 I welcome everyone to the third meeting of the Justice Committee in 2016. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as they interfere with broadcasting even when they're switched to silent. No apologies have been received. Item 1, I'm asking the committee to agree to consider items 4 and 5 in private. Item 4 is consideration of a draft stage 1 report on the abuse of behaviour and sexual harm of Scotland Bill. Item 5 is consideration of a work programme. Are you agreed? Item 2, this is our main item business day and evidence session on the criminal verdict Scotland Bill at stage. One member will recall we delayed our consideration of the bill until the criminal justice Scotland Bill, which contains some overlapping provisions on reform of jury majorities, had completed its passage through Parliament. We're hearing from two panels of witnesses today. Welcome to meeting Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Scottish Government officials, Orla Davie, Criminal Justice Division and Kevin Gibson, directorate for legal services Scottish Government. Good morning. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement if you wish, if you don't. That's absolutely lovely. I'll now go straight to questions from members. You've probably caught them on the hop. No, you haven't, Margaret Mitchell. Then Elaine, and then was that a signal from your audience? You're just waving to me. Thank you very much. Good morning. In your written submission, cabinet secretary, it makes clear that your preference is for a holistic and evidence-based approach to reform, and that having the evidence of jury research is an important part of that. Having the abuse of behaviour in sexual harm Scotland bill includes provision requiring a judge to provide jury directions and sexual offence trials. Why is that reform being taken forward in advance of jury research? The issue will be well aware. Lord Barnaby's review group gave very detailed consideration to the issues of any changes that were made to our jury system, particularly around areas such as jury size, jury majorities and the three verdicts. It highlighted that there was a lack of evidence to support any fundamental reform in those particular areas. Prior to undertaking reform into any of those three areas, there should be an evidence-based to explore what impact it would actually have. Part of that has been to commission the research that Lord Barnaby's review group recommended into those specific areas. We believe that there is already a strong evidence base for the introduction of statutory provisions around jury directions, largely for the reasons that have previously outlined to the committee. Alongside that, we believe that there has been an opportunity for that type of reform to have taken place in the past without statutory provision being implemented. That has not been taken forward. Notwithstanding that, as I mentioned to the committee a couple of weeks ago, there are already some judges who use jury directions at appropriate stages. It is also worth keeping in mind that juries also receive directions in particular areas, for example around expert witnesses etc. All the things that we rehearsed over the past couple of weeks when I was here giving evidence to the committee on the legislation before the committee. However, Lord Barnaby's review group looked at a different area and looked specifically at the interlink between jury size, majorities and the three verdicts and highlighted that if you are to alter one aspect of that system, it could potentially have an impact on the other parts of the system. Prior to undertaking any fundamental change in these areas, we should have a clear evidence base for taking up further an understanding of what the impact of that would be. Is research limited to what you have just outlined, or is there another aspect? More information on exactly what research has been looked at and how it will be carried out and your timescale involved? This is for your jury research. I mentioned to the committee back in September when I was here giving evidence that we would be undertaking the jury research, as was recommended by the Lord Barnaby review group. We have already started that process. For example, Lord Barnaby's review group highlighted six specific areas that should be covered in that jury research. We are just about to enter the final phase of discussions with a range of stakeholders on whether we should add additional areas to the six areas that Lord Barnaby has identified that should be considered by that jury research. Once we have completed that over the next couple of weeks, we will then be in the process to start the formal aspect of going out to expert groups who could be in a position to take forward that research. Is the timescale involved? Is the timescale for completing the research your question? Yes, and then thereafter. The timescale for completing the research will be dependent on several factors. It will be dependent on whether you choose to go beyond the six areas that have been identified by Lord Barnaby. It will also be dependent upon the methodology that is used by those who are undertaking the research. Once we have the details of that, it will then be in a position where we will be able to give more accurately what the time frame will be. It will not—as I think I have said previously to the committee—been a quick process. We have downed something about two years. Lord Barnaby's report indicated that it could take two years. However, that is also dependent on a range of other factors. Absolutely, but we have a broad ballpark figure. It is not weeks and months, it is years. It will take several years by its very nature. There are also additional aspects on whether you use mock jurors or whether you use real jurors. Clearly, if you use real jurors, there would have to be an amendment to the contempt of court act, as well. It will take a couple of years, but it will be dependent on whether we add to the six areas that Lord Barnaby has recommended and the methodology that researchers undertake. People in now, please. Submission that we received from Professor Chamberson Leverick argued against delaying the decision on the not-proven verdict. As they stated, the not-proven verdict raises questions of principle, which they believe should be confronted directly and should not be evaded by calls for further empirical research. I wondered how you would respond to the idea that it is an issue of principle rather than evidence. I am not entirely convinced that it is purely a matter of principle. I think that it is also a matter of outcome. Given the Lord Barnaby's expert group's consideration, I am not entirely sure whether there is anything that has significantly changed since they published their findings. The interlinked way in which the different component parts of our jury system operate and the lack of evidence is fundamental to how our criminal justice system operates. It is important that we take the necessary time to undertake the research that is necessary to have an evidence base and an understanding around what impact any of those changes may have on how the system operates. I am not convinced that it is purely a matter of principle. I think that it is also a matter of outcome. You did indicate at the stage 2 of the criminal justice Scotland Bill that you were not untympathetic to this bill, so you must have—maybe you would expand on your view on, for example, the views of victims organisations such as Victim Support that this is a necessary reform. I am not, as I said before, untympathetic to changes in this area. What I do recognise is that they are interlinked to one another. If you do choose to change the, for example, end removing not proven what impact that has, that is part of the six areas that have been highlighted by Lord Barnaby that need to be considered carefully. I am not unsympathetic to reform in this area and that is why we are undertaking the research. However, I am mindful of the fundamental nature that those areas have with play within our criminal justice system. Prior to undertaking any changes in this area, I think that it is prudent and I think that it is responsible to make sure that we are clear about the evidence base that would provide for any changes in this area. That is why the research is the area that we should undertake before we reform this area of the criminal justice system. The bill suggests that the two verdicts should be guilty and not guilty, but some witnesses have suggested that they should be proven and not proven. I wonder if you had at the stage any view on that, if we did move to a two verdict system. You are asking me to pre-empt to raise your chair, of course, but I think that it largely breaks into three areas when it comes to the three verdicts. It is big a question why we have two acquittal verdicts against one for conviction, but if it breaks down into those who are just rid of the not proven verdict altogether and just run with what we have at the present moment, with the exception of by removing the not proven verdict, those who would say that we should retain the not proven verdict because they see it as a safeguard in the system. Thirdly, those who would say that we should change a system from being a guilty, not guilty system to a proven and not proven system on the basis that it is about guilt being proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is the areas in which the research will be looking at. If we were to change it and you were to change it to a system, for example, which was proven or not proven, how would jurors interpret that? What impact could that have on the decision making? If you can imagine, for example, the researchers will be able to look at areas such as considering a similar case, but the verdicts that they would be able to reach at the end of that would be different. What impact does that have on the jury discussion, the dynamics of the jury and the potential decision that the jury comes to, so that we have a clearer understanding of that prior to making any decisions on those matters? That is why it is important that we look at all of those things. It will be very interesting to see what impact some of those changes could have, because most people will be familiar with the idea that someone is guilty or not guilty. If you change that to proven or not proven, does that have an impact on their decision making and their reasoning on those types of issues? That is exactly what the jury research will consider. Forgive me, because I was not here at the last meeting, but I am a bit bewildered on the previous answer to Margaret Mitchell, which I think is absolutely correct, is that you do jury research before one takes any view about proven, not proven and so on. Why does that not apply to jury directions that you are introducing in the other bill? I really do not quite understand it, because, in your answer, you said to Margaret Mitchell, because we have evidence that it matters this jury direction in the abusive behaviour bill. What was the evidence in that, while we are waiting for evidence across jury generally and how they come to