestly on these benches we do not think that this place and this bill is one of them. I associated myself with the comments of Dr Lane Murray. I'm at baffled also as to why there is this attempt for the sunset clause in the bill at this stage. It seems to me that not only was there no discussion of this. Is that helpful? It seems to me not only was there no discussion of this at stage one, but quite clearly it seems to me not only would Audit Scotland like to look at this in the future, but I can't believe that any future Justice Committee will not be reviewing the whole issue of community justice. One small point of detail, Members' amendment refers to repealing clauses 1-32 of this bill. Clause 31 abolishes the existing community justice authority. I know that there's a good reason why what will happen if they're abolished if somehow or other this clause comes back into being, but perhaps the Member would explain the effect of that when she winds up. Thank you, sir. I now call the Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I also associate myself with the remarks that Elaine Murray has said? I will cover some of the same ground, but I'm disappointed to see such an amendment being lodged at this stage. This amendment would effectively mean that the bill will be temporary in duration, which in turn would create uncertainty for those very people providing community justice that Margaret Mitchell refers to and those affected by it, and would negate the extensive work by community justice stakeholders in shaping this bill before us today. The sort of proposal is generally intended to ensure that new legislation is reviewed after a period of operation in order to assess whether it's having the intended effect. I have no argument with that principle, but, after all, it is the standard practice to keep legislation under review, and Elaine Murray referred to that in a number of different ways, but to put such provisions in the legislation itself is extremely rare. In the case of this bill, I believe that it's completely unnecessary. As Dr Murray said, the bill has been subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with a lot of evidence submitted at stage 1 and full discussion at stage 2. Roderick Campbell also referred to this. It was not subject to any form of expedited procedure, which would have prevented it from being scrutinised by Parliament in the normal way. In addition, there are no exceptional or controversial powers included that would make it appropriate for the bill to be subject to review by Parliament in this way. There has been extensive consultation and very significant amount of collaboration with stakeholders, including COSLA and third sector organisations, both prior to introduction and during the bill's parliamentary passage, and there will continue to be such collaboration in order to ensure that the new model works properly and the transition is as smooth as we can make it. Scottish ministers will receive regular reports from Community Justice Scotland, which will be a new partner in the justice board, and therefore ministers would be very aware of any problems with the operation of the legislation that might require their attention. Of course, the national strategy will be a live document, annual reports to Parliament, will keep Parliament aware of progress and any challenges that are emerging. It's also worth noting that no comparable amendment was brought forward at stage 2. The Justice Committee was, accordingly, not given any opportunity to consider it, and the substantial regulation-making powers that the amendment would confer have been nowhere near the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. The power in subsection 3 is particularly sweeping. In the event that the repeal in subsection 1 takes effect, all the machinery in the bill, including the existence of Community Justice Scotland, will be swept away with nothing to replace it. It's not clear whether the member intends that the pre-existing Community Justice Arrangements would be revived, or if so, how they would be revived, or the extent to which the member thinks that the power could be exercised to devise entirely new Community Justice Arrangements. Either way, I regard that as a highly risky approach. For all those reasons, I cannot support amendment 33. It is unnecessary and inappropriate, we believe, in relation to this particular bill and could precipitate considerable problems by creating a vacuum. I ask the chamber not to agree to this amendment and, instead, trust this Parliament to exercise its powers to review the effectiveness of legislation in the normal way. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to wind up and press a withdrawal amendment. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. To address Elaine Murray's point about 2P, she is quite right that the sunset clause will not address that issue. I noticed that the minister has failed to take the opportunity to give some reassurance on that point today. In terms of no discussion about a sunset clause at stage 2, amendment 2 was passed by the committee to include prevention and early intervention. At stage 3, that has been removed again. I think that it is therefore on that basis alone quite sensible and reasonable to have a sunset clause to look at the provisions of the bill and see if those could be included. That together with the fact that there are still questions over basic funding, how will that pan out over the next five years? We know that COSLA is particularly unhappy about those provisions. Furthermore, the bill, as it has been introduced, is putting in place a model to deliver penal reforms that we still have not seen finalised. We would have the opportunity by setting the sunset clause in motion to see how those had bedded in. Again, I repeat the point about post-legislative scrutiny. It has not happened in the last 16 years. I have little confidence that it will happen in the future. This is a mechanism and a sensible mechanism to ensure that this very important piece of legislation can be reviewed and improved in the future. I press it in my name. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division and this will be a one minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 33 is yes, 12, no, 98, there are no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now, amendment 25 in the name of the minister and already debated with amendment 17. Now, amendment 25a in the name of Margaret McDougall already debated with amendment 25, Margaret McDougall to move. The question is that amendment 25a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. The subsequent question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. That ends consideration of amendments. As we are here for a long afternoon, I will move swiftly on so that members could leave the chamber quickly and quietly to allow the debate on motion number 15607, in the name of Paul White House, on the community justice bill to proceed. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak Martins now or as soon as possible, please. I call on the minister, Paul Wheelhouse, to speak to and move the motion. The minister, you have 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I shall start by thanking everyone who contributed to the development of the community justice bill, including members of all parties and all our stakeholders and, if I may, my bill team, of whom I am very proud. I am particularly grateful to those stakeholders, especially local government colleagues, for their considered thoughts, but, while the Government was shaping its policy and during Parliament's consideration of the bill, I welcome their broad support for the bill. I believe that that reflects the wide-ranging and effective engagement that we have had with them in developing its key provisions, especially the new national strategy for community justice and the performance framework. Following enactment, we will continue that dialogue as we take forward implementation. I am grateful to the convener, Christine Grahame, and the Justice Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill. Indeed, I was pleased to bring forward a number of amendments at stage 2 in response to the committee's recommendations. The bill will make positive changes to community justice and it comes at a time of broader reform and penal policy. Indeed, the new model for community justice, which it establishes, forms a key part in delivering the Scottish Government's commitment to reducing re-offending and the harm that it causes to individuals, families and communities. Central to reducing re-offending is actively addressing the underlying causes of offending behaviour. The new model presents a more holistic and collaborative approach to identifying priorities and planning the most appropriate interventions. That approach does, of course, require community justice partners to co-operate with each other, especially at a local level. The provision around co-operation was strengthened by the stage 2 amendment that Dr Elaine Murray and I worked on together, and I would again like to thank Dr Murray for her contribution to the development of the bill. The model will be driven forward at both local and national level by the common aim of securing better outcomes for people and communities across Scotland. It is underpinned by a transparent and robust means of measuring and demonstrating progress in achieving those outcomes. That transparency and clarity in delivering improved outcomes may in turn contribute to this Government's vision of a fairer justice system in Scotland. That vision is one that reflects the values of a modern and progressive nation in which prison and in particular short-term sentences are used less frequently, and where there is stronger emphasis on robust community sentences. It is, of course, important that individuals are held to account for the offences that they have committed, but thereafter it is also important that they are supported to be responsible citizens and contributors to our communities. Presiding Officer, at stage 1, a number of points were raised by the Justice Committee and stakeholders. Important points relating to the key issues such as early intervention, engagement with the third sector and governance arrangements. I carefully considered those points and proposed a number of amendments at stage 2, which I believe have strengthened the bill. At stage 1, the committee and stakeholders called for a stronger element of prevention, an early intervention to be reflected in the definition of community justice. That was to enable effective intervention to take place earlier, with the aim of helping to reduce the likelihood of further offending. Evidence shows that diverting individuals away from the criminal justice system is an effective way of preventing further offending and that it is especially true when the diversion is complemented by an intervention designed to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour. I recognise that if we wait until someone is convicted, then that might be too late and means that we may have lost an opportunity to prevent offending behaviour from escalating. That is why, with the committee's support, we broaden the definition of community justice in the bill so that community justice services must be planned for people from the point of arrest onwards rather than once a conviction has taken place, as had been set out in the bill at introduction. At stage 1, committee members and witnesses expressed a strong desire to see prevention of further offending being more strongly referenced in the bill, especially in the definition of community justice. The new broader definition responds positively to those representations, too. Prevention is central to our aim of reducing further offending. Every intervention that supports our management is an opportunity to work with an individual to aid prevention. Although the bill does not cover primary prevention, as we discussed earlier, which means stopping people from offending in the first place, I would like to emphasise again the points that Alison McInnes has made that primary prevention is being taken forward effectively by this Government through a range of other policies such as early years interventions, raising educational attainment, tackling youth unemployment and our policies in health and housing. I am happy to reiterate that we will make sure that those are properly referenced in the guidance that accompanies the bill. I would also like to say a few words about the stronger provisions now in the bill with regard to the third sector. At stage 2, I proposed and the committee agreed a stronger participative role for the third sector, including victims organisations—a point importantly raised by Margaret MacDougall—in the planning of community justice and in the preparation of other key strategic documents such as the national strategy for community justice, thereby giving relevant third sector organisations stronger representation in the new model for community justice. I fully recognise that the third sector is vital to the successful planning and delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals, and I am grateful for the positive contribution that the sector makes to community justice now at both a local and national level and, hopefully, even greater in future. I am also grateful to Margaret MacDougall for working with me in framing the stage 3 amendment, which provides that a statement of engagement is to be included by the community justice partners when preparing their outcomes improvement plans. That will confirm that the third sector bodies participated in the plan and the efforts that are made by the community justice partners to secure and facilitate the participation of third sector bodies and community bodies in their local area. Margaret MacDougall and I also worked together in relation to amending the bill to make clear that third sector organisations that represent victims and their families are also to be consulted in the planning and key documents relating to community justice, where those organisations provide community justice services or perform an advocacy or advisory role. I trust that the committee and stakeholders will recognise the significant amendments that were made at stage 2 and stage 3 as a positive response to the points that they raised with me and with the committee. I said earlier that being able to demonstrate to communities that better community justice outcomes are being delivered is a key part of the new model for community justice. Supporting the community justice partners in achieving those outcomes is one of the functions of the new national body community justice Scotland. I understand that there have been misunderstandings as to the role of community justice Scotland and indeed some fears that it might be a regulatory body or a body with the potential to acquire unlimited new powers with no check or break in that. So let me allay those fears now and be clear about how community justice Scotland will work together with community justice partners. I wish to emphasise that this is a decentralised model that places decision making in the hands of local people and agencies who know their communities best. Having 32 sets of community justice partners boosts the potential for learning for shared good practice as there is greater scope for innovation. It also provides transparency over performance and the achievement of improved outcomes. That is why having a national body with oversight powers will be an asset to the new model. At its core, community justice Scotland is being established to provide leadership to the community justice sector, as well as to support partners and stakeholders to deliver better outcomes for community justice in Scotland. As part of those overarching aims, community justice Scotland has a function to provide assurance on community justice partners progress towards national outcomes. To provide that assurance, community justice Scotland must be able to make recommendations to community justice partners, including promoting good practice or recommending specific action where progress towards an outcome is not being made. The amendments that the committee agreed at stage 2 reframed and expanded the existing provisions in the bill to be clearer about the oversight powers held by community justice Scotland, especially regarding its ability to make local improvement recommendations to community justice partners and national improvement recommendations to ministers. In its stage 1 report, the committee stated, and I quote here, that, if community justice Scotland did not have adequate powers of oversight to measure and drive forward improvements in performance, then there was a danger that weaknesses in relation to accountability, strategic leadership and the ability to properly measure outcomes in the existing arrangements would persist. The amendments responded positively to that recommendation by providing clarity on the arrangements for oversight and performance improvement. However, let me also be clear about the role of community justice partners and Scottish ministers in performance improvement. The responsibility for resolving any local issues with planning or the quality of delivery and achieving progress against improving outcomes rests with the statutory community justice partners of that local area. Existing accountability lines for individual statutory community justice partners remain through their respective organisations. Should partners request assistance on issues that they have not been able to resolve locally, then community justice Scotland will be able to offer support and advice. Where there are persistent issues in achieving improved outcomes, then community justice Scotland can make recommendations to Scottish ministers. Recommendations could be made around the requirement for improvement plans, the potential for specific multi-agency inspections and in exceptional circumstances. I stress that, the recommendation to establish a rescue task group to work with the local partners. Recommendations at a national level could also be made. Of course, I would expect that persistent issues would be the exception rather than the norm. First and foremost, community justice Scotland is there to support partners, to share good practice and to champion the community justice sector, giving party of esteem to custodial and non-custodial sentences. It sits alongside the community justice partners, not above them, and we do not see it as a regulator nor it is intended to be. To conclude, the community justice bill lays a firm foundation on which we will build a robust, transparent and inclusive new model for community justice in Scotland. The new model places decision making locally with those who know their communities best and who will be most affected by community justice issues. I move that the Parliament agrees that the community justice Scotland bill will be passed. I thank the Scottish Labour Party, the clerks, witnesses, legislation team, Scottish Government officials and the minister for their contributions to the development of the bill since it was introduced last year. The bill has changed considerably since its first draft. Many of the suggestions made by the justice committee in its stage 1 report have been taken on board by the Scottish Government and others were successfully pressed by Opposition members at stage 2. The original definition of community justice was generally considered to be too narrow, as it was restricted to people who had already offended and focused on the prevention of re-offending rather than the prevention of offending itself. The majority of witnesses at stage 1 felt that it was a missed opportunity and that the definition should also include resistance, prevention and early intervention. Scottish Labour members were pleased to support stage 2 amendments that included bail conditions, community disposals, post-release control and persons that identified as its heist risk of first-time offending. The latter was introduced as an amendment from Alison McInnes, which, despite the Government's reservation that the bill should be included in the bill, was another strategy that was found favour with the majority of committee members. Alison McInnes was also successful in placing on the face of the bill some of the support systems that should be offered where appropriate, including housing services. That was proposed by Shelter, whose prison advice project supporting offenders in Perth, Aberdeen and Inverness, both during and after serving the sentences, demonstrated the effectiveness of housing support in the prevention of re-offending. I had concerns that the Government's stage 3 amendments changed some of that. However, I accept that the policy intention is still there and that the amendments this afternoon have altered and possibly tidied up the wording of stage 2 and that the policy intention remains and therefore that the bill is enhanced. Community justice will only work if the community and the judiciary believe that it is an effective, successful and appropriate alternative to imprisonment. In particular, it is important that the victims of crime when a community disposal is given know that due consideration is given to their views and needs and that a disposal is not some sort of soft option. Communities and victims also need to know that they will receive respite from the offending behaviour of those individuals. My colleague, Margaret MacDougall, has been determined to ensure that victims' interests are specifically mentioned on the face of the bill. That could be congratulated on her success in working with the Government to ensure that amendments reflecting the concerns of organisations such as victim support and Scottish Women's Aid have been successfully introduced into the bill today and, in addition to the amendment that she persuaded the committee to accept at stage 2, which ensured that the management and support of offenders must be undertaken with regard to the safety of others in the community. At stage 2, COSLA expressed a number of concerns regarding how the proposals would impact on local government, whether the reporting mechanism would be over burdensome, whether the funding available is sufficient to ensure that the new community justice partnerships work effectively, how councils would be involved in the national insurance process, the relationship between community justice partners and the community planning process and possible conflict between the national commissioning undertaken by community justice Scotland and the local community justice partnerships. Those were a subject of a series of stages to probing amendments submitted in my name and I hope that the discussion at committee and subsequent discussions, which I believe have taken place between the minister and COSLA, have allayed most of those concerns. However, I think that the majority of committee members remain of the opinion that sufficient resources must be allocated to the local partnerships to enable them to fulfil their duties and I urge the Government to ensure that funding is monitored and that any shortfalls are rectified. One of the issues that did make it into an amendment in my name today, albeit in an altered form, was amendment 32 and I am, of course, pleased that Parliament accepted it this afternoon. During the stage 1, the committee heard evidence that a term offender could be considered to be stigmatising, though it was not clear at that stage how that could be avoided. The minister reflected on the matter and introduced amendments at stage 2, removing the term and replacing the word re-offending with future offending, thereby including people who, at the time of engagement with the community justice service, had not been committed or convicted of an offence. That is a point that the minister made again at stage 3, that people are, in our system, innocent until proved guilty and therefore should not be treated as guilty even if they need to be engaged with community justice services and, obviously, in things like remand, that sort of engagement will be extremely important. That has been a short stage 3 debate today, partly because there has been so much agreement on so many of the issues that were raised at stage 1 and that so much of that agreement was actually achieved at stage 2. However, the brevity of today's debate does not reflect the importance of the matters that we have dealt with today. In Scotland and in the UK, generally, we are over-reliant on prison to deal with offending behaviour. We lock up a greater proportion of offenders and we lock them up for short periods during which rehabilitation and purposeful activity is difficult to achieve, turning often those offenders out onto the streets to offend again. Of course, victims and communities often want perpetrators of climate to spend time in prison. Sometimes that is to gain respite from offending behaviour, but also because there is currently a lack of confidence in the alternatives to imprisonment. The aid community justice authorities established by the management of offenders Scotland act of 2005 did not succeed. Both the Angelenian commission on women offenders and Audit Scotland identified problems in the system, in particular with the lack of strategic