verdicts? You mean to jury research into jury directions that you are introducing or attempting to introduce? As I said to the committee at the time, there are already jury directions given by some judges. I understand all that, but that is a step further, according to the leading lawyers and the Lord President. I am just wondering why—I mean, I am all for evidence-based, but why we are having this, quite rightly in my view, evidence-based into the jury size and the not proven, but we do not do it somewhere else. We have not reformed this area yet, so we have not reformed this area. There are already jury directions given by judges in particular sets of circumstances. In addition to that, there are some judges who do choose to give direction in other areas as well. There has already been a significant level of research undertaken into jury directions. We believe that there has been a robust consideration of those matters, and that is why we believe that there is a case for jury directions to be introduced into Scots law. It is simply to take up the point that you quite rightly said, how do juries think about things? How do they come to decisions? Why do they come to a not proven verdict in certain cases, rather than a guilty or not guilty verdict? The jury thinking is complex, and I am very glad that we are doing the research, but I challenge you on that because it seems to me that it is something else that could be encompassed. I leave it at that because that was in the previous bill, just to put that note of my feeling about that and the question in your answers to Margaret Mitchell on that particular matter. Thank you, convener. Perhaps I should refer to my register of interests as a member of the faculty of advocates. Elaine Murray has asked most of the questions that I was going to ask, but if I could perhaps just to give Professor Chalmers his view of a good airing, refer to a couple of points in his written submission on this bill. It is undesirable in principle to have two different verdicts of acquittal when the difference between them cannot properly be articulated. So that is, I think, his arguments a matter of principle. He goes on to talk about what would happen if there is research. Research might, for example, show that mock juries asked to view simulated trials rather more or less likely to convict when presented with two possible verdicts rather than three. There would, however, be no means of establishing for the purposes of such a study what the correct conviction rate was, and so the research would not establish which of a three or two verdict system was better. Lord Bonomy is, of course, an extremely experienced judge, but can you answer that and perhaps give some kind of reassurance as to the critics of the research, something that would assuage some of that criticism, put it that way? Well, I'm conscious of the opinion that some academics have on this issue and would question the value of research in this area. I'm very much of the view, though, is that, as Lord Bonomy's reviews highlighted, if you start to change one part of the system, it will inevitably have an impact on the other parts. What we have to look at is what will that impact actually be so that we have a more rounded understanding of this. I think that if the research was just to purely look at, let's get rid of the not proven verdict in a very narrow way, then I think that its value would be of less purpose to us in understanding this. However, if the research, as it will, is going to look at at least six different areas, as has been highlighted by the Bonomy review, that will give us a much more rounded understanding of the reasoning and the behaviour of jurors. The other thing, as well, is that it's highlighted that there are two options here. Do you use mock jurors or do you use real jurors? It's also worth keeping in mind that there are other jurisdictions that have undertaken research into jurors and jurors' behaviour, largely through the use of mock jurors, which has given them important insight into reasoning and behaviour within jurors. Therefore, if you were to undertake the research in a very narrow basis, purely looking at the issue around not proving in itself, then its value would be much more limited, but that's not the intention of the research. It will be much broader-based. Thank you. Thank you. It's now Christian, followed by John, followed by Gil. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. We received a lot of written submission from a lot of organisations, Scottish Women Aids, rape crises, Victims to Post-Cotland. It seems to all agree on the second part, saying that it would be not right at this time to introduce this bill, the second part of this bill, before the absolute requirement for coboration was removed. So it seems to be a consensus there, and one highland violence against women partnership is going even further by saying that they believe that the removal of not proven as a verdict should be implemented in Scotland, but that should be one measure, along with others, as recommended by a lot of colourways, such as the removal of coboration. So it seems to me that a lot of organisation seems to agree on the second part of the bill, and even one is using it as stopping it as one. We conclude that we urge the Scottish Parliament not to take this bit forward before considering other measures such as the removal of coboration, as to do so would be damaging to those seeking justice for expensive violence against women. So what is a great courage to answer there from all those organisations? How would you better respond to them? Do you understand their concern? That is why we are not supportive of this particular bill and these reforms at this particular stage. The expert group under Lord Bonomy considered a wide range of issues, and that was part of their work around the post-coboration safeguards. As I have given a commitment already to Parliament that we intend to take forward the recommendations that Lord Bonomy has set out, I am of the view that, once those recommendations have been taken forward and the work around those recommendations have been taken forward, I believe that the issue of the abolition of coboration is an area that should be considered again. I have previously stated that I see it as an area that is unfinished business, but, to return to that, I believe that it is important that we take forward the recommendations that were set out by Lord Bonomy. Part of that is the specific areas around jury side, jury majorities and the three verdicts. I am very conscious of that. If you start altering one part of the system and think that you can do that in isolation without having a potential impact in other parts of the system, you are in danger of imbalancing the system. That is why I am committed to taking forward Lord Bonomy's recommendations as a package of measures and research being part of that in this very specific area. Once that work, along with the other areas that he made recommendations on have been taken forward, I then believe that we are in a position where we can revisit the issue of the abolition of coboration. You agree that violence against women in partnership has had the three measures that I linked. Is there not proven a verdict? Is there a change on the number of jurys? Is there a removal of absolute requirement? I do. I believe that those are all interlinked. That is why I do not believe that it is wise to look at changing one of those three things or even two of those three things without having a better understanding on the impact that they will have on how the system operates. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, you alluded to the two different verdicts of acquittal. With regard to the evidence that we have received from Professor Chalmers and Eleverick, you said that there is no merit in having two different verdicts of acquittal when each verdict has exactly the same practical consequence and the distinction between them is not well understood. We support the argument that it is wrong for a verdict of acquittal to carry any implication of stigma. The not proven verdict does carry that stigma, does it not? For some individuals, they may interpret it that way in that the person has not been proven low. I am conscious that there has been a debate within the legal system for many, many years, many decades about what the difference is between a not guilty verdict and a not proven verdict. It is not based in statute, it is not based in case law. Judges are discouraged from trying to explain it to jurors as well because it is very difficult to explain what that distinction is. That is why, if you move to a system, for example, which had a not proven and a proven verdict, what impact would that have? The perception that that would create is why we need to explore that more fully before we were to look at introducing a change of that nature. It is a perception that may give rise to the feeling that there is a distinction between the not proven and the not guilty verdict. Of course, we have a lot of very eminent people providing us with information, including yourself, but the reality is that it is the public who can make judgments on it and they do not do so on the basis of reams of paper and information and briefing notes and all the rest. There is no doubt that there is a stigma attached. If any of us found ourselves in the position of being acquitted, we would want to hear the words not guilty rather than not proven. I suspect so. That is why we need to explore those issues before we look at introducing any changes. There are a very small number of cases per year in which a not proven verdict is returned in the first place. I understand that there is a perception that not proven is significantly different from not guilty, despite the fact that there is nothing in statute or in case law, and there is no meaningful definition of the difference between the two of them. It suggests that it is more an issue of perception rather than an actual issue of the reality of the distinction between the two of them, because they both have the same outcome in acquittals. I do not know whether you have those figures matched. We could ask spices how often in cases that go to trial where it is a judge only sitting, we have a not proven verdict coming through rather than when it is a jury that is sitting in proportion. In different types of cases, is that part of—if we do not have those figures—it would be interesting if that is part of the Government's thinking on this, when you are looking at how the duries come to a rationale about it? Is there a difference when you have a single judge sitting in different types of cases, different levels of cases, whether it is a summary or an indictment? That would be very interesting. Does the Government have that information or is that part of the research? Part of the additional things that we are looking at for the research will be around where there are areas that we should add into it that it should include. We do have figures for 2013-14, I think, of the most recent figures for the numbers of not-proven cases, and we can try to provide you with further details and exact how that breaks down into different— That would be very interesting, particularly when we are looking at jury thinking, whether there is a divide between a single judge sitting and how a jury proportionally comes to it and in different categories of cases. We can try to provide you with that detail as best we can going from what we have at the present moment. We do not have figures for 2015 because they are not available yet, but we can give you the most recent figures on to try to break that down as much as possible for the committee if that would be useful. Perhaps Spice can also provide us with that, if the Government has as well. Gil, please. Can I go back to my colleague's question on corroboration? I did not quite get to where I wanted to be. You said that there is an interlink between jury size, jury majorities and a reduction to two verdicts, so I can see the interlink there. However, if some of your thinking in regards to the changes that you are talking about and how it would impact in other areas, is it because if some of your thinking in regards to the fact that we have still got corroboration in place, I was not quite sure if that is what you were actually saying, or if you were restricting your comments to those three categories that I first mentioned. I am restricting my comments to those three categories on the basis of the bill that you are considering, given that it is about jury majorities and also the not proven verdict. Part of the safeguards around the abolition of corroboration is whether we should change jury majorities and whether we should go to an increase in that. Part of the safeguards around the abolition of corroboration was whether we should alter some of those areas in order to provide safeguards with them being removed. That is why they were part of the areas that were considered by Lord Bonomy in the round in a much more holistic way. If we are going to change any of those areas, it would be linked to the work that we are also doing around Lord Bonomy's recommendations around the safeguards for the abolition of corroboration. They are specific to the bill on what they are looking at, but they fit into that wider piece of work that we are undertaking around the post-croboration safeguards that Lord Bonomy had recommended. Maybe I could go a bit further. I know that you are on record, Minister, that you have been sympathetic to what Michael McMahon is trying to achieve here, so that your reluctance at this stage is predicated on. In fact, if corroboration had been removed, you might have been a bit more positive today. I think that the cabinet secretary should explain his position rather than tell him. I understand the point that Michael McMahon is making. One of the safeguards that was in the criminal justice bill was to change the majority of provision for juries, which was a change from the simple majority that we have at the present moment, which was one of the safeguard measures. Obviously, because we were taking forward the abolition of corroboration, that was a provision that we removed from the criminal justice bill as a result. I think that what I am very conscious of is that there are a whole range of different areas in the criminal justice system that are interlinked. It is important that we alter them in a way that we have an understanding of what the potential impact of that could be, and that we do it in a way that is much more holistic and that we make sure that the system is properly balanced. That is what the Bonomy Review is about, and it is looking at how we can balance up that system if we were to abolish corroboration. That is why we are taking forward the recommendations in order to achieve that. Obviously, some of that will require primary legislation, which will then be for a future Government to determine how it chooses to take that forward and to bring that forward before Parliament. That concludes the question. I thank you very much, Minister, and Cabinet Secretary, and your officials, for us to spend a couple of minutes to allow the next tranchef witnesses to come in. I welcome, Michael. I know how hard this is, Michael, because I did it myself just about a month ago, but you have broad people on either side who will keep you straight, if you allow them. Clare O'Neill, hello Clare O'Neill, and Neil Ross, who is with Neil Ross as well, for my own voyages into members' bills. I invite the member in charge to make a short opening statement, Michael. Thank you very much, convener. I thank for finding the time to speak to me this morning about this bill, which I have been discussed and looked at for a period of time now. I am delighted to have the opportunity to come before you to actually get the opportunity to discuss the proposal that I have been working on for a considerable period of time. I would like to thank Clare O'Neill and others in the non-Government bills unit for all the support that they have given me over that time. This is an area in which I believe that the Parliament should have had the opportunity to discuss before now. There have been a lot of things in relation to the criminal justice system that have been discussed and the opportunity to discuss the not proven verdict, one of the most controversial aspects of our system, has never had this opportunity before, although it has never gone away. As an issue, it has always been there in the background. I think that the time is right to discuss this, to look at it and to make the changes that not only should parliamentarians want to bring about, but I believe that the people of Scotland want to see change. That is the evidence that I have accrued from the various consultations that I have conducted. I think that the evidence is there to suggest that the time is now right for us to take away this anomaly within the system and get the system in a place where people can have more confidence in it because they can trust the verdicts much more than is currently the case. I am open to asking questions on that. I recognise the passion and commitment in your voice that members have for their bills quite rightly. Christian, please. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, Michael. I just wanted to say that it was a very good piece of legislation and it got wide support from everybody. You talk about the timing right, you believe that the timing is right. Unfortunately, on a lot of our submission, and I don't know if you want to respond to it, we've got a lot of organisation who really thinks that it's not so much about the timing is wrong. They're thinking that the removal of the absolute requirement for collaboration that didn't take place in this parliament, making it the timing, you know, asking for a delay because of it. I just wanted you to comment on all of the organisation from rape cases, from a victim support Scotland, from a Scottish woman's head, for example. I can understand why people would make that argument, but to counter it, I would suggest that we've had a series—and this committee knows because you've been taken through the workload—a series of bills around criminal justice in which issues have all been taken in isolation. We are discussing this now because the corroboration aspect of the last criminal justice bill got into some difficulty, let's say, and that issue arose. But one of the reasons I've not been able to bring this forward is because at each stage in which a criminal justice bill has been brought forward, this was never partied to the discussion or the consideration. Given that it's never been felt that we had to look at the not-proven verdict in relation to double jeopardy or any of the other changes that have taken place, I can't see why there is now an inextricable link between the not-proven verdict and corroboration. That link was never made before, but now all of a sudden because the corroboration aspect of the criminal justice system has found some difficulty, the argument is now being made that we have to link this to the not-proven and the majority on the jury. That link was never made before and I just don't see how it can stand any scrutiny that the link has to be made now and that we can't take this separate aspect of the judicial system forward in isolation, given that it was never required to be considered along with corroboration when the corroboration was the main aspect that was being looked at. Do you challenge your organisation on that particular? No, I think they're entitled to their view. What I'm saying is they've made that connection, but the connection was never made when we were looking at corroboration. It was never made when we were looking at double jeopardy, it was never made when we were looking at other aspects of the judicial system in isolation and making changes to that. Why all of a sudden do we now have to hold back on the not-proven because the corroboration aspect got into some difficulty? If there was a link between corroboration, not-proven and the majorities, why wasn't that made at the time that the corroboration was the main issue that was being looked at in the criminal justice system? I don't know if the coin can help me on that, but there was some link. You were very much talked about at that time being complementary to the removal of the absolute requirement for corroboration. The question in fairness was probably the committee that took the view that if you remove the mandatory requirement for corroboration, juries might be less likely to convict and that might up the ante or not-provins or not-guilties. I think that that was sort of inferred through our consideration rather than... I also think that it gave me an opportunity to bring forward an amendment into that bill because there was an opportunity there to do it, but what I'm saying is that there appears to be an argument being made now that there's an inextricable link between the two, whereas if that was the case, then why was this not part of the last criminal justice bill that looked at corroboration? If the case is that these things can't be looked at in isolation, then why was it looked at in isolation? I tend to agree with you. I don't think there was an instinctive link, but there was a kind of reassurance that on the back of the absolute requirement, the removal of the absolute requirement for corroboration, there would be your bill coming in the rest of it. Yes, you are right, you made an amendment to try to complement that. So there is a complementary between the two. There is an interaction between the two. I was surprised that even the Highland Scottish woman violence against women partnership did link it even to the not proven verdict, thinking strongly that it was not only the number of jury decisions, but as well. Previous consultations that I undertook, organisations that miscarriages of justice organisation said that they would like to see this considered in conjunction with the removal of double jeopardy. There have been arguments made by different organisations that say that if you could look at this, then you should also look at that. The bills came forward without ever bringing the not proven verdict into it. Now all of a