leadership, accountability and capacity. It is important that the new structure is able to rectify those deficiencies. If more successful use is to be made of community disposals, their effectiveness and robustness must be clearly demonstrated. Community disposals must work for victims and communities, as well as for the people who have been involved or potentially involved in offending behaviour. There is still a job to be done in raising the consciousness, raising the understanding of community disposals, but also raising confidence in community disposals. That is work that is now in progress and needs to be so. The bill is, of course, intended to address the criticisms of the management of offenders act. Its scope during its passage has been widened considerably. The role played by the third sector has been explicitly recognised and the types of support that can prevent offending and reoffending have been cited in greater detail. Members of the justice committee have received information regarding the development of the draft guidance, the national strategy and the national performance framework. I do not want to end on a sour note, particularly as there has been so much movement and improvement on the bill, but I have to say that there are still issues about how the local community justice projects are funded. The justice committee this week was advised that the 12 projects supporting new or enhanced community justice services for women had twice been allocated one off funding. Most recently, 640,000 were transferred from the Scottish Prison Service because they had difficulty in securing full local funding. The Angiolini commission recommended that enhanced community justice services for women should be sustained locally, but in the current financial circumstances it is not at all clear how the projects or the wider community justice services are to be sustained financially. I put that into the discussion because it would be extremely unfortunate if all our good intentions today are foundered on lack of funds. I welcome the stage 3 debate on the community justice Scotland bill. The final bill is quite different and greatly improved from the one that was presented at stage 1. The credit for this is largely due to the witnesses and stakeholders whose evidence proved invaluable in helping the justice committee to amend the bill as it progressed through the legislative process. The bill was introduced against a background of both Audit Scotland and the commission on women offenders' severe criticism of the current model. Those criticisms highlighted the current model's limited impact on rates of offending, inconsistent service provision across Scotland, a lack of nationally agreed measures and assess performance and also an absence of strategic leadership and accountability. As the committee was told at stage 1 that the bill was merely enabling legislation, it was soon apparent that its provisions were much more far reaching and included defining the perimeters of community justice, abolishing the existing eight community justice authorities and perhaps in its closing remarks the minister will address the two-pay issue. The bill's provision also includes providing for the creation of community justice Scotland as the overarching national body charged with monitoring the delivery of improved outcomes and delegating the local planning, delivery and monitoring of services to 32 community justice partners. Therefore, the bill paves a way for significant reforms to the community justice system in Scotland. However, a key element that was noticeably missing from the legislation was a focus on prevention and early intervention. Furthermore, the third sector expressed serious concerns that it risks being marginalised by the proposed new structure. Amendments that stage 2 from the minister, but particularly from Alison McInnes and Margaret McDougall sought to address those criticisms, resulting in a much-improved piece of legislation. Early intervention was incorporated into the meaning of community justice, while the interests of victims of offending behaviour were acknowledged on the face of the bill, which was a welcome addition. Today, those amendments have been modified and, in the case of prevention and early intervention, sadly, removed completely. As a result, despite the extensive feedback from stakeholders, including Police Scotland, Sacro, Bernardo, Victim Support Scotland and the SNP Government, has rejected a holistic approach that encompasses early intervention and prevention. Many justifiably argue that that is an opportunity lost. Furthermore, at stage 1, there was significant discussion about the relationship between the new community justice Scotland and the 32 community justice partnerships. Originally, the model was expressed as non-hierarchial to the justice committee. However, during the scrutiny of the bill, it became clear that the relationship was indeed higher archial, which risks the possibility of a top-down approach to community justice in statute when decisions should be taken at a local level based on need. However, assurances have been given about the flexibility that each of the 32 community justice partnerships will be afforded. That is an important issue, as is the funding, which will be allocated to the community justice partnerships, and that remains clear at this point in time. Furthermore, the original intent for the bill to tackle re-offending alone and serve merely as a de facto vehicle for the Scottish Government's Pino reforms, but the consultation on the proposed reforms has just been concluded. Responses have still to be analysed, so again, there is a degree of uncertainty as to how those proposals will ultimately pan out. Given those unanswered questions and uncertainties, it did not seem unreasonable to insert a sunset clause. That would have ensured that the new model for community justice was subject to post-legislative scrutiny five years after royal assent, once any further changes to the criminal justice system and, in particular, the Pino system had beddied in. It would have ensured that the important stage 2 amendments, which remain part of the bill's provision, were kept under review and properly monitored, so I regret that that was not supported at stage 3. Nonetheless, there have been radical changes to the bill, which means that it now properly includes the third sector, and it also crucially recognises the importance of housing and homelessness, and the part that it plays in helping to reduce re-offending by ensuring that those issues are now covered in the bill. I can therefore confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of Four Minutes, please, and I call Roger Campbell to be followed by Margaret McDougall. At this stage of the bill, it is perhaps worthwhile to reflect on the history of the bill, born out of the commission of Women Offenders report, in particular, but also the Audit Scotland report, as Margaret Mitchell has mentioned already. It is perhaps appropriate that we are debating this bill in the same week as we have heard from the justice secretary with a further progress report on the implementation of Dame Eilish Angelini's recommendations and with an important announcement on Caunton Bale. Community Justice Scotland may not be quite the body that Dame Eilish anticipated, and it may not be able to commission, provide and manage adult offender services, but we should remember that there was insufficient support for a national model at the consultation stage. Of course, we should also remember that improved outcomes require input at a local level, but encouraging a presumption against shorter sentences and keeping women out of prison is, I believe, very much to the forefront of Government thinking, and we have heard important evidence about the prison estate for women in committee this week. In committee, we all heard a lot of evidence at stage 1 about the importance of alternatives to prosecution. Community justice must offer a real and credible alternative to the criminal justice system. We need to build on initiatives that work already to encourage local initiatives, but to recognise the need for outcomes to be monitored at a national level and evaluated in a consistent manner. The bill, as is well known, does not cover primary prevention, stopping offending in the first place, but I am heartened by the comments of the minister earlier on when he talked about the link between primary and secondary and tertiary offending being covered in guidance. Of course, it does cover subsequent behaviour and its success will be measured by the extent to which it prevents future or further offending. The relationship between community justice Scotland and community justice partners is important, but I am not sure that very much can be gleaned from the bill as to how that will work in practice. Other than to stress, I think that it is meant to be non-hierarchical. Yes, there may be reports, but community justice Scotland will certainly miss a trick if it becomes bogged down in annual reports, as Dame Eilish Angelini hinted when she gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. Whether or not the bill will succeed in reducing a cluttered land state appears arguable to me. To some extent, I have come to the view that, given the number of parties involved in community justice, that is quite problematic. However, what it does need is for community justice Scotland to establish a rapport with local community justice partners to demonstrate leadership and also to offer appropriate assistance and advice. It should be a relationship based on mutual support to achieve agreed outcomes. I hope also that the new setup will recognise the important role of the third sector. Indeed, I welcome the responsive nature of the Government's response both at stage 2 and earlier this afternoon. Of course, we do need to ensure that the promised national strategy is developed with full input from not only the third sector but from local government in particular. It would be good to allay the concerns of COSLA if at all possible about what the new setup will involve. The new strategy needs to improve public understanding. As Alison McKinnis indicated at stage 2, it is also important to improve access to services such as housing in particular. Discouraging re-offending will be made all the more difficult if there are inadequate attempts to reintegrate people within the community. In conclusion, it will no doubt be argued that, to make success of the new arrangements, they must be adequately resourced. I agree, but I would hope that over a period of time significant resources that go into the prison system can be diverted for better use in community justice. Presiding Officer, this is an important bill. I wish it well on reaching the statute book, and I congratulate the Government, stakeholders and indeed other members of the chamber on the work that they have undertaken into making this bill, the legislation that it is today. I am particularly pleased to be taking part in the stage 3 debate on the community justice bill today, because this is the first bill that I will have seen through from start to finish since joining the Parliament in 2011. As such, it has given me a great sense of achievement to have my amendments supported today. I would like to thank the clerks and all those who gave me evidence to committee, which helped to deliver what I hope is a strong and robust piece of legislation. I would particularly like to thank Women's Aid, Victim Support and Barnardo's for their support in bringing forward my amendments. I would also like to thank the minister and his legislation team for working with me on my amendments in stage 2 to find a form of words that were acceptable to all concerned. I am also grateful to the committee for passing amendment 95 during the stage 2 considerations. Amendment 95 ensures that when a prisoner is being released, the safety of other persons in the community, including victims of offences and their families, is taken into account. The purpose of my amendments 28 and 29 has been to ensure a specific reference to victims, communities and families on the face of the bill, while amendment 30 and 31 is to ensure that the third sector is properly represented, consulted and engaged by community justice partners in preparation of their plan and that those methods and outcomes are reported to community justice Scotland, who will then make comment and take any action if required. All three of those amendments had wide-ranging support from various organisations and stakeholders, including Women's Aid, Victim Support, Shelter and the Community Justice Forum. I am happy that the Scottish Government has supported them today. There are still some issues that were raised during evidence that need addressed, one of them being the funding of third sector organisations. As I said during the stage 1 debate, I think that we should be moving away from annual funding to three-year model to allow for continuity and sustainability of the third sector organisations who provide many of the services in community justice. That would reduce uncertainty and allow for future planning for staff and the service users. As the stage 1 committee report stated, those concerns have existed over a number of years, but no action has been taken. Perhaps the Scottish Government can confirm today whether this issue is anywhere near being resolved. Finally, I am still concerned about the level of transitional funding to implement the community justice bill. It is currently 1.6 million over the next three years, split between 32 local authorities across Scotland, which may not be enough to support the changes. That is even more crucial now that no local authority budgets are being cut yet again. In community justice partnerships, if community justice partnerships are to succeed in their outcomes, they must be properly resourced, as my colleague Elaine Murray has pointed out today. Given that I raised the issue during the stage 1 debate, I ask the minister again whether he has given consideration to the availability of resources for community justice partnerships for delivering the proposals within the bill. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I am happy to support the bill at stage 3, and I thank the chamber for supporting my amendments today. With the passage of the bill, I think that we now need to take a serious look at how we deliver community justice under increasing financial pressures, and I am keen that we find a solution to securing longer-term funding for the third sector. It is almost four years since the commission on women offenders published their report. Of its 37 recommendations, only one of them gave me serious pause for thought, and that was the setting up of a national community justice service. Such a centralisation seemed contrary to the rest of the report, which emphasised a tailored community-based response. Community justice services are rightly part of the local government family, and developing close links between criminal justice services, youth justice, social work, housing, education, drug and alcohol services and so on has meant that we have seen progress on tackling the root causes of crime. I was concerned at the outset that such a change would be expensive, disruptive and lead to the loss of integration with other local services. However, I understood the frustration that led to that recommendation being made, and I shared much of the frustration, because the report from the commission described the lack of opportunity for strategic leadership and accountability and the delivery of offender services in the community. It described the short-term funding and difficulties in measuring impact and the inconsistent service provision across Scotland, and it told us that interventions delivered in prison very often ceased at the gate. Nevertheless, it quickly became clear that this was the one recommendation that did not carry broad support across the sector. Consultations on the proposal faltered repeatedly, resulting in a number of iterations, and progress has been slow. When the draft bill was finally produced, I was anxious that the proposals were perhaps a compromise too far. We have heard a lot over the last few years about the cluttered landscape in the community justice sector, and there was some skepticism at stage 1 as to whether or not the bill did anything to tackle that. However, during the passage of the bill, the minister has listened to those concerns, and his amendments at stage 2 have largely dispelled my fears, and his note on the draft guidelines that we received earlier this week starts to fill in some of the detail. I am pleased that the amendments that I tabled at stage 2 have largely been accepted by the Government and the spirit that they were intended. Through care from prison into community, it needs to be as seamless as possible. I am particularly pleased that I have been able to widen the definition of general services to include specific provision of appropriate housing. Members, this week, the Justice Committee took evidence on the Government's progress on implementing Angiolini's proposals, and it was heartening to sense that we might finally be at a turning point in bringing about progressive reform. So, notwithstanding the tone of causeless letter today, I hope that the bill will foster a renewed drive for reform among all the community justice partners. Many of the judiciary have until now been reluctant to utilise community sentences properly, and it is to be hoped that community justice Scotland holds the key to unlocking greater confidence in community-based services and other innovative approaches such as restorative justice. But, alongside the bill, we need to be ambitious about extending the presumption against short-term prison sentences, because I have no doubt at all that, for many offences, prison is rarely the right answer. Far better for community-based schemes to be the option of choice, having offenders contributing locally to make reparations, working in the community that challenges and changes people for the better, a positive, constructive way of making amends, but also of ensuring that offenders pay the penalty without getting caught up in the prison cycle. I believe that well-resourced and well-structured programmes will raise protection and bring down the rate of re-offending, and it will repay the damage done by crime in a way in which custodial sentences cannot. But the Government must also make sure that community-based reparations are properly resourced and rigorously assessed, and I would urge the minister to make sure that the experience and expertise that exists currently within the community justice partnerships is as much as possible harnas in moving forward, and I echo Margaret Mitchell's comments about TUPI. If it is possible for the minister to look again at TUPI arrangement, I would be most grateful. When we responded to the commission report back in 2012, I said that the Scottish Liberal Democrats would work with the Government to realise the goal of reducing re-offending. I noted that we would be in for a marathon rather than a quick sprint to the finishing line, but that ultimately the prize would be worth it. Presiding officer, that remains the case. Many thanks. Gil Paterson. Many thanks, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to be speaking in this stage 3 debate on community justice, being a current member of the Justice Committee, and I have seen this bill make its way through the Parliament at all its stages. I have heard from fellow MSPs, Government ministers, and of course groups and organisations with an interest in the bill. I take from the policy memorandum that the aim of the bill is to help create a stronger community justice system based on local collaborative strategic planning and delivery with national leadership support and assurance, and that is on that basis that I will be speaking today. The new model of community justice includes national leadership, oversight and support of community justice services by a new body called Community Justice Scotland. Local strategic planning, delivery and monitoring of services by groups of community justice partners of each of Scotland's 32 local authority areas. Scottish ministers are being responsible for a number of matters, including a national strategy and national performance framework for community justice. Especially on local elements, I feel the new model of community justice achieves an appropriate balance between strong national leadership to drive forward improvements in outcomes and local flexibility in planning in relation to the delivery of services. The new model places decision making locally for those who know their community's best and who will be most affected by community justice issues, meaning that local leadership and ownership of community justice is vital for those new arrangements for success. Community justice Scotland will improve leadership and strategic direction for the community justice sector and will promote best practice. The bill helps to clarify the relationship in place locally and between community justice Scotland and partners. Partners such as police, the prison service and the NHS will help partners to prepare for their roles and to understand key processes. I understand that the responsibility for resolving any local issues rests with the local statutory community justice partners. However, should partners request assistance on issues that they have not been able to resolve locally, community justice Scotland can offer support and advice. The strength of the new bill lies in ensuring that those who have paid their debt to society have the support in place to become valued members of the community. Audit Scotland states that there is an urgent need for a more strategic approach to planning, designing and delivering services at national and CGA level. There are many different bodies involved in planning, design and delivery of services for offenders. The range of bodies involved in Scotland creates a complex landscape. The new model in community justice Scotland brings coherence to the cluttered landscape of criminal justice by providing a strategic direction, strong leadership and a holistic collective approach to planning, reporting and commissioning of services. I welcome that the Scottish Government has committed to reducing re-offending and securing better outcomes for community justice services. It is working in partnership with organisations and communities to reduce re-offending and deliver better outcomes for offenders and communities. The Scottish Government has a clear vision for fair justice in Scotland moving forward towards a society where those who have been through the justice system can, having paid their debt to society, realise their aspirations and be supported to be active responsible contributors to our communities as fellow citizens. The community justice bill will help to achieve that vision, providing a commended bill and the Government's amendments to the Parliament. Many thanks. Now we turn to the closing speeches. Colin Margaret Mitchell, five minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Along the Scottish Government's amendments at the stage have done much to improve the legislation. I consider it an opportunity lost to have removed the amendment that ensured early intervention and prevention from its scope. The minister attempted to give assurances to the Justice Committee that the Government is tackling primary prevention through its policies in relation to early years provision, raising educational attainment, tackling youth unemployment, health and housing. However, this approach ignores the views of those on the front line, including Police Scotland, which advocated a holistic approach when chief superintendent Grant Manners gave evidence last September saying, for all this to be successful, it is necessary to take a whole system approach. It needs to be right from the start to finish. That leads to the emphasis on prevention and early intervention. For me, successful community justice is a whole system approach. It would be nice if some of the language, experience and good practice were encompassed in the language of the bill. Sadly, despite the importance of early intervention in identifying those at risk of offending and helping to prevent them from pursuing a life of crime being accepted wisdom, the Government has chosen to reject this holistic approach, which would have helped to improve the success of early intervention initiatives. Consequently, the mission of prevention from the bill's provision represents the opportunity lost for it to become a vehicle to help address groups such as young carers, who, due to their caring role, sometimes miss school or further education studied, which can have an impact on future employment and career prospects. Although the new carers bill addresses some of the problems here, as I was reminded by those who support those young carers during a recent visit to the young carers centre in Falkirk, there are still young carers who leave school without qualification or training but who have immense caring responsibility on their young shoulders. As the carers trust explains, that in turn means that for those young people there is a greater danger of developing mental or physical health issues and a higher likelihood of offending and becoming involved with the justice system. Although I welcome what the Scottish Government is doing with primary prevention across the different portfolios, I do not believe that it has to be an either or. Instead, by expanding the bill's scope, it could have complemented and strengthened work that is already being carried out. Crucially, it would have provided young carers and other organisations access to another funding stream to sustain that tried and tested work, rather than requiring additional funding, which I think addresses the point that was made by Roddy Campbell earlier. There remains a question mark over the broader and longer term implications of the bill. In the absence of a sunset clause, it will be incumbent on the next Parliament to closely monitor its impact. Deputy Presiding Officer, those comments were not standing. As I stated at the outset, the bill before us today is much improved on the version that the Justice Committee scrutinised at stage 1. The new provisions seek to implement many of the recommendations made by Audit Scotland and the Commission on Women Offenders, as well as a range of stakeholders. In particular, the recognition of the importance of housing and the vital role that the third sector plays in tackling re-offending is particularly welcome. The Scottish Conservative Party will support the bill at decision time this evening. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate today. First of all, I would like to allude to a number of key points that were raised during the debate of amendments earlier this afternoon. Alison McInnes and Elaine Murray and others made a very important issue that dealing with offending begins long before an offence or crime is committed. The acknowledgement from the minister that the point was well made and was one that required to join up a system that lies behind the bill that we debate today is an important one that we need to hold on to. Margaret Mitchell quite properly raised the issue of Tupi and the need to ensure that resources were available to those who would implement the legislation. Although we, on this side of the chamber, were unable to support the notion of a sunset clause, it does, by implication, place an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that the fears that were expressed in the chamber today are indeed without foundation and that, as we go forward in the future, a sunset clause was indeed a redundant day proposal. The final comment that I would make relates to the minister himself. His ability again has been demonstrated today that he not only hears of amendments from opposition parties but, in a very idiosycratic fashion in my experience in this chamber, he actually responds to them in an effective way and that that response does not scupper the way forward. I would commend that approach to other members of the Government and it would be a refreshing way forward for the future. Rod Campbell in the main debate this afternoon touched on the new setup that we are debating. Replacing eight CGAs with 32 community justice partnerships, one per local authority, establishing a national organisation, the Community Justice Scotland, with powers in relation to performance, promoting improvement and so forth, the Scottish ministers requiring to publish a community justice strategy, all of which is a way forward within the bill. Nevertheless, when we look at the experience of reforming emergency services, demands a great deal of attention from the minister from this day forward and from officials to ensure that the relationships are productive, that the method by which these various organisations are wedded work and that, at the end of the day, those that we seek to provide the solace, the communities that we serve, see an alternative to prison that works and one that shows value for money. That is an important responsibility that lies ahead for the minister and the cabinet secretary and the new Government, but we know that the eight CGAs did not work. We know that other than the chairs of the CGAs, it was very difficult to find anyone in Scotland who thought that they did work. In that circumstance, it is all the more important that the local community networks, the authorities and others, contribute in a positive and honest fashion. If it is not working in the future, it needs to be fixed and not left for another five years to soldier along at public expense, but to the detriment of the very people that we seek to protect, those who may well offend in the future. Let us see that we can deliver. Cossol made some important comments in briefing before our debate today. That whole element of governance is important and that aspect is what let down emergency services reform. The lack of an effective governance, the lack of an expectation that meetings would take place, that people who were designated chairpersons actually accepted the responsibilities that were given them and that the relationships worked in the various 32 areas, is an important aspect of the Cossol's comment that he offered. Equally, that notion of commissioning functions and duplication of effort is something that, certainly in my time in justice committee, we saw a great deal of. There are organisations out there bumping into each other and competing over the same turf, spending the same public allocation of monies to their groups, but not delivering additional value. Cossol has a comment about commissioning functions and the need to ensure local prioritisation is an important comment that was received in their briefing. I was pleased to hear that the minister in his introductory speech gave full force and strength in the comments that he made. The final aspect that I would make some comment on was the ability of the third sector to play their part. The third sector, like the rest of public life, is under stress. There is no point in trying to engage with the public sector and expect them to pull their weight alongside public authorities unless we are willing to offer them the support that they need and give them access to public sector relationships to the full. I know that the way in which various organisations, and I would include victim support and women's aid in this impact, various groups spend as much time trying to get funds in order that they can do the work as they do the work itself. Where I join with Margaret MacDougall in thanking victim support and women's aid for the contribution that they have made during the debate, I would finally comment that, having watched the bill going through the various stages, I am grateful to the clerks. I am also grateful to the members of justice committee because their work, in conjunction with the minister, has produced a bill that is a great deal healthier than it was to begin with, and the billwriters have done a Trojan job as usual in producing something that looks as though it makes sense, and I would hope that the Government is able to enforce it in a way that we will all applaud the years ahead. I am grateful to the members for their contributions to this afternoon's debate. I think that the thoughtful nature of the contributions from across the chamber today have marked the way in which the committee and other members have engaged in the process of developing the bill. I agree with members that it is a stronger bill today than when we started, and that is a tribute to everyone for their work. As Dr Murray stated, the brevity of today's debate is an inaccurate measure of the importance of the bill, which I fully agree with her. It has profound implications for the delivery of justice in Scotland. As I said in my opening remarks, the bill has enjoyed strong cross-party support from the start. It is clear that there is a great deal of interest in community justice across the chamber, and I certainly would welcome Margaret Mitchell's comment that the Conservatives will support the bill today. I certainly would like to touch on a number of key issues that I will focus on in responding to members' comments. I will start with the biggest issues around TUP and funding, and then hopefully cover the rest as we go on. I apologise to Margaret Mitchell, I did not address it in my earlier remarks. Scottish ministers are satisfied that the bill does not create a transfer of undertakings protection of employment situation for community justice Scotland. The functions of the CGA will not transfer to community justice Scotland when it is established, so the employees of the CGA will not automatically move to community justice Scotland under the operation of TUP or the Cabinet Office statement of practice or COSOP. Whether TUP would apply to transfer of CGA employees to local authorities will be a matter for local authorities as potential employers to consider. With regard to the no compulsory redundancy policy that has been referred to by a number of individuals, it currently applies to staff of bodies that are covered by the public sector pay policy. CGA's were established as new local government bodies to facilitate the co-ordinated delivery of community justice services by local authorities across local authority areas. As CGA's are local government bodies, their employees are not subject to the public sector pay policy or the no compulsory redundancy policy, but my officials are working with the CGA's and local authorities to ensure that staffing arrangements at the community justice authorities are managed to minimise as far as possible any job losses when CGA's are dis-established and that where those cannot be avoided, staff will be appropriately compensated. We have been looking very closely at the terms and additions to ensure that there is fair treatment of everybody in respect of those matters. Mark Mitchell, is there a possibility that there could still be some compulsory redundancies? I will happily come back to the member on that. It is obviously a detail negotiation that is happening at a local level and there are different policies in place across the different CGA's at the moment. Perhaps I can respond to the member after this meeting. It is obviously sensitivities around negotiations with employees, but turning now to the transitional funding and longer-term funding position, ensuring that partners build their capability and capacity to work together to achieve improved outcomes is critical to the successful transition to the new model for community justice. The Scottish Government has therefore established a transition workstream with a post in COSLA leading on this. To support the workstream, a working group meets regularly and is taking forward much of the work plan for transition. The group has representation from the Scottish Government, community justice partners, people with convictions, COSLA, CGA's, community planning partners, partnerships and the third sector. A wide range of transition work has been carried out so far. I spoke at a national event for stakeholders at Murrayfield last autumn where 120 people from all over Scotland gathered to discuss the common outcomes and national strategy for community justice. At the end of January this year, one of the key milestones for community planning partnerships was the preparation of transition plans. The transition plans are focused on structures, governance and resource arrangements that the partners intend to put in place to implement the new model locally. The plans also set out each authority's plans for engagement involvement with the third sector service users, people with convictions, communities in their local arrangements, planning and delivery in 2016-17, and the preparation that will help community justice partners to prepare their first community justice plans by January of next year. I am pleased to say that nearly all the plans have been shared in comments that will be provided with a view to further supporting a successful transition. On resourcing, we need to help build capability and capacity locally. Transitional funding of £1.6 million was split equally with £50,000 for each CPP and has been paid for by 2015-16 and confirmed for 2016-17. I should say in conversation with COSLA what I have invited COSLA to do and encourage the members to do is to supply evidence of how they are using that existing transitional funding. That will throw up if there are any bottlenecks, any constraints that we can help to address, but I would just invite them to do that. It is important that we know if there are problems in terms of meeting the expectations that we have of them with the resources that we have given. We will obviously look—we have once again got a one-year funding settlement this year, but clearly after the election, whichever administration is in place will have the opportunity to look in the longer term on a spending review and to take a longer term view of that. However, our intention is for the funding to be available for three years, commencing 2015-16 and ending in 2017-18. However, that position will obviously be reviewed following the election. The third sector also has an important role in the planning, delivery and evaluation of community justice and has been granted transitional funding through the criminal justice voluntary sector forum of £50,000 per annum for three years. Again, that is subject to the outcome of the next spending review. Looking at the on-going funding for community justice partners, the Government's position is to consider the evidence of how the three-year transitional funding is being used, as I said, and reflect on that. I certainly picked up from members across the chamber the concern to ensure that we help the third sector in particular to deal with the year-on-year sort of chase for funding. We certainly are looking to review that as part of the review of section 27 funding. On that, I would say that we are a technical advisory group that has established and considered the work of developing a new formula for section 27. Funding has replaced the current one. A move from an annual system of funding to a funding model over a three-year period is one of the issues that is being considered by the main funding group. The advisory group reported to the main funding group in December, and following discussion between the Scottish Government and COSLA recommendations will be made to the joint Scottish Government and COSLA settlement and distribution group. That new funding formula for section 27 is intended to go live in 2017-18. We are looking at the context of three-year funding cycles in that discussion. I would like to turn to some other points that were made by members across the chamber in the remaining time that I have. Certainly on the judiciary issue, which Alison McInnes and Elaine Murray and Graham Pearson referred to, and indeed communities that Graham Pearson referred to, in terms of giving confidence to both the judiciary and the community, I think that the CGS has a particularly important role here in leading on preparation of evaluation evidence and disseminating that evidence and giving confidence to all those parties that community sentences have an effective outcome and that they can be more effective than custodial sentences in driving further improvement in that area. That is an extremely important role for community justice Scotland. I thank Graham Pearson for his potentially career limiting remarks on my engagement with Opposition members in the chamber, but I am very grateful for the kindness in which he meant it. To pick up on Alison McInnes' point, I have very much tried to reflect the spirit of the amendments that were made and to ensure that we did not lose anything that was good in the passage of trying to tidy up the wording. I again want to thank Margaret MacDougall for raising the issue around victims and families supported by the committee, of course, across the committee, but I think it was important intervention and one, hopefully, that helped strengthen the bill and build buying from wider communities for the bill and its intentions. I think that certainly the implementation intention is to continue to review the implementation and to give assurance to Graham Pearson if I am unfortunate enough to be in a position to have a role, but certainly my success is if I am not that the Government will take its responsibilities to ensure a smooth transition very seriously. On the marginalisation issue regarding primary prevention, I understand that it is a sincere point that Margaret Mitchell has made. I hope that we can, in due course, convince Margaret Mitchell and others who are concerned in this matter that, through the guidance but also in the work through the justice board, ensuring that community justice Scotland, working alongside other partners in the justice board, will look very much about how secondary and tertiary prevention works alongside primary prevention strategies such as the youth justice strategy, in which the justice board has a key role in ensuring the implementation of that strategy. In terms of community justice Scotland itself, I certainly agree with Roderick Campbell, Ars MacKinnis, Graham Pearson and Gil Paterson about the need for developing a rapport, taking a strategic view of and leading in a strategic way and providing advice and support when needed and when requested. I hope that that very much will be the model that develops. I welcome the support for the objectives of the bill from across the chamber. The bill provides the legislative basis for a new model for community justice Scotland. The bill establishes a new national body community justice Scotland and places specific duties on statutory partners regarding the achievement of community justice outcomes and introduces a national strategy and outcomes performance and improvement framework. I think that it is a good bill. I think that the chamber can be satisfied with the role that it has played the committee and the wider chamber in making it a strong bill, and it brings a number of elements together. However, what we are really talking about is addressing the underlying causes of offending behaviour in a strategic collaborative way so that people who have committed offences are supported, as was said by Gil Paterson and others, to be responsible contributors to our communities, which in turn makes our communities safer and stronger. That is what matters to me. I am sure that it matters to members across the chamber and therefore urge Parliament to support the bill so that we can begin the work to deliver its objectives, reducing future offending and making our communities safer. Many thanks, minister. That concludes the debate on the community justice Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15608, in the name of Maureen Watt, on the burial and cremation Scotland bill. I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in this debate could please press the request to speak buttons now. I will allow a few seconds for members to change places. I call on Maureen Watt to speak to and move the motion. Minister, 10 minutes please. I rise to open the debate on the burial and cremation Scotland bill. I would like to begin by thanking the Health and Sport Committee, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their detailed consideration of the bill and for supporting the bill's general provisions. I have written to each committee responding to the recommendations. I want to use this opportunity to explain how I have responded to some of those recommendations and to impress upon the chamber the value of this bill. The Local Government and Regeneration Committee suggested that the bill lacks ambition. I disagree with that view. This is an important bill that will make valuable and much-needed improvements to the way in which burial and cremation is carried out in Scotland. The current legislation is over 100 years old. Indeed, the current burial legislation dates back to 1855 and it strains to meet today's expectations. Few of us wish to think about the subject matters dealt with by the bill, but they affect all of us at some point. When we need to arrange a funeral, it is essential that processes are easy to understand, consistent and reliable, and we need to know that our loveland ones will be treated respectfully and with dignity. The current system does not ensure that this is necessarily the case and the bill will rectify that. There are a number of problems with the current system. There is a lack of consistency in some important processes. Those processes can be complicated and difficult to understand at the best of times, let alone when dealing with the loss of a loved one. There can also be a lack of clear information given to the person who is making the funeral arrangements. Lord Bonomy's infant cremation commission identified all too clearly the potential impact of those problems. The steps taken in the bill will help to ensure that such failings can never occur again. The health and sport committee's report made a number of recommendations to further improve processes set out in the bill, and I thank the committee for the rigor with which it has considered the bill. In my response to the committee, I confirmed that I will accept many of its recommendations, and I believe that the bill will be stronger for it. In setting what will happen after a pregnancy loss, the bill ensures that the woman who has experienced the loss is at the centre of the decision-making process. I intend to bring forward stage 2 amendments to further support an even more person-centred approach to deciding what should be done with the remains of a pregnancy loss. That will ensure that no woman is ever rushed into making a decision and will provide extra flexibility where a woman needs more time to decide what she wants to happen. I will also lodge amendments to improve the process following a post-24-week termination. While such situations are relatively rare, it is important that there is a consistent approach where a woman is given clear options and is supported to make a decision that is right for her. I will also lodge amendments to protect the woman's medical confidentiality in this situation. The local government and regeneration committee expressed concerns about the bill's lack of provision regarding the sighting of crematoriums. Many people who gave evidence to the committee believed that the bill should replicate the existing minimum distance provision in the Cremation Act 1902, which prevents a crematorium being built within 200 yards of a house without the consent of the householder. I do not believe that including such a provision in the bill is necessary. The location of new crematoria, as well as other developments close to existing crematoriums, is rightly a matter for the planning system. Matters about emissions from crematoriums are regulated by SIPA. Those two regimes provide appropriate level of control over the location and operation of crematoriums. An additional distance restriction set out in this bill would have no function that is not already considered by one or other of those regimes. As such, I do not believe that there is any particular benefit to the inclusion of a minimum distance in the bill. In my response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I indicated that I have accepted many of its recommendations. In particular, the committee was keen that the bill itself said more about what may be done with ashes rather than leaving that to secondary legislation. I accept the committee's view about the importance of that, and I intend to lodge amendments to strengthen the bill's position on what crematoriums and funeral directors may do with ashes, particularly where they have not been collected by family as arranged. The committee also raises concerns about setting out particular offences in secondary legislation. I have reviewed that approach, and I am able to confirm that I will bring forward a number of amendments to remove offences that would have been made in regulations. However, I believe that, in some instances, that approach remains appropriate. All three committees commented on the approach taken to the inspection regime set out in the bill, as well as the potential licensing of funeral directors. The bill sets out significant detail about inspection and the role of inspectors. That includes inspectors' duties, sanctions against poor practice or breaches of regulations, reporting arrangements and accountability. I intend to lodge an amendment that will help to clarify the inspection function further on the face of the bill, but it is right that the framework for inspection is set out in the bill, while the detail involved in the day-to-day operation of the scheme is still in secondary legislation. The bill places ministers under an obligation to consult with stakeholders before making regulations about inspections, and those regulations are in turn required to be approved by the Scottish Parliament using the affirmative procedure. There is also a collective view that more details of the proposed licensing scheme for funeral directors should be set out in the bill. I do not think that that would be the right approach. The bill sets out the key principles of a licensing scheme, including that a funeral director will require a licence to operate if a licensing scheme is indeed established. Details of the operation of the scheme will be prescribed