sudden the argument is that we can't look at this in isolation, it has to be looked in conjunction with all the other aspects of the criminal justice system. My argument— Do you think it has to be looked at? No, I think the opposite. Do you change your jury size and so on? Do you not think it has to be looked at? One of the strong things that came through when I conducted my first consultation was that if there was real concern right across the board, was that you couldn't look at removing not proven without looking at the jury system. That link was made immediately. Only one or two organisations said and possibly looking at double jeopardy. It's only recently, since we've had the issue around corroboration, that organisations have started to say, let's also wait until we've looked at corroboration before we look at the not proven. I don't believe that other than with the jury system, the majorities on the juries, is there that clear link that says that you can't do one without the other? Do you think that, if a bill comes forward, that it should be, since it can be, which will remove the absolute requirement for corroboration? Again, I've never taken a view on the corroboration, and I think that that is a legitimate— Can I just talk you right there, just a minute, Michael? I'll just stop there because I really want us to keep to the bill, which is what you put forward, which is jury size and remove the not proven verdict. That's what we're testing. I think that we've examined a major point about that, but I don't want to go down that again. Elaine, followed by Rod, Elaine. Some supporters of the move to a two-verdict system suggest that the verdict should be proven and not proven rather than guilty or not guilty. I wondered why you had decided that you prefered not guilty or not guilty to proven or not proven. The answer to that, Elaine, is that the evidence that I heard through the consultation suggested that we should go to guilty and not guilty. I think that there is an argument if you speak to people in the legal profession, even logically. A trial is there to test the evidence that's brought forward and to determine whether a case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You're being asked to look at whether the evidence suggests that someone—the case that's brought forward or by the prosecution—is proven or not proven. That was the original trial verdict in Scotland. It was not guilty that was added by chance, not by direction or by any statute. I didn't know you were as old as that, Michael. There we are. It's amazing how you know these things. Every day is an education. We started off with proven and not proven and moved to the three verdicts. Over time, it's become guilty, not guilty and not proven. I think that there is a strong argument, and it certainly convinced me, that given that it's the not proven aspect of the three verdict system, which is the controversial issue, if we were to then go back to proven and not proven, that might actually cause more confusion in the minds of juries than to look at the evidence and say, well, the evidence suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that this person is guilty or not. That's what they're there to find. I was persuaded to move away from the proven and not proven on the basis that the understanding that people have of the verdict that they've been asked to find is guilty or not guilty. The cabinet secretary's argument was that, although he was sympathetic to the intention of your bill in this respect, he felt that there should be more research around jury size, whether it should be guilty or not guilty or not proven, and that would sort of wander away and it would be undertaken with the next couple of years. I just wondered what your reaction to that was, where you thought it was worthwhile waiting to the results of that research before finalising it. I don't see that there's any value in waiting, because I don't believe that what would be found in that research would be different to any large degree from what we already know. We already know that there is a stigma attached to the not proven verdict. We already know that there is confusion around what it means. We already know that it results in a quittle along with the not guilty. We know all those things. We know that the judges can't direct and can't suggest or articulate to a jury what the difference between a not proven and a not guilty is. We know all those things. I just don't see what more evidence is going to be found, which would clarify what we already know. I tend to believe that this is more about trying to continue the discussion around other aspects of the judicial system, around corroboration and other things, because I genuinely don't believe that any more evidence could be found about what the juries think than we already know. If you could tell me in relation to this, when I spoke to the cabinet secretary, there wasn't even clarity at that time around whether it would be permissible to speak to jurors, to ask them in any review, and there had to be clarification around whether jurors could be approached to speak to researchers about what they had discussed in a jury room. I don't know if that's actually been clarified. We may well discover that we can't actually get that information. I think we're going to get a point of information from us. Morni, Mr McMahon. I think to your last point that for that to happen would require a change to the contempt of court act, so it's only not straightforward. Having an advocate sometimes has to use this system. We don't even have to pay him for his advice. The point I'm asking is, has that been clarified, and will we actually get the research? Will we get the insight that the minister's asking us to wait to get? If we want to use the actual jurors, we will require to change the contempt of court act. That's why there's obviously some advantages of using mock jurors. That was what I thought. We will return to Elin, thank you for that. Okay, sorry. Finally, in terms of the second or section two, we've had some submissions from victims organisations who are concerned about the change in the jury majority because they think that this would create additional barrier for justice for victims and it'll lead to a bias in favour of the accused. I wonder how you'd respond to that. I do believe that there is some validity in that argument but I think it's outweighed by the fact that if you're looking at what a decision on a majority could achieve in very serious cases, we could see the outcome being entirely different because one juror changes their position and takes a majority one way or another. That hardly suggests to me that you've arrived at a conclusion which is beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can present all your evidence and only convince seven out of 15 jurors that the evidence doesn't suggest that the person is guilty or that you can only find eight people who do believe that the evidence suggests that someone's guilty, I think that far outweighs any concerns that you would have in moving to 10 or 12 jurors making that decision. I think that we could then genuinely believe that whatever the outcome, whether it's a guilty or a not guilty, has convinced a sizable majority of the strength of the evidence. I appreciate that but I think that the problem is that we don't know in verdicts whether it was a simple majority of one or substantial. Would that not give weight to the argument of research into how jurors come to their verdicts by taking mock jurors, how they come to their verdicts and the issue raised by myself a comparison between you of a single judge sitting and whether how often not proven occurs in those as opposed to in jury cases and indeed in different types of cases so that we have got some meat in front of us. Very sympathetic to that but again we're back to we don't know whether it would be everybody thought somebody was not proven or whether it was just a simple majority not proven. What we do know from the evidence that I've been able to collect is that people would have much more confidence knowing that a majority of 10 had arrived at that conclusion. What we do know at the present time is that people can suspect, they might surmise, they could guess at how close a verdict was. I don't know that any further research would enlighten us as to whether people would be more confident of having a 10 majority or an 8 majority. We already know that people would prefer to have the majorities much clearer in terms of the outcome. That's what people would understand and would be more concerned knowing that it's possible, possible not definitely the case but possible that a not proven verdict was handed down on the majority of one person. But we don't know. That's a good repost but nevertheless, Rod. Thank you. I just wanted to labour slightly the connection between the two parts of the bill. The proposal to abolish the not proven verdict coupled with the changing the level of jury support required for a guilty verdict advanced to deal with concerns that the abolition of the not proven verdict would heighten the risk of wrongful conviction. Indeed, the purpose of the bill was stated to be an act of the Scottish Parliament to provide the removal of the not proven verdict as one of the available verdicts and criminal proceedings and for a guilty verdict to require an increased majority of the jury. That's deemed to be the purpose of the bill. We have had evidence from a number of people such as Scottish Women's Aid that, although they might favour the abolition of the not proven, they don't favour the increase in the number of jurors required for a majority verdict. Do you believe, in your heart of hearts, that these two are strongly connected or have you a preference for the abolition of not proven over every other? I believe that, based on the evidence that I received and having spoken to people throughout the period in which I've been consulting on this, there is a very strong link between the removal of the not proven verdict and reassuring people that the majority that has arrived at the conclusion between guilty or not guilty should be at least a substantial majority and not just a majority of one. I think that there is a clear link between removing the not proven verdict and reassuring people that the evidence that has been presented has arrived at a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that that's vital and important. For you, at any rate, the two are inextricably linked. That is the link that has been made. As I said earlier, the link between double jeopardy and corroboration was never made strongly. I think that the link between the majority and the removal of a third verdict is—if you look at other jurisdictions, there is a higher threshold for the majority, and they use a guilty or not guilty outcome in every other jurisdiction except us. We've got this phrase that the not proven allows for a more nuanced verdict. If I just say, enabling a judge or jury to indicate that, whilst a prosecution has not proven its case, the complainer was not necessarily disbelieved. Can you comment on that at all, please? That might be people speaking through experience, but I don't believe that a jury or a judge is sitting there judging like it's the X Factor or like your appearance who come across very well, but I didn't think he signed particularly well. They're not there to present marks out of 10. They're there to test the evidence that's brought forward. While I understand there may be nuances in how strongly or how convincingly a trial lawyer presents their case, I think what we have to look at is whether that evidence takes people towards a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don't think we need nuance, just as the argument around the proven and not proven is that we don't actually know in certain cases that someone is guilty. People who have been found guilty have subsequently been proven not to have been guilty. It's whether the evidence suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that that person could be convicted on the evidence that's being brought forward. I don't believe that there's a whole range of nuances within that, so yes, nuance matters, but I don't believe that it should supersede clarity. The clarity that we want is the clarity around the outcome. I think that's where, if a sheriff or a justice of the peace is making a decision, that the likelihood is that this person is guilty, but the evidence that was presented was not particularly strong, so I'm going to arrive at a not proven verdict. That doesn't give clarity, that suggests that there's an openness which allows people to then believe that the person who's been acquitted could actually have been guilty. I don't believe that that's the kind of clarity that we want to see. I don't believe that that's the kind of nuance that we want to see. I think that we want to see clarity. Maybe some people want there to be a stigma associated with one of the verdicts of acquittal. Is that possible? I think it's possible, but I don't think it's right that that should be the case. If someone walks out of a court acquitted, then they should have the right to say that they had been tried and acquitted and that they are not guilty of that crime. I don't think that, as some people who corresponded with me said, that they had been acquitted on a not proven and had to move away because they believed that the local community thought that they were guilty and had gotten off with it. People might still believe that in a two verdict system, but I think that a not proven actually suggests that there may have been some evidence that they had done it that just not enough to convict. I don't believe that that's what a trial is there to achieve, it's there to look at the evidence and arrive at a conclusion to guilt or not. I asked the cabinet secretary about the issue of stigma. When you were speaking, Michael, you referred to stigma and you also talked about confusion and understanding that people may have. How important is it that the public understand the disposal of any criminal case? I think that that's vitally important and it does concern me that we've seen even recently trial judges being reprimanded by their officials for having tried to suggest to a jury what a not proven verdict might mean in that case. If a judge can't even articulate to a jury what a not proven verdict might mean in any given case, how can we rely on that as a verdict? I just believe that there's no place for that type of confusion in the system. I'm not arguing that we should try and increase the number of convictions or reduce the number of convictions. I think that the public want to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict that was arrived at was done so on the strength of the evidence that was brought forward and that there's no grey area left. I've heard it said in the past that you can't be a little bit pregnant or you can't be a little bit guilty either. Thanks very much indeed. I'm glad you can't just be a little bit pregnant and that's breaking news for me. Do you think there'd be an impact on that if we got rid of your not proven verdict? Do you think there'd be an impact on the way that Crown and the PF bring cases to court? I've heard that suggested. I mean I would hope that a prosecution or a defence lawyer would do their utmost on behalf of either the Crown or their client in all circumstances and you would expect the professionalism of lawyers to drive them towards that. But if there is a suspicion and it was given to me in evidence when I consulted first by an academic who said to me that he actually believed that in some cases the jury was making a judgment on the prosecution or defence lawyer themselves rather than the evidence and I believe that there would be an identity. Rather than their performance in court I meant on having sufficiency of evidence. Maybe at the moment the Crown takes the view I'm not I don't know this Crown and the PF may take the view well. I'm not sure whether we'll get this but I think we should run it in court and they end up with a not proven and that if we take away the not proven that they perhaps have to perhaps apply rigorous more rigorous to it and take less of a I don't mean punt but you know what I mean take less of chance of bringing it and and maybe it would have been successful that's all I'm asking is a more subtle thing about how the Crown might look at bringing cases. I think there is an argument for that but I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time trying to suggest that in our trial system at the moment that either the prosecution or the defence was not doing their utmost to present the case. If that was the case then it would raise quite substantial questions about whether we actually thought the performance of our courts was at the level that it should be at the current time and I don't want to make that suggestion. I really meant the evidence being on the cusp as it were you know of that kind of thing whether they have to be more secure in bringing it because they don't want to get a not guilty verdict but you know it might have been worth running it but anyway I just leave that as a thought and I wondered if there's something raised with you. It has come up, it has been mentioned and there has been some written evidence to suggest that that might well be the case but to me it's not the strongest argument around the reasons for for bringing this forward. Well thank you very much and congratulations. I know it's going to be very well. 10 out of 10 and it's not the X factor and I suspend now to move on to the next part. Do you want a little fact? We now move to stage 2 proceedings on the Queen to Justice Scotland bill. Members should have copies of the bill, the martial list and groupings of amendments for today's consideration. I intend to conclude this item around 12 noon so that we can move on to other items of business and we'll conclude our stage 2 consideration next week. I welcome the meeting, Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs. It is official as good morning and I move straight on to the amendments and I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister group with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister pleased to move amendment 1 and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you convener. At stage 1 the committee and stakeholders called for a stronger element of prevention and 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 future offending. I have reflected on those views. I will now propose a series of amendments which aim to broaden the definition of community justice in the bill so that it applies in relation to people at the point of arrest rather than once a conviction has taken place as had been set out previously in the bill. I recognise that if we wait until someone is convicted then this may be too late and means that we have lost an opportunity to prevent offending behaviour from escalating. Evidence shows that diverting individuals away from the criminal justice system is an effective way of preventing further offending and that this is especially true when the diversion is complemented by an intervention designed to address the underlying issues that contributed to the offending behaviour. That is why I am proposing amendments to 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. Amendment 11 is the key amendment in broadening the definition of community justice in section 1 of the bill beyond the current provision, which is currently limited to persons who have been convicted. It inserts three new subsections to section 1, subsection 2, setting out the persons who will now be included in the proposed broader definition. Those are persons who have been convicted of an offence, persons who are subject to a relevant finding, persons who have been given an alternative to prosecution for an offence and persons who have been arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence. The broader definition of community justice also includes people who are subject to a recognised EU supervision measure and persons aged 16 or 17 who are subject to the specified compulsory supervision order. In addition, the amendment provides that the offence or alleged offence can have occurred anywhere in the world. Amendment 11 therefore broadens the definition to enable earlier intervention with a view to preventing offending behaviour from escalating. As I said earlier, if we wait until someone is convicted then this is too late and means that we have lost an opportunity to prevent future offending behaviour. I urge the committee to support this amendment. Amendments 2, 5, 16, 22 and 24 are a consequence of the changes to the definition that are introduced by amendment 11. As members will have noticed, in amendment 11 I have avoided using the word offender to describe those who have been convicted of offences. Evidence was given at stage 1, which suggested that using this word was associated with negative perceptions and might encourage stigmatisation of those who had committed offences in the context of what the bill is about. At the same time, the committee noted in its stage 1 report the challenges of finding a succinct and accurate alternative. I have reflected carefully on the evidence here and reached a view that it is possible for the word offender to be avoided in the bill itself without doing damage to legislative clarity or precision. Amendments 6, 23 and 27 deal with this point in places where it cannot simply be picked up in other amendments and I therefore urge the committee to support those amendments. Amendments 4, 8, 10 and 26 remove the word re-offending from sections 1 and 3 and replace it with future offending. Given that I propose to broaden the definition of community justice to include people who have, at the time of engagement with services, not been convicted of an offence, then the use of the word re-offending is no longer appropriate, as it suggests that an offence has actually been committed. Convener, I will now speak to amendments 3, 7, 9 and 25. At the stage 1 evidence sessions, members of the committee 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. I have reflected on what I heard at stage 1 