in regulations, and the bill sets out what such regulations may cover. At the moment, there is not enough evidence about the industry as a whole to say with certainty that licensing is required or what form a licensing scheme would take. While we have heard accounts of poor practice by funeral directors, I believe that most companies provide a good service. Nonetheless, I am keen that standards are improved throughout the industry and that meaningful sanctions can be taken in response to poor service and bad practice. That is why I intend to use the inspectors appointed under the bill to review the industry and to make recommendations about the need for licensing and how licensing could more effectively operate. While that may delay the implementation of a licensing scheme, I believe that that is the way to ensure an effective licensing scheme that will support consistent, high standards across the industry. I look forward to hearing the contributions of members and a move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Beryll and Cremation Scotland Bill. Many thanks. I now call on Duncan McNeill to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee. I would like to begin by thanking the many stakeholders who submitted evidence on the bill, particularly those parents who generously shared their difficult experiences of losing a baby or a pregnancy with us. The evidence greatly assisted us on the committee with its deliberations and the understanding of what had happened. I think that you see that reflected in our stage 1 report. The loss of a baby is, of course, one of the most heartbreaking things that can happen to any parent. That excitement, that anticipation of family renewal and new birth turns to shock, grief and trauma. Add to that the experience of not knowing what happened to your baby's ashes has a long, lasting and devastating impact on those affected. The brief parents who shared their views with the committee sent a very clear message. That bill must ensure that the poor practice of the past should never happen again. The policy memorandum of the bill states that its purpose is to provide a modern, comprehensive legislative framework for Beryll and Cremation. The evidence that we receive welcomes the bill's intention and the committee supports its aims. A key purpose of the bill is to give effect to a number of recommendations made by the Beryll and Cremation review group and the Infant Cremation Commission. We therefore examined how the bill addresses circumstances involving pregnancy loss and the loss of a baby. We made a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government in our stage 1 report about strengthening the relevant provisions in the bill. I welcome the minister's confirmation that she will bring forward stage 2 amendments to address many of our concerns. Of course, time does not allow me to address all the recommendations, so I will instead focus on a couple of the key issues. As my speech will use terminology of the bill, I apologise in advance if my use of that terminology causes anyone distress. The key objective of the bill is to establish a clear and ambiguous understanding of ashes. It defines ashes not including metal. The bill also defines cremation as the reduction to ashes of human remains by the burning of the remains and the application to the burnt human remains by grinding or other processes. We agree with that definition, which accords with the Infant Cremation Commission's recommendation. Sands UK also considered that definition match the understanding that many parents have of ashes. However, stakeholders from the cremation industry raised concerns about the definition of cremation in the bill. They explained to the committee that the term cremulating was preferable to the industry rather than grinding as used in the bill. The committee also heard concerns that certain faith groups and nationalities do not wish burnt human remains to be cremulated. The evidence made it clear to the committee why the definition's terminology must be clear and accurate. I seek clarification from the minister that the guidance to the cremation professionals will ensure that, where appropriate, they must explain the process of cremulation to the bereaved so that they can take an informed choice as to whether to proceed. The bill provides for a number of different timescales in which women are invited to consider what arrangements to make about the loss of pregnancy. We have called for the statutory timescales for decision making and disposal of remains currently within the bill to be made more flexible. It is essential to allow women to make the decisions as quickly or as slowly as they wish. Although we welcome the Scottish Government's confirmation that it will consider amending the bill at stage 2, I seek clarification from the minister of the range of factors that she considers. We would enable health authorities to delay the disposal of remains after the end of the six-week period, such as when a woman is waiting on welfare payments or for a social fund-fural payment or remains incapacitated. The matter just occurs to me that there are a tiny proportion of cases where there may be perinatal death of the mother. Has it been raised that perhaps such rights might be extended to the father as well in those very limited but critical circumstances? Was it something that we looked at particularly, but I think that the member does make a good point in the ministers here and may wish to consider that further. The committee also welcomes provisions in the bill that say who may make arrangements for burial and cremation following the loss of a child. I suppose that might cover the issue of death. However, we have concerns that this approach may not be suitable for women who undergo a medical termination after 24 weeks, where the laws on confidentiality might preclude relatives being contacted or where the woman has no family or if her family is unwilling to make arrangements. I welcome the minister's confirmation that the Government is considering amendments to address that, but I welcome more information on the terms of those amendments. In summary, we welcome the policy intention of the bill and agree to its general principles. However, we believe that the bill must be strengthened to ensure that previous poor practices never arise again. Many thanks. I now call on Kevin Stewart to speak on behalf of the local government and regeneration committee, convener, five minutes or so. As convener of the local government and regeneration committee, it is my job today to share with members the main points that arose during our scrutiny of the burial and cremation Scotland bill at stage one. Our locus, primarily related to the processes that support burial, is an option for the future and to some discrete areas relating to cremation, including the sighting of crematoriums. We also considered the proposals on inspection and licensing of the funeral industry, and an additional area of focus for us, although not directly addressed by the bill's provisions, was the issue of funeral costs, sometimes referred to as funeral poverty. Before I cover our deliberations in more detail, I would like to put on record the committee's support for the general principles of the bill. There is no doubt that the bill is required to modernise the archaic legislative framework. To assist us with our scrutiny task, we sought the views of those who work in the funeral industry and also heard from a diverse stakeholder group, including the Muslim Council for Scotland, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service. We received a total of 33 responses to our call for evidence, and we would like to thank all those who shared their views with us. Interestingly, there were no responses from folk on the generality of the bill and its impact on them. We found that surprising, given the potential for the bill to impact on us all. To use the words of the off-quoted Benjamin Franklin, this world nothing can be said to be certain except for death and taxes. Why the lack of engagement? We believe that this is due to the lack of detail in the bill. How can members of the public or stakeholders be expected to comment on the policy if they cannot comprehend how it will work in practice? There are three key areas where we have requested more detail. Those are the management of burial ground scheme, the independent inspection regime and the proposed licensing scheme. Let us move on to the bill's principal aim to modernise the legislative framework. As we have heard, this is quite old legislation that we have had to deal with and have got to update it now. We have an industry that is steeped in tradition, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but funeral businesses, just like other businesses, have to operate and compete in a modern digital world. Electronic record keeping is no longer a nicety, it is a necessity. Disappointingly, the bill has fallen short of requiring electronic record keeping, and that is why we recommend that it be remedied. The bill largely preserves the existing approach, albeit with some modifications to bring legislation into the 21st century. We consider that the bill could have fundamentally changed the way that the funeral industry operates and, by doing so, send a clear signal on service standards and costs. As we have heard, the bill is a response to poor historic practices in the funeral industry. We welcome the introduction of the inspection regime, however, we consider that the package of measures in the bill can be further strengthened through the swift introduction of licensing. Licensing will ensure that certain standards have to be met rather than relying on existing voluntary schemes and codes of practice where there are no effective sanctions for non-compliant businesses. Licensing itself also has the potential to address rising funeral costs. Funeral industry figures reveal healthy profits in a sector that is continuing to grow. One company's figures' dignity show for crematoria underlying profit as a percentage of revenue was 53 per cent in 2014. Revenue from funeral services was £184 million and underlying profit 36 per cent. Meanwhile, Fraser Sutherland of Citizens Advice Scotland told us in 2014 that it had a 35 per cent increase in the number of clients concerned about funeral issues and affordability, with the average cost of a funeral now being £3,550. Costs of a funeral can vary from street to street in a single town. We consider that a licensing scheme has the potential to require the funeral directors to display tariffs. That, we believe, would make it easier for people to make an informed choice at what is an extremely emotional time for a bereaved family. Costs across local authorities vary widely too. Western Isles charges £694 for purchase of a lair and an internment, while East Dunbartonshire charges £2,785. We found the reasons for that were varied and complex, but cross-subsidy of other services could be a factor. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to require local authorities to publish their costs online, as some do currently. We also thank the Scottish Government for providing the committee with an update on its review of funeral costs and development of a successor benefit to the DWP funeral payment. In the short term that I have left, I would like to briefly touch on sustainability of burial grounds. The reuse of lairs is essential if burial is to continue as an option in the future. It will be for burial authorities to make best use of those new powers. We welcome the ending of the sale of lairs in perpetuity and consider the introduction of a new limit of 25 years in the first instance as appropriate. In conclusion, we support the general principles of the bill and we look forward to the Scottish Government addressing the technical points that we have raised. I now call Jenny Marra, seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to rise to open the debate on the bill for Scottish Labour and the Labour Party will be supporting the general principles of this bill at decision time tonight. The legislation that has been in place around burial and cremation in Scotland is really outdated now. The minister said herself that the last legislation that we had on this was 1855, the Burial Grounds Scotland Act. This is really our chance to update our law and guidance for all people involved, funeral directors, local authorities and the industry for burial and cremation in Scotland. The act of burial and cremation is such an important time in many families' lives—the sad loss of loved ones. It is very important in our civilised society that we get these things right. I think that the bill comes at a very appropriate time because we know that in recent years we have not always got these things right. It was just last year that we heard about the tragic case of Kieran Williamson, an eight-year-old boy who was crushed and killed by a gravestone that fell as he played with his friends in Cregdon cemetery. The tragedy is unfortunately not an isolated incident. In the same graveyard five years previously, a teenager was trapped and injured by a gravestone. It is estimated that there are over 20,000 stones that are damaged, unstable and potentially hazardous in graveyards across Scotland. I am sure that every MSP in this chamber has to think of its constituency and local community where gravestones are starting to crumble and fall and posing a hazard. The bill comes at a time when we have the opportunity to better manage burial grounds. We have the chance here today to redesign the supply of burial space and the opportunity to put in place licensing codes of practice and regulation. The cases of children and young people being hurt by gravestones is concerning as many of our burial sites have fallen into disrepair. In Burnt Island, a 900-year-old church was granted funding from heritage lottery to preserve the church and graveyard and also the rich cultural heritage that the area holds. Our graveyards can be our heritage. In Dundee, the main castle graveyard in Cared Park was fallen apart in 2013 and it took for historians and local groups to highlight not only the danger that the crumbling stone posed but also a need to preserve local social history and their records. The bill will support burial authorities in managing and maintaining graveyards. At the moment, there is no single source of guidance and a lot of uncertainty about what can be done and by who. We know that, after about 25 years, many graves tend to be no longer visited, unfortunately. If friends and family are no longer visiting gravesites to see the damage that weather and temperature do to stones and memorials, we need another authority to step in to ensure that sites are safe and well maintained. Space is becoming an issue for some local authorities, particularly in the islands. Available land for burial is decreasing. We need to ensure that we have a long-term sustainable plan for burial grounds, including on maintaining the option for burial. Let me turn to an issue that has been addressed by Kevin Stewart and the minister this afternoon. That is funeral costs. The costs of funeral, as we all know in this chamber, from the very good work that the CAB does but also from our own surgeries and representations from our constituents, funeral costs are a worry to many families across Scotland. Figures from the accounts of Dignity, the large American company that owns many of our crematoriums in Scotland show that, between 2010 and 2014, their profit increased by 34%. In Scotland, there are over 1,000 funerals a week. The average cost, as Kevin Stewart referred to, of funerals is £3,500. Some families have to resort to pay day loans to be able to pay for a funeral for their family. At a time of grief and loss, this is a huge burden on those who are already suffering that worry of how to pay for a funeral. Many families simply do not have the money, and some have had to resort to the indignity of unmarked graves. By encouraging openness and transparency in the true cost of a funeral, we can begin to challenge this and make sure that every family is treated with dignity and fairness. It was just last week, where Citizens Advice Scotland called on the Scottish and UK Governments to support those who are struggling to pay for funerals. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to speed up its decision on funeral payments and meet the target of processing applications within 10 days. I have heard first-hand accounts of delayed decisions by the DWP on applications that lead to great stress around funeral payments. I look forward to the outcomes of the Scottish Government's forthcoming national conference on funeral poverty and its consideration of the funeral bond scheme, which I am sure could be a help to many. If I can turn to some other issues in the bill, I thank the health committee, in particular, for its scrutiny over the very sensitive issue of baby ashes and crematoriums. Scottish Labour welcomes today that the bill will complete 25 of the infant cremation commission's 64 recommendations. I thank Duncan McNeill, the committee convener, for speaking in detail and very sensitively about the issues that were raised. What happened with infant ashes in Scotland should never be allowed to happen again. We must ensure that women are at the centre of decisions at a very difficult time. I welcome the minister's commitment today to amendments at stage 2 to give women that time to make decisions after pregnancy loss. I am out of time, Presiding Officer. I will close my remarks there. I will continue my closing speech. The Scottish Government's intention in the bill to create legislation that is fit for 21st century Scotland has been generally welcomed because much of the law that is governing the cremation dates back well over 100 years and is increasingly unfit for purpose in today's society. As we know, the Health and Sport Committee, as the lead committee for the bill, focused particularly on the proposals for the burial and cremation of babies, fetuses and early products of conception. It will be appreciated that this is a very sensitive area, particularly in light of the major emotional trauma suffered by many parents who became aware a few years ago that they were unable to trace what had happened to the remains of their offspring after cremation. We are still very much affected by this and we are concerned to ensure that this will not happen to parents in the future. We were very mindful of how people felt and we did our best to take evidence as sensitively as we could. To this end, we received some evidence anonymously via email and telephone and we had a very worthwhile private meeting with a number of bereaved parents who contributed significantly to our understanding of the issues to be considered. The committee clerks were very sensitive in their approach to witnesses and I would add my thanks to them for their painstaking work on the bill and to all the witnesses, but particularly to those who had been personally affected. In the opening speech, I will focus on some of the issues around burial and cremation that are dealt with in the Health and Sport Committee's stage 1 report. In my closing speech, I will look at the bill a little more broadly. Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill at stage 1, but there are a number of concerns that I hope will be resolved by amendment stage 2, and I appreciate the minister's intention to bring forward several significant amendments at that time. The discovery in 2012 that cremation authorities in Scotland had different practices for the recovery of ashes from the cremation of babies, and the severe distress that this caused to bereaved parents led, as we know today in Malish Angelini's report on the practice at Mortonhall crematorium, and the establishment of the Infant Cremation Commission chaired by Lord Bonomy, which examined the policies, practices and legislation related to the cremation of babies in Scotland and reported its findings in 2014. As Jenny Marra said, the commission made 64 recommendations, including the appointment of an inspector of crematoria. It is expected that the bill will complete 25 of the commission's recommendations, the majority of which are focused on providing a more constant and robust process for applying for the cremation of babies' fetuses and pregnancy loss. A voluntary code of practice on baby and infant cremations was published last December, and the bill will make this binding on relevant authorities within the funeral industry. A key part of the bill is the definition of cremation, and particularly the definition of ashes, in order to establish a clear, unambiguous understanding of what is meant by the term. Lord Bonomy recommended that it should mean all that is left in the cremator at the end of the cremation process and following the removal of any metal. The definition in the bill defines ashes within the context of Lord Bonomy's definition. It is now expected that ashes will be recovered in most circumstances following infant cremation, and if not, that will be investigated by the inspector of crematoria. The historic practice by some cremation authorities to dispose of ashes without the knowledge or consent of bereaved parents has had a devastating and long-standing impact. It is such an important and sensitive issue that the committee is looking at the bill, thinking that it is crucial that Government policy in this area is set out clearly on the face of the bill and that any aspect of this policy, which is subject to subordinate legislation, should be subject to the affirmative procedure of Parliament. The Government's commitment to amend the bill to this effect is welcome indeed. I do not have time to go into detail on the other provisions of the bill, but I will touch on one or two. In relation to the disposal of pregnancy loss, it is clear that there needs to be a more sensitive and systematic approach across Scotland, treating the mother with dignity and understanding, and setting out clearly to her the various options available and giving her time to come to terms with her loss. Likewise with stillbirth and neonatal death, there is a real need for better engagement with bereaved parents, support in making arrangements for burial or cremation, and help with formfilling at a time of distress and high emotion. Application forms for burial and cremation need to be clear, sensitive and easy to understand if bereaved parents are to be expected to complete them. The development of statutory application forms is welcome, but I appreciate that there are some differences of opinion regarding the detail yet to be sorted out. As I have tried to indicate, there are very real sensitivities around the issues discussed by the Health and Sport Committee in relation to the disposal of the remains of babies' fetuses and early products of conception. The bill goes some way towards ensuring that past bad practice will not recur, although I think that it will need to be refined as it goes through the next stages of the parliamentary process. I look forward to seeing the minister's stage 2 amendments. I will finish at this point, because I said at the outset that I will deal with some other aspects of the bill in my closing speech. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As you say, I am speaking in my capacity as convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee this afternoon. The committee has continuing concerns about the bill and accordingly agreed that I should contribute to this important debate, but I want to begin by welcoming the Scottish Government's willingness to respond to many of the committee's comments about the bill. The committee raised concerns about the number of delegated powers in the bill relative to its size and considered that more detail should be set out on the face of the bill. Furthermore, the committee was concerned about the number of delegated powers in the bill that permit the creation of criminal offences in regulations and encouraged the Scottish Government to revisit each such power to determine whether the offence could be included on the face of the bill rather than delegated to support legislation. The committee also commented on the selection of negative procedure for a number of delegated powers, which was justified by the Scottish Government on the basis that consultation requirements would provide additional scrutiny. The committee does not agree that the presence of consultation requirements was an appropriate justification for selecting different parliamentary procedures. We are therefore pleased to see that the Scottish Government has been willing to commit to a Mender Bill to respond to almost all of those concerns. Section 651 of the bill provides that Scottish ministers may make a scheme for the licensing of funeral directors premises. Section 661 provides that Scottish ministers may, by regulations, make provision for or in connection with such a scheme. I welcome clarification from the Scottish Government that it is now intended that the licence will be required for each funeral director rather than premises. Our concern, nonetheless, is that the bill proposes to set out an entire licensing regime for individuals who carry on business as funeral directors in secondary legislation. The committee recommended in its report that this licensing regime be set out more fully on the face of the bill rather than delegated in its entirety to subordinate legislation. The Scottish Government's response to the committee's report expresses an intention to continue to provide for licensing scheme regulations, suggesting that this will enable the licensing scheme to be developed on the basis of recommendations from inspectors and allow for consultation with funeral directors. In essence, the Scottish Government is not able to set its policy on the licensing of funeral directors out on the face of the bill as that policy has yet to be fully developed. I have to say that the committee finds this unsatisfactory. I note the comments earlier from Kevin Stewart on behalf of the local government committee that they too would like a lot more detail. This is an important matter and one that will clearly have a significant impact on individuals operating as funeral directors. The approach also clearly contrasts with the approach taken in relation to so many other licensing schemes, including most recently the scheme for licensing of air weapons, where more detail regarding the operations of the licensing regime was set out in primary legislation. The committee recognises that there is room for some matters of detail around the licensing scheme to be left to secondary legislation, but the committee does consider that the majority of these matters should be set out on the face of the bill given their significance. Those people who will be covered by the licensing scheme should be able to understand that scheme and members should be able to understand the nature of the licensing scheme that they are being asked to agree to. I note the minister's earlier comments, but reflect that section 61, which is about inspections, is still very general in its terms, simply saying that ministers made by regulations make provision that in connection with inspections of burial grounds, crematoriums and funeral directors themselves. We could still do with some detail as to what that is going to mean. The committee asks the Scottish Government to again reflect on its approach to the licensing scheme and strongly advocates that it includes more detail of the scheme on the face of the bill. The committee will be interested to hear the Scottish Government's further reflections on the matter and, in light of those further thoughts, we intend to return to the issue later. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Can I begin, Presiding Officer, by saying that I actually found this very difficult during the health committee because we were talking about something that is quite close to myself as an individual and as a parent, but what I found difficult was the bravery—well, it was not difficult in terms of the bravery, but what I found was that it was emotive, and those giving testimony at the committee were indeed very brave. It is difficult to talk about the pain of loss without being emotive. I think that the bill is going to go a long way to try to ensure that parents of the future that have lost—indeed, if it encompasses the fact that early loss in pregnancy is included here—is going to go a long way to try to ensure that those who suffer loss are actually going to have the support and, in their knowledge, that—and I find it very difficult with the term disposal of remains. I find it a very difficult term to say even. I always think that there must be a better phrase in or some way. I think that the minister actually said when we are looking at a woman in terms of pregnancy loss, in terms of giving her the time to look at, to choose what can be done, and maybe that is a better way. However, there were a lot of positive things within, I think, taking the evidence. I was gratified to hear the funeral directors themselves coming together and acknowledging that things could be better. The one aspect that will help bereaved parents is that we actually have a standardisation within the forms, because the last thing a bereaved parent requires is a form, a form to fill out, a form that they perhaps would find extremely difficult in terms of that completion. One of the things that we discussed in committee, and I think came out very powerfully in committee, was that funeral directors themselves can help in those areas. They deal with it on a regular basis, and they can take the bereaved parents through the form. At the end of the day, the bereaved parents will have to sign to ensure that the information on that form is correct, absolutely. However, the sensitivity and respect that the funeral directors have is something that gives comfort to those bereaved parents at a time of great loss. The bill in itself has many areas that require tightening up, and I congratulate the minister at the outset for saying that the minister is going to come forward with various amendments at stage 2. That to me is about a Government who is listening to the needs, not just of the committee and the recommendations from Lord Bonomy, but from those grieving parents who came and gave evidence to committee. I congratulate the minister in her sensitivity and, indeed, her respect for the people who came to committee and aired their own views in terms of their own loss. I look forward to stage 2 in going over some of those aspects. In saying that, I am sure that I will still find it incredibly emotional, but it is a bill that requires to be done. Very few of us plan and discuss our intentions when we pass on. Importantly, how we are going to pay for those arrangements. My parents, in exception, have even picked their hymns. They were concerned about the costs of their funeral, and in 2010 they bought funeral plans. However, I realise that many people who do not have savings cannot simply afford to put money aside for a funeral, and there is strong evidence regarding funeral poverty. I am in contact with Dundee's Pensioners Forum and learning from their members' experiences. I welcome the Scottish Government's announcement that it is to host the first national conference to tackle funeral poverty, but I feel that the minister has missed an opportunity not to address the real issue of funeral poverty in the bill. Even the Government consultation document fails to grasp the issue by just focusing on local authorities publishing fees online and cost recovery rather than on the full cost of funerals. I feel that the bill also ought to address the national assistance duty. A good friend of mine, who works full-time but in a low-paid job, was not eligible for the social fund funeral payment and could not afford to bury his mother. Due to the shame that he felt, he did not disclose this until a few months afterwards. He felt a huge amount of guilt and shame at not being able to mark his mother's life in the way that he wanted. He realised that he could not afford the cheapest funeral at the local funeral director and did not know what to do. He spoke to a bereavement councillor and it was only during his fourth visit that the councillor mentioned the national assistance funeral scheme. He was not aware that local authorities had a duty, but they only did it if nobody would claim that he did not claim his mother's body. While he was grateful for the scheme, he felt the stigma of his mother being buried in what is locally known as a popper's grave. He did not know that he could have attended that burial. The Scottish working group on funeral poverty stated in their consultation response that the national assistance funeral scheme is fundamentally not working and needs serious reform. Regarding the national assistance scheme, a number of local authorities in their consultation responses have noted their difficulties with the scheme. People get in contact due to their family financial difficulties, so I strongly urge the minister to look at this and maybe bring forward in the amendment at stage 2 so that it goes further than the current commitments and it fully addresses funeral poverty. Moving on to the proposal about re-using graves, I understand the pressure on burial grounds that land is a fine-out resource. In Angus Council's submission, it noted that 25 to 30 per cent of layers that they have sold have not been used. An analysis of the consultation responses shows that only 37 per cent of respondents are in favour of the proposal. When you look at the consultation responses, it was the convener of the local government committee that said that there was a low level of engagement on the topic. In total, there were only 180 responses. The final thing that I wanted to know is that the financial memorandum is disappointing and overlooks the impacts on local government, especially given the context of local government cuts. I fully support Nigel Dawn's recommendations that we have brought forward when we discussed at the delegated powers and law reform committee. I congratulate Leslie Brennan on what I thought was a thoughtful and informative contribution to which I listened with interest. I enjoy having her sit beside me in the delegated powers committee, which makes a significant contribution. I think that there are a number of things in the bill that are very interesting. The one that I would start with is certainly in relation to the licensing of undertakers. Personal experience of undertakers are people who, on the occasions when I have had to engage their services, have behaved with absolute sensitivity and have done an absolutely excellent job. In one particular case, the circumstances were particularly delicate and difficult, and I thought that they did very well. I just want to go back to what Jenny Marra has talked about, the 1855 burial act. I think that all the provisions of that act are no longer current, although I am not a legal eagle who can say that, but certainly that is what legislation.gov.uk says. It is not clear what has happened to many of the duties, because it looks as if they have been supplanted and distributed across the legislative canon. When the civil registration of births marriages and death started in Scotland in that year, 1855, on death certificates for quite a number of years, the undertaker certified as part of the death certificate where the burial had taken place. Of course, that predated cremation, so perhaps things were a little bit simpler. That leads me to a particular point. Therefore, some of the information about burials is, in fact, available through Scotland's people, which is the general registers of Scotland's site that provides information on births marriages and deaths and other information of interest to genealogists and legal researchers. It strikes me that, when we look at section 10, looking at burial registers, it might be appropriate for the bill to be constructed in such a way that local authorities might use the general registers of Scotland as the publisher and custodian of the information on burial registers, which the act is going to require them to prepare. A lot of the infrastructure is already there. That could still be done by meeting the requirement that people can get free access in the local area. I am not going to engage in the details on that. However, I have a weak concern about publishing details of where burials are, because it does not appear to be time limited. There are some very old graveyards, and we might be creating an almost impossible to deliver duty for some local authorities in old graveyards across the back of the Parliament. We have the new Colton cemetery, which has been on the go for a couple of hundred years. Even the monumental descriptions that the Scottish Genealogical Society has produced—and that is not a register who is buried there only of the gravestones—is a book of more than 100 pages of quite small print. However, I do not know what the state of the records on the burials is, so I think that there are significant things associated with that. Private burials, the act talks at from section 16, and that is good. I think that we have got to be careful, too, that local authorities have a duty to act timurously. I have a personal experience of a friend who wanted a private burial, and he knew he was dying, but it took a year to arrange the private burial. He was clinging on to the very end to make sure that he got it. Partly that was SEPA rather than the local authorities, I would say. There are genuine difficulties that I do not offer a solution to. Finally, at section 12, the right to a lair is to someone resident in a council area. I think that we might look at extending that slightly, because I think that it is much more important that the person who died might be in the council area as well. The relatives might all live a long way away, but you might want to bury them in the community in which they died for the benefit of friends in that community. I think that there is a wee issue there. Many thanks. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Willie Coffey. I am focused in particular on the provisions relating to pregnancy, loss, stillbirth and infant loss. I heard a great deal about the poor practices of the past, which the bill must ensure is kept very firmly in the past. I thank everyone who gave evidence to us, particularly those parents who had suffered a terrible loss. I mention not just those who gave evidence on the record, but also the several parents from Sands Lothian, whom I found extremely powerful and helpful in a private meeting that they had with three of the committee members. We can try to empathise with parents in this situation, but we cannot know, and that is why we have to listen very carefully to what they have to say. One of the key things that came across in that meeting with Lothian was the importance of training for staff, because so much depends on that, particularly after the loss, what the staff say to the women affected. That is absolutely crucial. Sands Lothian parents also emphasised the importance of developing specialist roles in midwifery, maternity and bereavement services. I found that very powerful. Unlike the others who gave evidence on the record, of course, they were very concerned about ashes. I think that most of them agree about the definition, but one important point that came across from several of the parents is that we must make sure that it says on the statutory application forms for carrying out a burden. We must make sure that it says that there is an expectation that ashes will be recovered. People were concerned that the policy memorandum emphasised that they might not be recovered, and that was a key point that came across. It was also important to set out policies on the disposal of ashes, and I think that the minister said that an amendment would come forward on that. I think that another issue is the codes of practice, and I wonder whether, in fact, there could be something in the codes of practice about processes and equipment in crematoriums, so that we have the best possible procedures to make sure that the maximum amount of ashes are recovered. On pregnancy loss, I was glad to hear that the minister said that the woman would be at the centre of decision making. We, as a committee, were concerned about the timescales for decision making. I heard the minister say that there could be more time if circumstances allowed. I hope that the flexibility will also allow less time, because we heard that some women, for personal or indeed cultural reasons, might want to make a definitive decision in a much shorter period than the seven days that are prescribed as the minimum period in the legislation. That is an important point. In terms of the death of an infant or a stillborn child, we should remember that that includes medical terminations after 24 weeks, so I was glad to hear the minister say that she would I think that she is committed to achieve confidentiality in those circumstances, because we were concerned about that. NHS Lothian was concerned about the assumption of private family responsibility in those situations, and she said that that is not what happens in practice, so I think that it is important that the woman is supported in that situation in terms of decision making and arrangements. There was quite a lot of discussion about the statutory forms to carry out at a burial. I think that most of the people giving evidence thought that there should be different forms for different circumstances, and the committee was concerned that perhaps the minister can refer to this, and I wind up that there should not be an offence for helping someone to fill in a form, but clearly it should be an offence if misleading or incorrect information is given. Finally, we also made the similar recommendation on the licensing of funeral directors that it should be on the face of the bill, but I imagine that that is not possible, given the timescales, but Willie Reid, who gave very powerful evidence, was very strong on the need for the licensing of funeral directors, and he also emphasised that the register should be kept on electronic forms. Let's make sure, as I said at the beginning, that the poor practices of the past are consigned to the past as a result of the passing of this piece of legislation. Many thanks. I now call on Willie Coffey after which we move to closing speeches. Mr Coffey, four minutes are thereby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Prophesions for burials and cremations might not be the most eye-catching subject that we deal with in the Scottish Parliament, but it's an absolutely vital part of everyday life. I think that it would be fair to say that the rising cost of these is becoming a concern for the public. Outside of perhaps buying a house or paying for a wedding, paying for a funeral accremation is probably the next highest cost item a family might face in their lives. The industry itself is making some handsome profits, up 32 per cent to £85 million. While the bill doesn't have the power to intervene in the consumer market when it comes to regulation of funeral director service charges, it could perhaps offer some hope for families who in some authorities pay incredibly high prices compared to others to purchase layers and to pay for family internments. In Western Niles, as our committee convener noted, we heard that the cost of buying a layer there and paying for an internment service is about £700, but in Easton-Bartonshire it's nearly £2,800. This isn't to single out and criticise Easton-Barton, but to bring to the attention of the Scottish Government that wide variations like that exist in Scotland, and if we can influence that in the bill, then I hope that we do so. Overall, costs of the average funeral service are about £3,500, which was mentioned by a few members, but when you add on costs on providing a reception or buying a headstone, the cost for families can rapidly increase beyond that. It should be no surprise, therefore, when citizens advice told us that there has been a 35 per cent increase in the number of people seeking help with funeral issues and affordability. I know that our Government is doing what it can via its use of the social fund to help families in difficulty, and the review being undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Social Justice and Funeral Costs, will hopefully make further progress on that issue. The UK Parliament too might want to also look at the escalating costs of funeral director services to see if some regulation of the industry might be required. The committee had pretty clear views on the proximity issue governing how far a crematorium should be from housing developments, and we felt that the 200-yard distance should be maintained and should apply both ways so that new housing cannot encroach within that distance of an existing crematorium. As I understand it, however, the Government view is that this is best left to the local planning authorities, but I would hope that there is at least an option, an opinion, that this distance should be observed in any guidance notes that might accompany this bill. One of the issues that I raised during consideration of the bill at our committee was on the issue of record keeping and how that might assist families who are keen to know as much about their family history as possible. From time to time, Presiding Officer, I do visit Kilmarnock cemetery and occasionally come across names in the headstones who may or may not be connected to my own family. It might come as a surprise to most people in Scotland, not my colleagues sitting to my left, but there is no information directly linking a person to who is buried in a cemetery in Scotland with the national death record telling us who that person actually was. As the generations move on, the very real risk is that this link can be broken completely with no one surviving who can connect one with the other. I am really pleased to see that the Scottish Government will look at the matter to see if burial and cremation records can be linked directly to the national records for the first time in Scotland. I think that that is a simple but a great step forward and will help current and future generations to be more certain about their own family history in the communities in which they lived. Presiding Officer, in summary, the bill does try to modernise some aspects of the burials and cremation service in Scotland. It does try to assist and introduce modern and consistent practice where it can. Some of the key issues for the public remain, and they are principally the rising costs of few of those cremations in associated services. I hope that when the bill comes back to its stage 2, it will seek to address those concerns in so far as those powers allow us. Many thanks. I will now move the closing speeches. A very useful discussion of the bill this afternoon. There clearly is support across the chamber for its general principles. I would like to touch on the stage 1 report at the local government and regeneration committee, which looked at the parts of the bill other than the issues relating to pregnancy loss, stillbirth and infant loss. I notice criticism of the bill as being lacking in ambition, and it is a comment that a considerable amount of the policy remains to be developed and included in subsequent regulations, making detailed scrutiny difficult. However, there is broad support for most of its proposals. There is agreement with all burial authorities, including private companies, being placed under the same duties and having the same powers. Although there is uncertainties to whether the bill will assist and improve in the management of burial grounds, particularly in relation to safely securing headstones and memorials, I note the recommendation that the bill be amended to require a management scheme for burial grounds. The proposed measures to alleviate pressure on burial grounds by changing practice in relation to purchase-inducive layers appear to be somewhat more controversial, and that will clearly require further discussion as the bill proceeds through Parliament. The proposed duty on burial and cremation authorities and on health boards and private healthcare providers in relation to making arrangements for the disposal of pregnancy loss to prepare records and to maintain such records indefinitely is an important part of the bill. There is a general consensus that, in the 21st century, those records should be in electronic form. Although the Scottish Government agrees that that should be the ultimate aim, it is unwilling to require electronic records at the present time because, in the very diverse funeral industry, there may not yet be adequate computerisation. I personally agree with those who feel that, in the modern world, there should be a requirement for electronic records, and I would support a stage 2 amendment to that effect, also allowing a transitional period to ensure consistency and accuracy within the industry. I also agree that, to ensure best practice, there is a need for a licensing scheme covering the operation of funeral directors and their premises, given that, at the present time, funeral directors do not require any particular qualifications to set up a business or inspection of their premises before being able to work as a funeral director. I think that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee are right to call for the making of a licensing scheme for funeral directors and its implementation without delay to be put on the face of the bill. I note provision for ministers to issue codes of practice and to consult on draft codes of practice and the Government's commitment to amend the bill to ensure the approval of Parliament before any draft code can come into effect and that this has been welcomed by the committee. I do, however, acknowledge the industry's concerns about legislating for codes of practice instead of trying to define and introduce a new separate code of standards that would run parallel to that of the National Association of Funeral Directors because of the likely impact of those provisions on funeral costs, which is already, as we have heard this afternoon, a significant issue for the increasing number of people who are finding that they are unable to meet those costs. More work is clearly required on this serious issue and on the transparency of funeral costs, albeit that the bill, I agree, is not the vehicle for addressing those matters. Legislation to modernise the law around burial information is long overdue and the bill deals with some very important and sensitive issues that have caused great and long-standing distress to many bereaved people. It is time that we had modern statutory provision for burial and cremation in Scotland, and, although I agree with witnesses that the bill supports the objective to provide a modern and comprehensive legal framework for that, there is none the less a need for clarification and amendment of a number of important provisions if we are to ensure, insofar as it is possible, that previous poor practices are never repeated. I look forward to further discussions at stage 2, but, in the meantime, I reiterate that Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the general principles of the bill at decision time this evening. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It has been a very good debate this afternoon with a very thorough airing of some of the issues, because the bill in front of us covers a wide variety of different issues for Parliament's consideration. I would like to touch, in my closing remarks, initially on one issue that has not been discussed at length this afternoon, but which has been raised by constituents with the Scottish Labour Party, and I think is worth touching on briefly. I would like to discuss the issue of exclusion zones around crematoriums. The bill has decided that that will remain within the local authority planning process, and that is the decision that we very much agree with. However, I would like to put on record that we have had representations from constituents around exclusion zones and how proximity to crematoriums can affect people, families and their properties. However, we agree that a local planning process, considering all local matters, is the appropriate place for those decisions. Malcolm Trism has been involved in some of the local issues around the baby ashes situation and being on the committee. I think that he raised the important issue of training for staff when consulting with women who have lost babies and lost pregnancies. I think that it was a very important point to be raised in this debate, and I think that it is worthy of consideration. He also talked about the importance of codes of practice in crematoria and standardisation of those codes of practice across the country. He also raised the issue of licensing of funeral directors. Nigel John made an important point about the number of delegated powers that the bill puts forward and the fact that more detail should be on the face of the bill. I trust that those are recommendations from the delegated powers committee that the minister may take up and look at at stage 2. Kevin Stewart made the point about local authorities having to publish their costs. We agree that that would be a very useful way to proceed and glad that it is included in the bill. Willie Coffey and Stewart Stevenson made very interesting contributions to see whether burial and cremation records can be linked to national records. We know that there is an industry in Scotland on genealogy, and we know that there are opportunities from America and Canada for people to come to Scotland to trace their ancestry. I know that, just like the two members said with personal experience of this, at a family funeral in my family quite recently, there was discussion about where great-grandfather was buried, which cemetery in Glasgow, how we got to that information, use of the internet to do that, use of national records, where they should look. It was an interesting discussion, but it is an elucidation of the point that the two members make, that there is an opportunity here both for business but for our social and cultural history that this should be explored. I would like to conclude my closing remarks on behalf of the Labour Party this afternoon by turning to my colleague Leslie Brennan's comments about funeral poverty. I think that she is right that this is an issue that has not been addressed by the bill, and it is an issue that perhaps we will come back to in the next Parliament. Leslie spoke movingly about her friend's situation on the death of their mother, and she made the point that this bill does not really address funeral poverty. Now that the Scottish Government has committed to holding a conference on funeral poverty, and we very much welcome that, but I do not know if the minister would like to reassure the chamber in her closing remarks that she has looked at everything that she can do legislatively to perhaps regulate costs and the industry, and has concluded that she does not have the powers to do that. I would be interested in her views on that. If there are opportunities to regulate the funeral industry to perhaps regulate costs, it might be a bold decision, but given the extent of funeral poverty in Scotland, I think that it is something that we have to look at. I would be interested if the minister has concluded that she does not have the power to do anything about this or her reflections on this. Maureen Watt, to wind up on behalf of the Government, minister of eight minutes. I am grateful to parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to what has been an extremely useful debate. It is welcome that the chamber recognises the need to modernise this legislation and agrees that it is an important bill that will make positive changes. I will of course consider very carefully all the points raised today ahead of stage 2. It is clear that there are some issues debated today, which we will need to consider further, but I am pleased that there appears to be general support for the bill. In opening the debate, I said that few of us relish talking about the subjects covered by this bill, but there are issues that are ultimately unavoidable. The average person organises no more than two funerals in their lifetime. When we are called to arrange the funeral of a loved one, very few of us have much experience to draw on, and we are rarely in the frame of mind to deal objectively with the planning and execution of the funeral process, which is sometimes complex and bureaucratic. It is important that the processes involved are as simple and as straightforward as possible. It should be easy for those making the arrangements to understand the options available and what will happen to our loved ones remains. We should be able to rely on professionals throughout each stage of the process to give us clear, reliable and honest advice and to treat the deceased with respect. We should feel that we have been able to choose a dignified funeral. It has become apparent that, in too many cases in recent years, those expectations have not always been met. The bill will change that by creating a robust and responsive system for burial and cremation that will support consistent high standards throughout every part of the process. The comprehensive modernisation and improvement of burial and cremation brought about by the bill will create a system that is suitable for 21st century Scotland. I am grateful to the number of points that members have raised. Most contributions have been the strengthening of what happens in pregnancy loss. I have said that we want to introduce as much flexibility on timescales as possible. It is under guidelines from the CMO currently around the six weeks, but we will introduce that flexibility so that health workers and others involved will be very understanding of what happens. Throughout it, we must be very conscious of the fact that the women's wishes are paramount and that there has to be confidentiality in what happens. If the women herself does not want to make any decisions, she decides who will make those decisions on her behalf. I was interested in what Duncan McNeill said about cremulation. It is not a very nice word. I will look in to see whether there is some other way of explaining what is meant by that. I assure Malcolm Tism and others that recovery of ashes is something that I am very concerned about. I specifically went to the backstage, if you like, of a crematorium to see how ashes were laid out in trees—remains were laid out in trees, and then that the ashes were recovered to the full extent to what parents' wishes have been expressed. I was interested to hear what many were saying about record keeping. On reflection, I will make sure that electronic record keeping is in the bill as long as we give sufficient time to those funeral businesses that are not currently in a position to do so, given sufficient time to be able to take that on board. I hear what members have said about the licensing regime. The last thing that any of us would want to do is to set up a licensing scheme that meant that further costs were passed on to those arranging a funeral. That is why I have said that the inspectors that are in the power in the bill for me or my successor to a point should be able to give me some guidance on what is required, because we do not really have an overview of how well the funeral industry works or not. We hear about some cases where it has not worked well at all, but, on the other hand, many members have said that they were pleased with the service that they were given by funeral directors whether they were large or small organisations. It is important that we look to taking stock of what the situation is across the whole industry, across the whole country, and to take advice from the inspectors who will be in post to do that. Already, we have seen the inspector of crematoria in post and taking on advice from that person. The licensing, the cost of local authorities, we can currently and in this bill make sure that the costs around that are attributable, that are often put on the funeral costs as a whole, that come from the local authorities are more open and transparent and that people know what the costs are in relation to that. Jenny Marra mentioned the crushing by fallen headstones. I think that the section in the bill about the re-use of layers and bringing to life again old burial grounds is precisely one of the ways that we can make sure that these kind of situations do not occur. However, I think that there is some misinformation about the re-use of layers and it is not intended to re-use a layer that has not been used for at least 100 years. However, I think that the burial grounds where that might be viable is only where there are 100 or so layers that have not been used for over 100 years. It is not about re-using layers that are still being visited, that have not been used in less than 100 years. Of course, we will listen to organisations such as the War Graves Commission. If they have any concerns, the layers will not be re-used. However, it is a way of revitalising old burial grounds and helping to preserve the history that is in those places. Nigel Donne pointed out that the bill was perhaps a bit too bureaucratic in terms of the secondary legislation. I have taken much of that on board. Some of the ideas that we had initially in the bill in terms of statutory duties will be taken out, others simplified and others put on the face of the bill. In terms of the bill, if I move to what Dennis Robertson was saying about the forms of the bill and the standardisation of forms, I think that perhaps when I was in front of committee, there was perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding. Of course, those funeral directors and others will help people applicants with the forms, but in the end of the day, the applicant is responsible. If I could just say to Leslie Brennan that consumer protection is reserved to Westminster and my colleague, Alex Neil, is taking forward what he can do in terms of devolution of power from the DWP and addressing funeral poverty. In closing, the bill will overhaul the legal framework for burial and cremation to create a modern and robust system that will address current shortcomings. At the heart of the bill, we want to modernise the legislation governing the burial and cremation. The bill will significantly improve procedures for burial and cremation and provide a system in which the public can have confidence. By strengthening the legislation, we will create a strong legal framework establishing consistency and quality throughout the system. I will look at what can go on the face of the bill and what still will require to be in secondary legislation, but the bill has been a result of collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders and that will continue to be our approach with the regulations and guidance as they are developed. I do believe that this bill will ensure that procedures are suitable for the needs of modern Scotland. I call on Parliament to support the bill. Thank you. That concludes the debate on stage 1 of the Burial and Cremation Scotland Bill. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15497, in the name of John Swinney on the Scottish Rate Resolution. I will give members a few moments to change their seats. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press their quest speak button now, and I call on John Swinney to speak to and move the motion depth to First Minister around 10 minutes. I welcome the opportunity today to propose the first-ever resolution in respect of the Scottish Rate of Income tax. The new power represents an important step in Scotland taking greater responsibility for our own financial affairs and to be able to exercise those responsibilities within the context of the budget process. I welcome the opportunity for real debate that this power gives about issues that are of vital importance to the people of Scotland. Parliament is aware that the rate that we set through the Scottish Rate Resolution is vital in determining the funding that is available to support the Scottish budget for 2016-17. Stage 2 of the budget bill was completed yesterday and agreeing that the motion today will allow it to progress to stage 3 after the brief February recess. If passed, the Scottish Rate will come into effect from 6 April and apply to the non-savings non-dividend income of Scottish taxpayers. We need to set a Scottish Rate because, on the same date, the United Kingdom Government will switch off £10 in every pound of income tax in Scotland, reducing our funding by £4.9 billion. We are therefore required to set a rate for Scotland for the first time as part of the Scotland Act 2012 powers. Importantly, unlike the other tax powers in the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Rate of Income Tax is not a fully devolved tax. It remains part of the United Kingdom income tax system and its collection will be delivered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs as income tax is just now. The preparations to enable that to be taken forward have been the subject of extensive involvement of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and dialogue with the Scottish Government to ensure that the necessary preparations are in place. They have been lengthy preparations to ensure that, on 6 April, we have in place the operational arrangements to ensure that tax can be collected and to be utilised to support public services within Scotland. I have listened to what I have described as a very managerial presentation of the issue. We have a very historic moment here. We have an urgent financial situation. Does he not feel embarrassed that he is not seizing the opportunity to put a penny on income tax to invest in education? I just thought that it might be helpful if I shared with Parliament the fact that, when you are changing tax arrangements, you have to make sure that you have the detail correct that we have taken the preparatory work to make sure that we can collect the income tax. It does not bother Mr Rennie because he is going to penalise low-income households, but it should matter to the Labour Party because it is trying to avoid penalising low-income tax payers, but it will end up penalising low-income tax payers as a consequence of their lack of attention to detail. Bruce Crawford? I wonder if he would agree with me that, if it is such a historic moment, as Willie Rennie points out, there are no other Liberal Democrats here to share in that very moment. For the first time, Mr Crawford has made a graceful intervention in the parliamentary debate. For the benefit of Mr Rennie's historical records, in my first paragraph, I welcomed the opportunity to propose the first ever resolution in respect of the Scottish rate of income tax. Of course, I have been responsible for many historic things in this Parliament, not least of which the introduction of the first Scottish taxation in 300 years of land and buildings transaction tax. I was the author of the historic Concordat with Local Government, of which I am very proud and of which I remain an ardent supporter in every respect. Here I am for my hatrack of delivering the historic introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax. Today, I am asking the Scottish Parliament to agree a Scottish— Oh, well. I am delighted to offer Mr Finlay an opportunity to speak in Parliament. It will be interesting and no doubt fruity. I view the Scottish rate of income tax as a progressive power. Clearly, people on higher incomes will pay comparatively more than people on lower incomes. Do you stand by that? Mr Finlay must spend all of his time just working out how to sit at the back benches, hurling abuse at people left, right and centre. He does not pay attention. Of course I stand by those remarks, but what I am not prepared to do is add to the burden of low-income households who are wrestling with difficult decisions. It is really not that terribly more complicated than that. Today, if I can get round to the historic moment, I am asking on this historic occasion the Scottish Parliament to agree a Scottish rate of income tax of £10. In short, Scottish taxpayers will see no increase in their income tax next year. That is the right decision. It is a decision that takes into account the challenges that are faced by members of the public. It takes into account the fact that this power requires us to increase—if we were to exercise it—the income tax for every band of taxation would put a disproportionate burden on the incomes of low-income households. I am not prepared to do that as part of this budget. The decision comes ahead of any of the powers that we might obtain from the current Scotland Bill that is being considered by the United Kingdom Parliament. As we have previously announced, we will set out how we will use the further income tax powers in the Scotland Bill by the end of this Parliament. Before then, we must resolve the fiscal framework and remain focused on delivering a framework that is fair for Scotland, fair to the United Kingdom and faithful to the conclusions of the Smith commission. I will not agree anything that fails those tests. The setting of the Scottish rate of income tax is inextricably linked to the structure and the measures in the budget. From the time that I made the £10 proposal in the draft budget, my main priority has been to protect our lowest income taxpayers at a time when household budgets are under pressure. Despite Westminster's cuts, the budget that is currently before Parliament includes record funding for our national health service, protection for front-line policing, protection for college budgets and significant investment in education, including higher education. We have proposed what I would accept as a challenging but fair settlement for local government, delivering £250 million of new investment in health and social care, protecting high quality school education, maintaining teacher numbers and continuing the freeze in the council tax. In a move that I hope all parties across this chamber can welcome, it will also deliver the living wage for care workers. Those actions and many other measures supported by this year's budget will help to grow our economy, reform our public services and, crucially, to protect household incomes. At the heart of the debate on the Scottish rate of income tax has been the decision of this Government to act to protect the incomes of low income, the lowest income taxpayers within Scotland. That would be directly attacked by any move to increase the rate of taxation from 10 to 11 pence. After a week of debate and consideration of this issue, I hope that this afternoon will be the moment when the Labour Party sets out for us the basis on which they think, and they are confident that they can deliver some form of protection for low income taxpayers as a consequence of their decision to increase the Scottish rate of income tax. If the rebate that they have talked about is a tax relief, then it is, in my view, outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament in relation to income tax as conferred by the Scotland Act 2012. If it is a social security payment, then that appears to be outside the competence of the Parliament as defined in the original Scotland Act 1998. So there are very significant legal questions that have to be addressed by the Labour Party in the contributions that they are going to make to Parliament this afternoon. Secondly, there is a question of whether the rebate can actually reach members of the public and if they have allocated sufficient resources to do so. The estimates that I have done have shown that a million taxpayers, workers and pensioners, could be eligible for the £100 rebate, which would therefore cost £100 million, which is more than the Labour Party said they have allocated for this particular challenge. Thirdly, the Labour Party must tell us how much this is going to cost to administer. It costs over £40 million to administer council tax reduction and housing benefit in Scotland, and the Labour Party believes that that can all be delivered for £1 million. I think that that tells us how much detail has been gone into by the Labour Party on this particular issue. The only conclusion that I can draw is that it is unlikely that anyone in Scotland would receive the rebate that Labour is talking about. That is a posturing intervention from the Labour Party. It is not a credible plan for Government from a party that is not even fit to be in opposition. It is crystal clear that when it comes to the taxation of newly qualified nurses or newly qualified teachers or police officers or fire fighters or office workers or bus drivers or shop workers, it is not the wealthy that Labour is targeting. Labour is targeting working people, busting a gut to make ends meet. This Government will not punish those individuals. Our budget is designed to support the creation of a strong and sustainable economy, to reform public services and to tackle economic inequality. Our commitment to maintain the Scottish rate of income tax at £10 in the pound enables us to give the support to individuals to do exactly that. It is a budget that mitigates the worst effects of the United Kingdom Government's welfare cuts and the austerity agenda, including £38 million to the Scottish welfare fund, up to £343 million for the council tax reduction scheme and £35 million to ensure that nobody pays the bedroom tax. It allocates £33 million to raise attainment, funds £600 of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds and invests over £1 billion in higher education. It is a budget that increases the resources available to NHS boards and invades an additional £250 million in integrating health and social care services. It is a budget that protects family budgets by freezing the council tax for the ninth year in a row, and it is a budget that provides meaningful pay rises for our lowest-earning public sector workers, including through our commitment to the Scottish living wage. That is the difference between this Government and those parties that argue for a tax increase. We want to give the low-paid a pay rise, they want to give a tax rise to the individuals who are involved. This Government is on the side of working people supporting them in their efforts to make ends meet in their households. We will not increase their taxes, we will invest in public services and protect household incomes. I move that the Parliament agrees the Scottish rate of income tax for the tax year 2016-17 at 10 per cent. I now call on Jackie Baillie. Ms Baillie, you have seven minutes or thereabouts. Today, this Parliament makes a decision for the very first time about the Scottish rate of income tax. Real financial responsibility has come to this Parliament, and with it come real choices that speak to who we are and what we value. Today, we have a choice. We can choose to use our powers to end Tory austerity and invest in our country's future, or we can choose to do nothing and preside over hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts. We choose to use our powers. This is something Nicola Sturgeon used to believe in. She used to say that more powers meant fewer cuts, but now her SNP Government will vote with the Tories tonight to continue the cuts. It could be so different. If we choose today to reject the do nothing proposal before us and instead say that we want to set the rate of income tax, just a penny more than George Osborne, we do not just stop council cuts. We can stop cuts to this year's Scottish budget altogether. We can increase it in real terms by over £100 million. I have heard SNP members ask why we are being asked to pay for Tory