and now propose amendments 3, 7, 9 and 25, which were intended to respond positively to the concerns expressed. Prevention is vital to our aim of reducing further offending. Every intervention, support or management is an opportunity to work with an individual to aid prevention. The bill does not cover primary prevention, which means stopping people from offending in the first place. That, we believe, is dealt with effectively by other Scottish Government policies such as early years, raising educational attainment, action to tackle youth unemployment and our policies in health and housing, for example. However, the bill covers secondary and tertiary prevention, which means taking the opportunity to stop further offending and to prevent the escalation of people's offending. The amendments in this group allow us to more strongly reference secondary and tertiary prevention in the bill. Amendments 3 and 25 insert additional wording to section 1 to clarify that the ultimate aim here is to support people so that they do not offend again, or, if that is not possible, then at least to reduce any future or further offending. Amendments 7 and 9 amend section 1 to insert a reference to prevention of offending by adding the words eliminate or to section 1, subsection 2b and c2. Those amendments make it clear that the ultimate goal is to eliminate future offending by the persons referred to in section 1, and if that is not possible, then at least to reduce future offending by them. Taken together, the amendments in this group provide the stronger reference to prevention of offending, which the committee and stakeholders had requested. They highlight the link between prevention and reducing or eliminating offending and put those aims right up front in section 1 of the bill. I will now turn to a series of additional amendments that give effect to the broadening of the definition in sections 1 and 3 of the bill. Amendment 19 inserts new subsections to follow after section 1, subsection 3c. The new subsection explains what is meant by particular terms used within new subsection 2b as inserted by amendment 11. Amendments 14 and 15 are consequential. Amendment 16 deletes the term in the community and its definition from section 1, as this term is to be superseded by the wording inserted by amendment 11. Amendment 1 inserts bail conditions to the definition of community justice so that community justice includes giving effect to bail orders, as well as to community disposals and post-release control requirements. That is an important aspect of the broadening of the definition, which gives effect to our policy intention to enable earlier intervention upstream from the point of conviction. Amendment 12 defines what is meant by bail conditions. Amendment 18 defines what is meant by a recognised EU supervision measure, where this term appears in the definition of bail conditions. Amendment 13 inserts section 227M of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 to the definition of community disposals in respect of community payback orders to reflect the fact that such orders can be granted under this section, as well as under section 227A. Amendment 17 inserts the words in consequence of the conviction of offences to the definition of and a quote, a post-release control requirements, unquote, in section 1 subsection 3. That is to make clear that this section refers to people who had been imprisoned or detained in a penal institution because they had been convicted of an offence. Amendment 20 divides section 1 into two sections. This is to assist users of the legislation, given the amount of new material which the amendments of section 1, which I've just discussed, will add. Convener, I will now speak to amendments 66, 67, 68 and 69 lodged by Alison McInnes. We seek to define the support and services to be available to people covered by the definition of community justice. Throughout this process and in the bill, we have been clear of the need to ensure that we take a person-centred approach to improving outcomes for community justice. That means having the widest possible scope in regard to the support offered to people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The existing definition of supporting provides for just that. I recognise the important role that emotional and practical support and access to a range of other services, including housing, employment and supporting recovery from alcohol and drug dependency, provide and reducing and preventing further offending. The references to services in section 1 of the bill, together with the addition of the proposed Scottish Government amendments, are intentionally not defined in order to limit the services covered. The references would include the services mentioned in the amendments, as well as those not listed in the amendments. Those amendments are, we believe, unnecessary and potentially restricting, although well-intentioned, I am sure. To specify a particular service as amendment 69 does, or to include the list that is set out in amendment 68, although well-intentioned, may lead some to focus solely on those services to the exclusion of others. We wish the support to be more open and scope-supporting the individual approach that is required. I remind the committee that local authorities and local health boards and integration joint boards will be community justice partners and will ensure appropriate coverage of important support services in the community justice outcomes plan for the area. It is for this reason that I cannot support amendments 66, 67, 68 and 69, and I would invite Alison McInnes to withdraw them. Amendment 94, lodged by Alison McInnes, seeks to broaden the definition of community justice to include people who are at risk of first-time offending. Helping to prevent people from offending in the first place is hugely important, and I recognise that. That is why the Scottish Government is tackling the issues related to primary prevention through a range of policies such as, as I said earlier, raising education attainment, tackling youth unemployment and our policies on health and housing and other areas. Therefore, as I said earlier, this bill does not cover primary prevention. Its focus is secondary and tertiary prevention, meaning taking action to stop people from re-offending and to prevent the escalation of people's offending once they first present to the justice system. Turning now to amendments 95 and 96, those highlight two very important issues, the interests of victims of offences and the preparation of people for release from prison. Amendment 95, lodged by Margaret MacDougall, seeks to broaden the definition of community justice to include the victims of offending behaviour. I very much recognise the concerns of victims and their interests in justice-related issues and recognise the motivation behind Margaret MacDougall's amendments. I note that the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014 is the relevant legislation to cover victims' concerns. From a community justice perspective, a number of key aspects of the new model are being developed in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders and partners. I want to be clear the organisations that support victims are also included in the collaborative development work. In addition to that, I will soon be speaking to amendment 31 in group 4, which gives the third sector, including victims organisations, a stronger participative role 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. Finally, I refer to amendment 96, which inserts a definition of preparing in relation to people leaving prison, so that that includes assisting them by facilitating continuity of healthcare, including mental healthcare. While continuity of healthcare is undoubtedly important when people are leaving prison, so too are other support services such as accessing housing and applying for state benefits. All such services would be relevant to preparing a person from release from prison, and it would be inappropriate to single out one service over others in this context. As I have said before, local authorities, health boards and integration joint boards are all community justice partners who will therefore contribute to community justice outcome plans for their local areas, and in so doing will ensure appropriate coverage of healthcare, including mental healthcare. While I accept that the bill does not define what is meant by preparing and the associated support services, the bill will be covered in guidance, which has the advantage of being more flexible than legislation should other support services be identified in future. I would therefore fully expect that preparing persons for release from imprisonment would include facilitating continuity of healthcare. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of all the issues reflected in amendments 94, 95 and 96 and the motivation behind them, I cannot support those amendments. I move amendment 1 in my name. Alison Thee Very much, convener. This group of amendments relates to changes to the definition of community justice that is currently set out in the bill. A great deal of the evidence that we gathered at committee focused on the need to widen the definition of community justice. It is important to remember the genesis of the bill. The report from the commission on women offenders described the lack of opportunity for strategic leadership and accountability in the delivery of offender services in the community. It described the short-term funding difficulties in measuring impact, the inconsistent service provision across Scotland and told us that interventions delivered in prison very often ceased at the gate. It argued for radical reform. I supported the recommendations and I support them now. I think that the bill could be stronger. Clearly setting out the scope of community justice would be a start. I suppose that it has been quite dismayed at some of the wrangling that has gone on between the different players around the development of those proposals. I am generally supportive of the Government's amendments in this group and I will be voting for them. I am disappointed that the minister is not supportive of my amendments. I think that we can go further. My amendment 94 seeks to add the responsibility to consider persons who are identified as at serious risk of first-time offending when considering and designing activities related to community justice. The bill, as it currently stands, has a heavy focus on people who are already in the criminal justice system. However, it is my belief that we should strive to reduce first-time offending. My amendment recognises that merely adding reducing offending to the meaning of community justice would be too wide-reaching, so I have instead chosen to focus on people at significant risk of offending. The risks of offending are clear and well documented, and putting that in the bill would ensure that services were not deflected from working in this area. The criminal justice voluntary sector forum is strongly supportive of this amendment. Amendment 66 and 67 identifies that the type of support that should be provided