austerity. Presiding Officer, talk about missing the point. We are being asked to pay not to have Tory austerity. What about the cuts to come in years 2 and 3? Hidden from sight, because John Swinney does not want to tell us how bad it will be, but make no mistake, if the SNP votes for the status quo tonight, the cuts for 2016-17 will be as nothing compared to the future. They will be John Swinney's cuts. I will give way in a minute. I have heard extraordinary claims from SNP members, including Kevin Stewart, over the past few days, denying that the cuts are being made at all. The First Minister said that it is reprofiling. Kevin Stewart said that spending was increasing once we strip out the technicalities. John Swinney said that it is simply an accounting change. It is not reprofiling, it is not a technicality and it is not an accounting change. Those are cuts that started at Westminster and continued by the SNP in Scotland. Kevin Stewart I remind Ms Bailey that Labour MPs trooped through the lobbies in the case of Commons to vote for austerity. She mentioned the status quo, and I think that her backing of the status quo with her Tories is one of the reasons why we are in the mess that we are in now. Jackie Baillie Can I simply say to Kevin Stewart that when the cuts hit his constituents in Aberdeen, it will not be a technicality. When he walks through tonight, when he votes with the Conservatives, we will be absolutely clear on whose side he is on. Presiding Officer, you may recognise this from earlier today. Let's look at John Swinney's own council, SNP-controlled person, Kinross. Those are the budget documents, which I'm sure he's had time to read. On their agenda, cuts to childcare, cuts to early years teachers, cuts to maths and English teachers, cuts to the range of subjects that pupils can take, cuts to local charities that help children, cuts to supply teaching budgets, so that, if teachers are off, classes will need to be cancelled and even schools close. That's the reality of cuts in SNP Perth and Kinross. Now, a raft of experts from David Bell, of course. Of course, what Jackie Baillie has got there is the work of council officers to put up, well, well, you see the Labour Party gaffoz. That's what's called detailed work. Where's the detail of the Labour Party about implementing their tax proposals? Are we going to get anything of that from Jackie Baillie today? Do you know what's fascinating about this? It is typical SNP distraction from the piles in the Cabinet Secretary's own backyard. Now, he might not listen to me. I understand that. A raft of experts from David Bell to the IPPR have told him he doesn't need to cut. They've told him there is a fair alternative. Now, if he won't listen to them and he won't listen to me, will he at least listen to those being affected by cuts in his own local area? Now, John Swinney says he's concerned, of course he is, about the £19 a year low-paid workers would pay in extra tax. Can he tell me how much extra a year council tenants in his local area will be paying as a result of the cuts proposals put forward by his council? No, he can't. There you go. It's £73 a year. So it is, Presiding Officer, the poorest, the youngest, the oldest—indeed, anyone who uses public services who will suffer because of John Swinney's refusal to use the powers that he has. Now, on Radio Scotland, John Swinney suggested that the poorest would face double the extra tax paid by the richest. Let me just remind you what he said. For an individual who's on the national living wage, the amount of tax that they would pay would increase by 5 per cent—we heard that from the First Minister—but somebody earning £200,000 would see the amount of tax that they pay increased by 2.6 per cent. So I'll take an intervention from John Swinney now. If he can tell me what those figures are in cash terms. Dr First Minister— Jackie Baillie should be able to word that out for herself. Dr First Minister— No. Let us see the issue that matters. The issue that matters is the impact on the pay packets of individuals, and that will be a disproportionate impact on the low-paid individuals in society. Can Jackie Baillie understand that point? Ms Baillie. I absolutely can. I suggest that the cabinet secretary calms down because this is worth listening to. For the low-paid worker, they don't want to hear this, which is why they shout louder, but I think that it is instructive. For the low-paid worker, that 5 per cent figure represents £19 a year. For the person on £200,000, it's an extra £2,500 a year. That is 132 times more than the low-income taxpayer would pay. I have to say for someone on a six-figure salary to tell low-paid workers that he is protecting their incomes when he is really protecting his own is just plain wrong. This is a progressive power, John Swinney said so himself. Our £100 payment, which is deliverable and affordable, protects the low-paid workers and makes them fairer. Order, unless you must be late. There are SNP MSPs who believe that this is the right thing to do. I ask them to search their conscience. Think of the opportunities that children will miss out on. Think of the thousands of jobs that will be lost. Think of the impact on the future prosperity of our nation. It sometimes seems that when the SNP decides how to vote, the only reason that really matters is whether Labour supports it. We have seen it with tax credits, we have even seen it with organ donation this week, and that is truly depressing. I implore the Scottish Government not to let personalities and politics get in the way of doing the right thing today. Reject that motion, reject the hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts that it lays at the door of our schools and choose the alternative. Choose to invest in our children and the future prosperity of our country. I now call on Gavin Brown. Mr Brown, I can give you about seven minutes. Presiding Officer, thank you very much at the risk of being accused of giving a managerial contribution. I want to start by saying that we should pay tribute to all the work done by the Scottish Government and HMRC over the past couple of years since the passing of the Scotland Act to make sure that we are in place and ready for income tax to be devolved at least in part on 1 April. A huge amount of work has been done by both sides. They have tackled it very successfully and it shows you what can be done if everybody puts in the right amount of effort to do the best thing for Scotland. I want to say that it is refreshing to get back to some of the bread and butter issues of politics, and it is refreshing. It is like going back to the good old days of 2007 to 2011 when the Conservative Party and the SNP were good friends. We worked together to do the very best for Scotland. I am extremely heartened, because despite the political pressure, despite the challenges being faced on John Swinney and on Nicola Sturgeon over the last week or so, I have to say that the passionate defences given by both of them today—both at First Minister's questions and just a few moments ago—I do not think that I have ever heard Nicola Sturgeon or John Swinney quite as passionate about any political issue as opposing this awful tax increase put forward by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. I am happy to give way to Lewis MacDonald. I am very grateful to Mr Brown. Would he, in light of what he has just said, concur with the impression that I have formed that the script followed by Mr Swinney and Mr Sturgeon is all but identical to the words spoken by David Cameron in the House of Commons about this policy last week? Presiding Officer, I am almost in danger of agreeing with the Labour Party on a point as well, which makes it a very unique debate. At the end of the day, we now have some kind of new taxpayers' alliance with the Conservative Party on this side of the chamber and the fiscal Conservative Party taking up the bulk of the middle of the chamber. That has to be good news for a progressive, competitive and outward-looking Scotland, which is entirely what is required. We did not reach this view lightly, I have to say. My tax-cutting instincts were gnawing away at me. They were gnawing away at Murdo Fraser 2, and we did give serious consideration to proposing a tax cut. Having reviewed all the evidence that came through to the finance committee, having listened very carefully to a number of submissions, we have settled on the view that it is correct to keep it at the same amount, and we will take great pleasure in voting alongside the Government come decision time today to keep it exactly as it is. While I was hugely impressed by the contribution of Ben Thomson, who argued for a two-pence tax cut, he did it extremely well and was extremely persuasive. However, in terms of paying for that tax cut, I think that the consequences were politically unpalatable at the time. His suggestion was an increase in council tax, but, nevertheless, he was pretty persuasive. There were those who suggested that he tax increase NHS Health Scotland, Lucy Hunter Blackburn and one or two others, but, by far and away, the largest number of contributions—ultimately, I think, the most persuasive contributions—were those who were saying that the tax should remain the same at the moment. They were concerned about acting too quickly. They were concerned about complexity for employers, about the mobility of labour and all at the same time as the economy being in recovery mode. For all of those reasons and for all of the points put forward by the various witnesses, we believe firmly that the correct decision is to keep tax the same. I want to throw out a challenge to the Labour Party here and all seriousness, because if we are going to propose tax changes, particularly in very short order, particularly creating a new tax policy over the course of a weekend, then I think that there are serious questions that do need to be asked. What behavioural analysis has been done by the Labour Party on the implications of a tax increase across all of the bands taking place in just a few weeks' time? There will be economic consequences. If high earners, for example, alter their behaviour, we could face a challenge. We only have 11,000 additional rate payers in Scotland. If there is some kind of shift from even a small percentage of those, there is a big impact on the overall tax take. The finance committee, when we looked at this carefully, concluded this in our report at paragraph 43. The committee recommends that it is essential that future decisions on taxation policy are fully informed by relevant behavioural analysis. We did not take that decision lightly, but I say to those in the Labour Party who speak later and those who close what behavioural analysis has been done. Do they think that they would get all the £490 million that they have suggested, or will they only get a smaller fraction of that, which means that some do not add up at all? Any spice paper was not their original work. In one of their papers, the suggestion was put forward that the impact of a 1p change in either direction would be £345 million, not the £490 million that has been suggested. If that turns out to be correct, that creates a hole in the budget for them, too. We oppose this increase low in principle. We do not think that hardworking people in Scotland should be paying more in tax than the rest of the UK. We think that you would put an additional burden particularly on the lowest incomes, which I think would presently challenge not just to those individually and to those as families but to the economy and the wellbeing of Scotland as a whole, and we think that it sends out entirely the wrong signal to the world. The first opportunity to be given a tax power, the first thing that we do in an almost unthinking fashion is to put that tax up. For all of those reasons, we reject the proposal put forward by the Labour Party and its friends in the Liberal Democrats. We support the position taken today by the Scottish Government. When it comes to decision time, we will be supporting the income tax rate resolution. We now move to the open debate. Mark McDonald followed by Willie Rennie. My colleague Bruce Crawford pointed out that, despite Willie Rennie saying that it is a historic occasion, no other Liberal Democrats had come in. It appears that they have gone home to their constituencies to prepare for dinner. Willie Rennie said earlier today that the First Minister should get on the phone to Aberdeenshire Council in relation to education spending, and perhaps he should have got on the phone himself to Aberdeenshire. As the leader of Aberdeenshire Council has informed me today, the Liberal Democrats put forward a motion for the budget today, which would have resulted in £430,000 less than the administration budget being spent on education. Willie Rennie, I will give way to Mr Salmond. Alex Salmond. Did I hear that correctly? Are you saying that Willie Rennie was complaining about the education budget while his colleagues in Aberdeenshire Council were proposing to spend less on education? Even by Rennie's standards, that is incredible. I can only say what is in the spreadsheet for the budget that was sent through to me today. I also received another piece of information today. My constituency office was in receipt of a letter from Kezia Dugdale today, saying to me that she wanted to make a personal appeal to me ahead of today's debate. I am pointing out that she believes that the estimated cuts to Aberdeenshire Council are £14 million. I thought that I would look back at the press and journal of the 25th of January 2016, which announced to you fanfare that Aberdeenshire Council had managed to come up with £20 million of savings in just one week. Indeed, the council leader Jenny Laying said that crucial services such as schools, housing and care homes would be protected along with jobs. She said that our finance team has also told us that we can save money by looking closely at our departmental budgets. We also believe that we can mitigate cuts to services by looking at non-critical areas of spending. There we have it that Aberdeenshire Council is able to make £20 million of savings without having to touch the front-line services or jobs that the Labour Party is telling us are the only things left to find savings from within. We undertook a great deal of consultation in the finance committee in relation to the Scottish rate of income tax, and at no point in that process, either in the taking of evidence, the discussion of the report or the voting on the finance committee report, did the Labour Party at any stage indicate that they supported a change to the Scottish rate of income tax beyond being set at £10. Only two days after the SRIT recommendation was put into the finance committee report, the Labour Party had changed their position. Either they did not know what their position was going to be when they agreed to the finance committee report or they were simply misleading during the course of that process. However, at any point in the process, Jackie Baillie in nine minutes of exposition failed to outline how it would work. It is how that rebate would work, because the detail matters. It matters to people who you say you will be protected from a tax increase by a rebate. If people know one how they are to go about claiming it, is there to be data sharing between HMRC and councils? What would the cost of that be? Will people have to present pay slips in order to receive that rebate? Will there have to be means testing? What happens if people's tax codes change during a financial year or if people receive overtime payments beyond their salary? All of those details are important and all of those details matter. The simple fact is that, when the people of Scotland look at the Labour Party, they see right through them. Willie Rennie to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a truly historic day, a hat-trick for Mr Swinney, but an utterly miserable response. The language that was being adopted by Mr Swinney and his colleagues on the back benches was similar to the language adopted by those on the right. Almost tax as theft was the kind of language that was being adopted. The only people who were happy in the chamber this afternoon were the Conservatives, who were clapping away enthusiastically throughout Mr Swinney's speech. In fact, when Gavin Brown was speaking, the SNP benches were squirming away. Gavin Brown was eloquently setting out how the two were coming together in the taxpayer's alliance. If we look at the facts on this, John Swinney is adopting many of the tax policies that George Osborne has adopted. In fact, he is undercutting him in many areas. We have not just heard about income tax today, where he is matching him right down to the last penny, but he is also matching him on second homes. Undercutting on air passenger duty, undercutting—not just now—undercutting on the council tax. Even George Osborne is allowing the council tax to go up, but not John Swinney. I was expecting a condemnation from Gavin Brown on that front. What we have seen here is the SNP not living up to this truly historic day. It is a great opportunity to address the urgent financial position that we face. There is a £500 million cut being faced by our councils—£500 million. However, the SNP does not want one single thing. It sits down and does not take any opportunity to change the climate at all. For powers that they have argued for, for their whole existence, they have been living for this day. What do they do? Absolutely nothing. How disappointing, how despondent, how miserable is that? While we see in this historic day greater flexibility for John Swinney to do as he wishes, with the amount of money that we are spending here, he imposes a vice-like grip on local authorities with £408 million of fines. £408 million of fines if they do not abeym right down to the last penny. One pound increase in council tax results in a £408 million. While he has greater flexibility, he is tying down local authorities. I want to move on to the progressive aspect of it, because it is quite clear that John Swinney is so desperate to do nothing that he is just spinning a story about the tax. If you look this year on tax compared with next year, thanks to the tax thresholds going up, we now see somebody who is on £100,000 will pay 30 times as much as somebody on the median wage. That seems progressive to me. You would have to earn over £19,000 to pay any extra money next year compared with this year. We have also seen that, as a result of a penny for education, hypothecated for education, 12 per cent of the richest people in this country will pay 42 per cent of that extra revenue. That seems pretty progressive to me, and I would have thought a party that claims to be progressive would be adopting that policy, too. They also ignore the social benefits of the £475 million investment. It is all as if it is going into a black hole and nobody would benefit from it, but we will see an expansion of nursery education. We will see a big boost to a pupil premium. We will see the reversal of cuts to colleges. We need to close Mr Rennie's cuts to schools. That will have a transformational effect. It is something that we should be enjoying celebrating today that we can undo the damage, but the SNP sit and do absolutely nothing. I remind all members that you have four minutes, Mr Findlay. Throughout the history of the Labour movement, socialists, trade unionists, co-operators and others have campaigned for and delivered or helped to deliver publicly funded services that are paid for collectively through taxation, so that those without wealth and power to buy services privately can access quality education, housing and social services, etc. However, those services are under an all-out attack through a combination of Osborne and Cameron's Grind and austerity and John Swinney's austerity plus. My own council in West Lothian, despite being named council of the year in the UK in 2006, has under the cabinet secretary suffered consecutive cuts amounting to £100 million. It makes me want to weep to see what has been done to public services across Scotland. 60,000 job losses, no pace team, no task force sent in to help council staff who lose their jobs, education, social work, environmental services all cut back and only last week we saw the nauseating spectacle of the education secretary posing for photos in a library in the same week she voted for another half billion cuts, which will inevitably mean that many of those libraries will close. As politicians, we have a decision to make. Do we sit back and do nothing and watch lifeline services cut, or do we do something about it? This Parliament was not established just to pass on bad decisions from elsewhere. It was established to be a bulwark against them for parties to work together to protect and improve our services, not to make them worse. In the circumstances that we have witnessed, there is a political choice to be made. More austerity, more cuts to vital services with the low paid and the poor suffering most with, as Dr Angela Hagan told the welfare reform committee, women disproportionately affected or we can take action using the powers of this Parliament. We have made our choice. We have chosen to say that there should be an increase in taxation of one pay, not only a progressive move but a redistributive move too. As the IPPR said, the poorest 30 per cent of households would see increases in income and the richest paying significantly more now. It also said that for Scotland, matching the UK Government's plans would reduce tax for the rich but not for the poor. Now, Government ministers are realising they are on the wrong side of the argument, resort to scare tactics, with talks of tax bombshells and tax grabs, language straight out of Tory HQ. The public services are the services that civilise us as a society. It is those services that no thank you, that educate our children, that care for our elderly, that look after the vulnerable and keep our streets clean. I find it utterly immoral that politicians on six-figure salaries mislead and scare the poor and the low-paid into believing they will worse off when not only will they be financially better off but their families will be better off too as a result of improved services. It is the double standards that make things worse, rightly demanding no detriment in negotiating over the fiscal framework while imposing detrimental part after part local government. If the cabinet secretary wants proof, he is on the wrong side of the argument. He only needs to look at the grinning faces of Murdo Fraser, Alec Johnson and Ruth Davidson at decision time tonight when the SNP joined with the Tories and put in the knife into more local government jobs. John Mason, followed by James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say that it is an honour to speak in this first debate where we are actually setting SRIT. As has already been said, the Finance Committee spent a lot of its time during the budget study this year looking at the Scottish rate of income tax. As I said in the budget debate, I am coming from a position where I would like to see more taxation available to this Parliament in order to provide better public services and to help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It is worth looking at the current income tax rates in the UK and Scotland, and let us remember that NIC is effectively in income tax as well, although it gets less publicity. At the bottom end, you go very quickly to paying £20 income tax plus 12 per cent national insurance, which is 32 per cent in total by the time you get to £11,000 a year. At the top, you pay £45 income tax and only 2 per cent NIC, giving it 47 per cent. Our whole income tax system goes from 32 at the bottom to 47 at the top, so we have a pretty hopeless and non-progressive system to start with. It seems to me that if we had control of income tax and national insurance, we could and should have a much more progressive system, perhaps starting at 10 per cent at the bottom and going up to 60 per cent combined tax and NIC at the top. Right now, we face a decision for just one year for 2016-17. Should those working on those low wages paying 32 per cent at the moment, at the marginal rate, have to have that tax increase to 33 per cent, I think not. We did look in the finance committee as to whether we could raise SRIT, and the first question was whether SRIT was progressive or not. I continued to believe that SRIT is progressive. However, the reality is that it is not progressive enough. Clearly, a lot of people on lower incomes would be hit hard. That point came up both at the finance committee and at the Scotland Bill Committee in 2011 or thereabouts. When we asked Lib Dem and Conservative ministers would they allow us the powers to make a more progressive tax system and they absolutely refused, so it is a bit rich now coming from the Lib Dems that we should be doing something about it. We do have the Labour and Lib Dem proposal to raise tax by one pence, and I think the Lib Dems at least stay had thought about it before they said it. Certainly, Labour did not mention it at the finance committee, as has been said, and on the surface it does seem attractive that we could get another £400 million or something like that. Labour suggests a rebate of £100 million for those at the lower end, but we still do not have answers to the questions about the practicalities of that. Could the local authorities handle this system? At what cost would that be? £1 million? £40 million? We do not know. Would those who needed most help be properly targeted and receive the money? Or would there be such a bureaucratic burden for them that, like pension tax credit, a third of the people missed out on what they were entitled to because of the horrible system involved? Would such payments actually be taxable? There may be answers to those questions, but the reality is that neither the finance committee nor, I suspect, anyone else has really looked thoroughly at those points because they were not raised before. The SDUC and other witnesses at the committee supported keeping the Scottish rate at 10 pence, and one of the reasons for that is that we should be getting more powers in a year's time. The question is not that we are stuck with SRIT forever and ever, but can we live with it for a year until we get proper decent powers that allow us to be more progressive as we go forward? Yes, I would like to make income tax more progressive and raise the rates for those who can afford to pay, but the powers that we have for this year are just too blunt and it is too much of a risk to damage those at the bottom. James Kelly Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There is no doubt that this is a debate where there are real choices on the table. When we vote at half past six tonight, we can vote to pass £500 million of spending cuts on to our local councils and our local communities, or we can take the alternative route of going down the labour option of protecting public services, investing in education, investing in young people and supporting our communities. Not only has the response of the SNP to this been disappointing, but the quality of their debating points has been very poor. What we have seen is the SNP scare machine in full operation. I have heard that the front of that machine has been Nicola Sturgeon at First Minister's questions. She has repeatedly put out the myth that people on low pay of £11,000 would be adversely affected by that policy. That is simply not true. We need honest debate, not dishonest facts like that. I am always grateful for James Kelly's debating tips. In the spirit of honest debate in the past two and a half minutes, I will explain in detail how the rebate system would work, because those low-paid people whom he is promising it to deserve that at the very least. James Kelly? What is your message to the SNP in this discussion? It is all about how it is too hard, too wee or too small a Parliament. Where is your ambition? Why do not you stand up to the issues? Where is your ambition? Can you see when it comes to half-pass six tonight? Mr Stevenson, can you see when it comes to half-pass six tonight? Think of the classroom assistants in your constituency who are going about out of a job. Think of the teachers who do not have the photocopying facilities for the kids. Think of the parents who are watching the investment drained away from their schools. See if you can discover a backbone, then do not support the SNP motion before you have passed six tonight. Come on, Ms Adamson. Clear, Adamson. Okay, assuming that this whole idea is legal, assuming that it can be delivered for one-fortieth of the cost of other civil exercises, and assuming that you are in the unlikely position of actually having to deliver this policy, can you give a guarantee to the people on the lower income how long it will take from the point that they apply for the rebate? Given that there is no infrastructure in place, what are the lowest-paid people in society most likely to be dealing with their finances on a day-to-day basis to do it in the months it will take while you implement a five per cent slash on their income? James Kelly. Thank you very much for your speech, Ms Adamson. What would you say in terms of Labour's? You need to bring your remarks to a close, Mr Kelly. Let me make this point after that speech. In terms of those in low pay, this policy will benefit those on a minimum wage of about £81 a year. Those on a living wage of about £51 a year. That will help the very low-paid in our community, and it will help our councils, teachers, parents and pupils, and it will invest in their future. Make sure that you vote down the SNP motion tonight at 1.5 past 6. Patrick Harvie. Well, what a day for the Parliament's sound system to be on overcharge. It has not really helped the atmosphere in the chamber. Many points have been made about the historic nature of the decision that we are about to make, the first decision on substantive tax powers that this Parliament has had, and I'm afraid I just don't buy that. Since 1999, this Parliament has had the ability to make tax policy at local level to provide for the local services, and we just haven't done it. Session after session, we've been deadlocked for one reason or another. Greens, since that first Parliament, have been advocating radical changes to local tax policy, and even in the 2011 election, when we saw the Tory cuts coming down the line and John Swinney came to us all and said, look, we're going to have to implement a public sector pay cap because the alternative is to lay people off, we were willing to say, let us raise revenue and let us do it at the local level. I'm pleased to see that other parties now say that it's time to raise revenue. I still say that we need to be willing to raise revenue if we want to protect our public services and the people who deliver them from those cuts. My view is that we have to continue to make the case for doing that at local level. We've seen a continued constraint, anewr tightening grip of national tax policy against the local flexibility that used to exist, and just as we predicted in 2011, fees and charges now represent a larger proportion of local council income than the council tax, the least progressive way of funding those services. I'm afraid I don't have time, and that's what is going to be continued. So Greens are advocating this year in the 2016-17 budget a tax-raising package roughly equivalent to what the Labour Party believed they could put forward. We proposed that through an amendment to the land reform bill looking to raise revenue from derelict and vacant land. The minister told us that this can be done with existing legislation, so let's get on with it. We also propose unfreezing the council tax and using the council tax multiplier to ensure that high-value properties that are under tax at present pay their fair share. The consequence of that would be, of course, that lower-value properties would end up paying less. We believe that this is the better way to raise revenue to protect public services. When Kez Duckdale spoke very eloquently about the value of education in the Labour Party debate this week, she cited the views of Stiglitz and Piketty, both of whom have advocated that wealth taxes need to be part of our tax base. While I'm afraid that to continue the council tax freeze and raise income tax would narrow the tax base on income instead of wealth as well as shifting further from the local to the centre, I think that that's the wrong direction to take it. Doing nothing is not the only alternative to an income tax rise of a penny in the pound, as Labour and the other Dems suggest. Doing nothing is not the only alternative. Greens have put forward radical and local alternatives that would raise the revenue that we need. However, if two things were different, I would be at least willing to look at the income tax proposal. If I was convinced after listening to everything that I've heard that in a little over six weeks for the start of the new financial year we could have a system for delivering that rebate in place, I might be willing to listen. If I was convinced that the means of preventing very high income individuals from dodging the taxes, I might be more willing to listen. I'm not convinced that those two criteria have been met, and therefore I continue to say that it's raised revenue at the local level and include a revenue raising from property wealth, not just from income. Thank you. We move to wind up speeches. Gavin Brown, no more than four minutes, please. Right. Presiding Officer, thank you. I think that it's actually been a pretty interesting debate today. I think that we've had some pretty woeful and dreary speeches from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats just determined to increase the tax burden on the people of Scotland, and we've had, I think, some excellent speeches from the SNP benches today, putting forward some good, solid, conservative values and analysis. We had Mark MacDonald, too. I hadn't realised he was quite as right of centre as he is, telling us how easy it is to make £20 million worth of savings in a council over the course of a week without hitting front-line services or indeed jobs. I look forward to having a cup of coffee with Mr MacDonald later to discuss how we can do a bit more of that at councils up and down the country. Why not give way to Mr MacDonald? I'm grateful for Gavin Brown giving way, however I wouldn't wish to take the credit, because that great right of centre rhetoric about how easy it was to make £20 million of savings was not my rhetoric, it was the rhetoric of the Labour leader of Aberdeen City Council. That's the first time in Mark MacDonald's life he has not wanted to take the credit. Probably the last, I suspect, so I would like to congratulate him on that. I would like to thank John Mason for his contribution, for quite rightly pointing out that national insurance is an income tax by another name in so many ways and pointing out that when you combine national insurance with income tax, we are a heavily taxed country already and there is no need to increase income tax any further. I think that he was right to focus on the bureaucratic mess that could be created by the Labour Party's determination to bring through a rebate. Why not give way to Mr Mason too? I appreciate his point that people at the bottom end are highly taxed, would he accept that the people at the top end of tax too low? He can't even take credit where he's been giving it. I thought he made an excellent contribution all the way through his presentation. Please, Mr Mason, don't spoil it with interventions of that nature because it does him no credit whatsoever. I'm genuinely a little surprised by the SNP but pleased by its approach to taxation over the past couple of weeks and when it comes again to decision time today. I have been told as a young man that it turns out wrongly that the SNP were a high-tax party and it turns out on the strength of today that that doesn't appear to be true because not only are the front benches saying that we should keep taxes at the same level as the rest of the UK, we have the back benches saying it too. Since this issue arose two weeks ago, nor a single SNP MSP, either in debate, in public or in private, I have to say, have suggested that taxes should go up. It's not just the front bench that, like the taxes to be the same level as the UK, it's the entire back benches too, which gives me hope for Scotland going on forward. There was a quote in closing a number of years ago from Alex Salmond when he was First Minister that he approved of Margaret Thatcher's economic policies. What I didn't realise was that the entire SNP membership approved of Margaret Thatcher's economic policies. As I said in my opening contribution, we will be voting with the Government tonight and we are very pleased that tax in Scotland for income tax will not be higher than the rest of the UK. We have reached a historic moment. A few minutes from now, the Scottish Parliament will vote for the first time on the Scottish rate of income tax. A few weeks from now, the Scottish Government will collect it. For those of us who have supported devolution as a process, not an event, that marks another significant milestone. For those who have argued that this place could only be a proper Parliament with powers to raise money as well as to spend it, this is more than a milestone, it is a moment of truth. There are members across this Parliament who have been here from the beginning and they may perhaps share my sense of this Parliament as an institution that has grown and matured over those years. Fighting to be heard in its infancy, jostling for space as it grew, learning to do new things as its confidence developed and now, in its middle teens, taking ever greater responsibility for funding its own expenditure. This surely is the coming of age, the point at which we can make meaningful decisions about how much money ministers have to spend, the point at which tax rates set in this place have a direct impact on the population at large. On this side, we celebrate that new level of responsibility, those new powers, because we know what we want to do with them. Now that the devolved Scottish Parliament is coming of age, it is doing so just in time to do the job for which it was intended. Of course, the Conservative Party again holds the levers of power. It is as committed as ever, as we have just heard, to cuts in spending and cuts in taxes, but this time it is faced by a Scottish Parliament with the powers to defy austerity and to express the will of the Scottish people if we so choose. So is this the time of Alaba, Gubra, or is it more a case of Wee's leaked cowren, Timorous Beastie? Sadly, the motion before us is indeed a mouse and a very timid one at that, because John Swinney asks us to do nothing with these brave new powers. Instead, he asks us to vote for a Scottish rate of income tax of £10p in the pound, the same rate set by George Osborne at Westminster, not to break with the Tory austerity but instead to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in passing on their austerity policies to Scotland's schools and public services. That is disappointing enough in itself. After all the rhetoric about austerity for Mr Swinney and his colleagues, this was the first best chance to show that they really meant it, but they have fallen at the first hurdle. Not only that but, as we have heard, they have spoken with great passion against the very prospect of increasing taxation in order to protect public services, greater passion perhaps than ever before. I thank Lewis Macdonald for taking intervention, and I have listened carefully to what he has had to say, but can Lewis Macdonald tell the chamber exactly what the details of this rebate are going to be, please? I would be delighted to do that. Once we have heard from the SNP, do they support the principle of raising tax to meet austerity or not? Order. Let us hear Mr Macdonald's. By speaker after speaker from the SNP benches, is there so embarrassed by their taxpayer's alliance with the Conservative Party that they will not address the principle at all but only go on endlessly about the details? It is not just the fact that they will not defend a policy of progressive taxation, it is the fact that they go through such extraordinary torsions in order to denounce those of us who believe that progressive taxation is the right thing to do. I listened once again to Nicola Sturgeon at today's First Minister's questions, apparently denying that income tax was progressive at all. Teachers and nurses, she said, would be much worse off than she would be since their tax rise of £140 would be twice as bad statistically speaking as the First Minister's own tax increase of £1,447. If there was ever a case of someone earning a six-figure sum, arguing against tax increases on the basis that really penalised someone else more, well, this was it. I have no doubt that the support for that argument on the SNP benches will have gladdened Tory hearts once more. Indeed, the only fly in the ointment was that Gavin Brown almost gave the game away when he suggested that the flaw with Labour's proposals was that the income tax might scare away some high-tax paying citizens from Scotland. Now, it is a perfectly legitimate point of view. It is the only point on which the Tories do not agree with the SNP. The Tories recognise that income tax imposes a greater burden on those on higher salaries. The SNP wants to pretend the opposite. You need to bring your remarks to a close. There is a choice before Parliament at this historic moment and a choice especially for those who are not Tories but who voted with the Tories last week. We can postpone using any of our new powers into the indefinite future, or we can use them now in order to stop the cuts being delivered by John Swinney on behalf of the SNP Government passing on the cuts that were laid down to him by Westminster. We on this side are proposing that we should resist those cuts and that we should do so in the way that we have described. I hope that others will vote accordingly today. I welcome this opportunity to close this historic landmark debate. It has been a very interesting debate, a very spirited debate. Of course, Gavin Browns looks to me as if he has had a very enjoyable afternoon as part of the debate. It has not been obvious to me that Gavin Brown and I have been on much of the same wavelength when it has come to taxation. The Labour Party's guffawing is misplaced. Mr Brown has been far from at the front of the queue in applauding the tax decisions that I have taken on land and buildings transaction tax, where I had the first opportunity to set a tax in Scotland in 300 years. I related it to the ability to pay and deliver progressivity, where nobody, not even the Labour Party, had attempted in the United Kingdom to deliver progressivity. We should be a bit sceptical about some of the rhetoric that we heard from Mr Brown on this question. The one bit that I am pleased about is that the Conservatives have returned to the position that they occupied in 2007 to 2011 as being the lobby fodder of the Scottish National Party Government for our decisions. It is a very welcome return to the position of the Conservative Party. John Mason made a fascinating contribution to the debate, because what I thought John Mason did was that he looked at the actual cash impact of this on individuals in low-income households. He did not try to pretend that there was an easy answer to this issue, which the Labour Party has been trying to do. John Mason confronted that issue and recognised the difficulty that an increase in taxation would be and face to individuals in low-income situations. He made the point, particularly in relation to the speculative rebate about which we have heard a great deal, that the difficulties of making sure that people in low-income situations actually secure the benefits to which they are entitled. That is a common problem that exists for people in low incomes, and it seems to be being casually disregarded by the Labour Party as part of this issue. The other thing that has been casually disregarded by the Labour Party is the actual fragility of incomes of individuals who are in low-income situations in our country. Jackie Baillie marshaled the difference in cost between a tax increase for people on higher incomes versus lower incomes, and her numbers are correct in that respect. However, those are also my numbers about the proportionate increase in the tax bill of individuals at lower levels of income being double the impact on individuals at a higher rate. The casual disregard for the actual impact on the incomes of those individuals has demonstrated that the Labour Party is not on the side of low-income households in our society. Leslie Brennan As Mr Swinney is commenting on casually disregarding, he seems to be casually disregarding the personal allowance. Thus, it takes nearly a large proportion of the people out of paying any tax if they are under £11,000. The ones between that, we are offering a rebate, which seems to be casually disregarding. What Leslie Brennan just confirmed is that the Labour Party is quite happy to increase the taxes for people who are earning just £11,000, and I am not prepared to do that as part of this budget. Now, as Leslie Brennan also said to me, of course, there is the rebate. In nine minutes and 23 seconds of beautiful oratory to the Parliament, Jackie Baillie said this about the rebate. This is the level of detail that Jackie Baillie said to us, it is workable. It is workable. That was it. Mr Kelly, when invited by Clare Adamson to tell us in his speech how the rebate would actually be paid to members of the public, Mr Kelly did what he always does in these situations. He just shouted back irrelevance to the question raised by Clare Adamson. Mr Rennie criticised my managerial style, but I am sorry about my managerial style. On 6 April, I have to make sure that people can have their tax collected and I have to make sure that if there is a rebate going to be paid, it can be paid. On the basis of what I have heard from the Labour Party, there is not a scintillie of legal or operational basis for paying that rebate. Meanwhile, back in the real world, when people in low pay may be losing their jobs, losing their care support for their mothers, losing the opportunities for learning in their schools, do you not accept that council services disproportionately support people in low incomes? That is what £500 million of cuts mean to just to push the tax on them. That is precisely why the Scottish Government is investing £250 million of new money in health and social care to support the delivery of those services. John Lamont talked about the real world. The real world means that if a party makes a promise to deliver a rebate on 6 April, it has to be capable of being delivered, and there is not a scintillie of evidence to suggest that that could be done. What we have to accept to avoid anybody misleading the electorate of Scotland—Mr Finlay was giving us a lecture from his high moral standpoint on the back benches there—is that we should not be misleading the people. The Labour Party is misleading the people. If their proposal went through, taxes for people earning as low as £11,000 would go up, and that is a penalty for low-income households in our country. That is the acceptance that Mr James Kelly also accepted in his speech that individuals on low incomes would be adversely affected by this situation, and this Government will have nothing to do with it. Mr Finlay said that in the course of this debate there would be grinning faces of Ruth Davidson, Murdo Fraser and Alec Johnson. I just pose Mr Finlay and his colleagues the question. What were they thinking when the Ruth Davidson, Murdo Fraser and Alec Johnson were standing shoulder to shoulder grinning away in happiness at the better together alliance, really not worried about the smiles of the— No, you are winding up, Deputy First Minister. I cannot allow Mr McDonald to interrupt the grinning spectacle of the better together alliance. The Labour Party sold out the poor in this country by getting into debt with a price for it. The Labour Party should be ashamed of themselves. That concludes the debate on the Scottish rate resolution. I now put the question directly to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15497, in the name of John Swinney, on the Scottish rate resolution, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Do we move to vote? Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15497, in the name of John Swinney, is as follows. Yes, 74. No, 35. There were no abstentions. The motion is, therefore, agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 15260, in the name of John Swinney. On the financial resolution for the Beryl and Cremation Scotland Bill, I call on John Swinney to move the motion, Deputy First Minister. On the decision time to which we now come. Today's First Minister's question time, I made a comment that I now understand to be unparliamentary. If that is the case, then I withdraw the term attributed to me. However, at the same question time session, the First Minister described Labour's support for a modest tax increase on those airmen over £20,000 to end the Government's austerity, as I quote dishonest, and went on to accuse Labour off and I quote perpetrating a contract. I therefore withdraw the term attributed to me that the Parliament finds unparliamentary, and would instead substitute it with the term used by the First Minister today. Mr Findlay, can I say this to you? You have been a member of this Parliament for almost five years. You know that the word liar, the word that you used at First Minister's Questions and was recorded by the independent official report, is unparliamentary. I note what you have said and I will consider the matter further. We now move to decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 15607, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the Community Justice Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to, and the Community Justice Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is at motion number 15608, in the name of Maureen Watt, on the Beryl and Cremation Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15260, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the Beryl and Cremation Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. That concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.