to people who are serving those sentences in the community should be emotional support, such as counselling and practical support, such as housing advice or education advice. Those amendments recognise that receipt of this type of support in itself can make a difference between someone turning their life around or ending up back in court. Similarly, my amendment 96 makes sure that the requirement to facilitate continuation of healthcare, including mental healthcare in particular, is set in statute. As with amendments 66 and 67, that recognises the importance of this type of support in preventing further offending. We only need to look at how inadequate mental healthcare provision is within the wider public to know that it is even poorer, almost woefully inadequate within our criminal justice services. Finally, my amendment 68 and 69 seek to add to the definition of general services provided to persons serving their sentences in the community. Amendment 69 recognises the crucial role that appropriate, safe and secure housing has in preventing further offending. I have worked closely with Shelter Scotland in developing the amendments that seek to put access to appropriate housing on the face of the bill, and their recent report, preventing homelessness and reducing re-offending, was a powerful call to action. We know that without a stable home, there is an increased risk of re-offending, and yet 50 per cent of people in prison lose their homes. We have heard over and over again in this committee of the importance of providing appropriate housing. The Government itself commissioned a report called Housing and Re-offending, supporting people who serve short-term sentences to secure and sustain stable accommodation. I hear the minister's argument about wanting to have the widest possible definition, but one of the problems that had been identified in the past was that there was no appropriate leadership. He is worried that we might focus solely on those that are listed. I believe that, by listing some of the key issues that need to be focused on, we will encourage a greater development of services. Amendment 68 is a wider definition of community justice. It sets out further areas where I believe that there would be a benefit in specifically naming support. In addition to housing, it includes employment, education and support for those groups that we know to be particularly vulnerable, such as looked after children, those with alcohol and drug dependency and those affected by physical or emotional childhood or adolescent trauma. Although I recognise that there could be areas that other members may wish to add to the list, I believe that support in relation to all of those issues or lack of it can make a difference between someone offending further or not. I urge members, if they feel unable to support the wider list in amendment 68, to at least lend their support to amendment 69, which, of course, becomes so worthless if 68 is passed. Shelter Scotland is strongly supportive of both amendments. Thank you very much. Margaret McDougall will be pleased to speak to amendment 95 on other amendments in the group. Amendment 95 seeks to include the meaning of community justice by identifying the risk management and public protection elements of community justice, which is lacking from the current definition. My amendment seeks to ensure that managing a supporting of offenders in relation to the safety of other persons in the community, including victims of offences and their families, is taken into account. This is a small amendment to ensure that victims, families and communities are given more prominence in the community justice bill. This amendment is being proposed due to concerns that have been raised by Victim Support Scotland and Women's Aid Scotland. Therefore, I urge all members of the Committee to support amendment 95. Amendment 31A seeks to amend amendment 31 to add reference to victims of offences and their families, seeking to ensure that victims and their families are given a higher profile in the bill by being explicitly specified. That is in another room, but I am quite flexible today. I am sorry. I can stop and start again later. I will just leave it then, so we will just keep it in this group. Do you want to speak to other amendments in the group? Will the minister or the cabinet ministers have anything to stop me in room? No. I would like to comment particularly on amendment 11 that the Government has submitted and welcome the broadening of the definition. In particular, the categories that have been picked up, those have not been convicted alternatives and those have been given an alternative to prosecution. However, in particular, subsection 2e talks about younger people aged 16 and 17 and those subject to compulsory supervision orders. That is a very positive step forward. I will be supporting my colleague Alison McInnes's amendments and Margaret MacDougall's, and I hope that others will do likewise. Like Mr Finlay, I am very supportive of amendment 11, which broadens the definition of community justice. It is right that we look beyond persons who have been convicted of an offence to have a much wider definition. It is also important to stress that this bill is not about stopping offending in the first place, and that is dealt with by other policies. I have a fair bit of sympathy with the flavour of Alison McInnes's amendments, but I am reassured particularly in relation to amendment 96, which talks about facilitating community, continuity of health care and mental health care, by the Minister's comments about guidance on that. I certainly think that that is an important part of community justice going forward. Indeed, some of the other matters that have been raised by Alison McInnes, I would hope, even if we are not going to support them today, that the flavour of those comments has been fully on board by the Government. In relation to the issues in relation to victims, we did obviously have a 2014 act on victims, but I would hope that in any national strategy coming forward in relation to community justice, victims organisations will be fully and very effectively participating. First of all, I welcome the work that the Government has done in order to address the concerns that the committee expressed at stage 1. I am supportive of the Government's amendments by particularly wanting to talk about Alison McInnes's amendment 94 and Margaret MacDougall's amendments 95 and 96. One of the things that we discussed while we were looking at the bill was the need for both the judiciary and the community to have confidence in the community justice system. Although I accept that both of the issues dealt with the 94 and 95 and 96 are dealt with in other pieces of legislation and other strategies, I feel that there is merit in them being on the face of the bill, if not at least to encourage that community confidence, that judicial confidence, that community justice is not a soft option. That is something that has an important role in dealing with offending, but also preventing offending. I think that we need to have that win that battle with the public perception if we are really going to have a successful community justice system. Good morning, Minister. Like others, I very much welcome the amendments that have been tabled today that have taken cognisance of the concerns expressed at stage 1 and now include prevention and early intervention, which is a crucial part of community justice. I also very much welcome Alison McInnesy's amendments, which I think start to add some real medium that the bones are very welcoming in, as they do on serious first-time offenders at serious risk of offending. I am also looking at some of the support that is needed truly to stop re-offending that helps the healthcare ones, the mental health ones and particularly the services that we know currently all too often aren't available. Housing, employment and education, but number one on the list is absolutely housing. There are vexing examples of people being released with absolutely nowhere to go and having to rely on the third sector, so I am very supportive of all those amendments. As I am of Margaret MacDougall, it is a very important point that she raises about the safety of victims, and I will be supporting that one. First of all, I would like to compliment the minister and thank you very much for all the changing regarding the words of offenders. I think that it was very much in response of the Pete White of positive prison and positive futures. I would like to congratulate all his officers, who worked very, very hard to make all these changes. I will maybe encourage all the officers when they think about drafting legislation, making sure that we don't call people names, and I think they are introducing the person who has been offended. It is a lot more relevant than trying to label somebody as an offender for the rest of their lives, so I am very much delighted that all that work has been done. Because it is more a matter of tone than it is a matter of some time registration, we forget about that sometimes when we draft legislation about talking about what the tone should be. Regarding the amendments from Alison MacKinnon and particularly amendments 68 and 69, like my colleague Roderick Campbell, I am very supportive of the intention and all that, but she might remember during the deliberation and the question and the evidence taken. It was very important that this bill was an enabling bill and that we were not too prescriptive, so therefore I see all those things sitting a lot better in the guidance. Minister, to wind up please. Thank you convener and I thank members for very thoughtful contributions to this first group debate. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made, and I did for my own colleagues as well about the views of the amendments that have been forwarded by Opposition members. I have a particular concern about amendment 94 for the reason that it broadens into primary prevention for the reasons that I gave earlier on, but having said that the other amendments that Alison MacKinnon has put forward, I have some sympathy with the desire, as she expressed, very eloquently in her comments, to try and make clear that, indeed, Margaret Mitchell has also commented to try and reflect the breadth of activities that are covered, and Elaine Murray has also made a very important point. We need to give confidence as to the kind of activities that are covered. I would certainly want to express at this point my desire to work with the member if it is possible to do so at stage 3 to come up with a more comprehensive list of activities, so we do not particularly single out, but we are more comprehensive in the coverage of things that might be included if it is possible to come forward with a wording. I am offering an olive branch, if you like, to Alison MacKinnon, so that if she would be prepared to withdraw those amendments at this stage, I would be happy to work with her in advance of stage 3 to see if we can come forward with a form of words that meet the desire that she has expressed and other members have expressed to cover the range of activities here. I do very much sympathise with Margaret McDougall's point about victim support services. We very much believe that they will be covered in the strategy and, indeed, in engagement through the third sector, which I will deal with in a later group to formalise a relationship with the third sector, which I put on record. It would include services for victims, but, as Christiana Lard has said, they will be set out in guidelines on how we engage with groups such as victims. I will listen to the views of the committee. I wanted to make a particular point in relation to Alison MacKinnon's amendments, and I would be happy to work with the member to see if we can come up with an agreed form of wording in her name for stage 3. Thank you very much. I call amendment 1. The question is amendment 1. We agree to. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—all the name of the minister in all previous meetings. I invite the minister to move those on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? The question is that amendments 2 to 6 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 94 in the name of Alison MacKinnon's already debated amendment 1. Alison, move or not, move? I will move. I have heard what the minister has said, but I have also heard the strength of the point of view of other committee members. If we need to amend it at stage 3, then I absolutely would understand that we need to work together to amend it, so we will press 94. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed that there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Abstentions. So that is 5, 4, 3 against and one abstention that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 95 in the name of Margaret MacDougall already debated amendment 1, to move or not move. Question amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed that there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. It is 5, 4, 4 against and one abstention that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 66 in the name of Alison MacKinnon's already debated amendment 1. Alison, move or not, move? Move. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed that there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Abstentions. 5, 4, 3 against one abstention that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 7 in the name of the minister already debated amendment 1, minister to move formally. Formally moved, convener. Question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 8 in the name of the minister already debated amendment 1, minister to move formally. Formally moved. Question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 67 in the name of Alison MacKinnon's already debated amendment 1, move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yn 11-16, nifacol, y�wbeth am ysgoladd rhoi'r yma, Champions League wnaeth Herbaerol yma, neu yna portrayiau, a'r ystafell sydd wedi cael eu gwbl lliwyr graf cael eu gwbl am Fydeus. Rwy'n eu gwbl yn gwneud eich gwbl i'w wladau, pan i fod yn y wingyfamol? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Abstentions. Five-fourty against one abstention. That amendment is there for agreed to. Call of amendments 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 all name the minister and all previous the debating minister to move on please. Does any member object to this? The question is amendment 11 to 15 are agreed to are. We all agreed. Call of amendments 68 and the name of Alison McInnes of Eddie Rathbone at amendment 1. Alison McInnes to move or not moved. The question is amendment 68. Be agreed to are. We all agreed. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Abstentions. It's five-fourty against one abstention. That amendment is agreed to. Call of amendments 69 in the name of Alison McInnes because it's already with amendment 1. Alison McInnes to move or not moved. Not moved. Call of amendments 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 all name the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move on block. Does any member object to a single question we put? The question is that amendments 16 to 20 are agreed to are. We all agreed. Questions at section 1 be agreed to are. We all agreed. Questions at section 2 be agreed to are. We agreed. Questions at schedule 1 be agreed to are. We all agreed. Call of amendments 21, the name of the minister group with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Can I point out that amendment 74 is agreed to I can't call amendments 75 in group national strategy and performance framework things to be addressed? I know that you've written that down now. I also point out that amendment 82 is agreed to I can't call amendments 45 and 46 in that group preemption. Minister, please to move amendment 21 and speak the other amendments in the group. This is a group of amendments that focus on achieving outcomes, reporting on outcomes and providing feedback on achievements. 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 and securing these better outcomes is clearly something that we all want to see. I shall begin with reporting on outcomes. Amendment 45 concerns the requirement in section 20 for the community justice partners to produce annual reports on their progress in achieving community justice outcomes. At present, the requirement is that the community justice partners report on whether they have achieved the nationally and locally determined outcomes for community justice or any progress being made towards such achievement. Amendment 45 will add a further element to the reporting requirement so that the report must also cover what activity has been undertaken to achieve or to maintain the outcomes. We will set out in guidance the sort of information that should be included in the annual report, such as describing the activities that community justice partners took forward, who delivered those activities and who else was involved. The specific reporting requirement through legislation will enable greater transparency in the reporting of community justice, allowing for the identification and sharing of best practice. It will draw out the sort of analysis that would be contained routinely in any annual report and will also importantly identify the level of engagement with, for example, the third sector. Amendments 44 and 46 are linked to amendment 45 and make minor changes to section 20 to complement the changes that are affected by amendment 45. Amendments 38, 39 and 43 are technical amendments to update references in section 18 and 19 to sections of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. Convener, I will speak now to amendments 21, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53 and 54 also in my name. At stage 1, the committee requested clarification of the oversight function of Community Justice Scotland. The amendment sign proposing here reframe and expand on the existing provisions in the bill to provide clarification of the oversight powers to be held by Community Justice Scotland and to more clearly define that Community Justice Scotland can make local improvement recommendations to community justice partners and national improvement recommendations to ministers. Amendment 21 amends the functions of Community Justice Scotland, which are set out in section 3, to make it clear that those functions include monitoring, promoting and supporting improvement in performance in the provision of community justice. Section 23 of the bill, as introduced, puts a duty on Community Justice Scotland to report to community justice partners from time to time its findings in relation to progress against the outcomes within the area of the local authority to ensure that Community Justice Scotland can properly perform its oversight functions as originally intended and agreed with stakeholders. Amendment 52 inserts a new section that makes provision about performance improvement activity. This new section provides that the general powers that Community Justice Scotland has under section 4 include the power to carry out the performance of improvement activities that are set out in the new section. That power supports the function at section 3, subsection 1B of the bill, which is amended by amendments 21. The list of activities in amendment 52 is not exhaustive, it is intended to be flexible so that it does not limit the activities that Community Justice Scotland can undertake to support improvement in the achievement of outcomes. After all, local areas and partners may come to Community Justice Scotland with differing support needs. The activities that are set out in the amendment 52 include making local and national improvement recommendations. Amendment 53 provides that local improvement recommendations are recommendations to Community Justice partners, setting out the actions that Community Justice Scotland considers necessary to enable the achievement of or improve performance in achieving nationally and locally determined outcomes. The amendment sets out the associated obligation on Community Justice partners to respond to that recommendation, which mirrors the existing provision in section 23, subsection 4 of the bill. The power in section 24 for Community Justice Scotland to make recommendation to ministers is reframed as a power to make national improvement recommendations, and the detail relating to those recommendations is set out in the new section to be inserted by amendment 54. Amendment 54 does not change the substance of section 24, but is necessary in light of the other amendments in this grouping. Section 24 is, as a consequence, deleted by amendment 49. Amendments 48, 49 and 50 are consequential and remove existing provisions on oversight arrangements to allow those to be reframed in amendments 52, 53 and 54. Convener, I appreciate that there are a significant number of amendments here, but I would like to reassure the committee that the intention remains that 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, the recommendation to establish a rescue task group to work with the local partners and relevant organisations to effect sustainable and long-lasting improvement. Recommendations at a national level could also be made. The amendments here are intended to clarify that position without placing any further duties on community justice partners or materially changing the functions of Community Justice Scotland. I shall now turn to amendment 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 86, all in the name of Dr Elaine Murray. I am disappointed to see the amendments being proposed that undermine a key part of the new model for community justice, namely the means of measuring the progress being made in achieving nationally and locally the term and outcomes and key elements of the planning process. The Scottish Government and partners are working together to reduce re-offending and secure better outcomes for communities. Having a consistent set of nationally determined outcomes and indicators is key to being able to demonstrate that better outcomes are being achieved. That way there is a common understanding of what the community justice partners are aiming to achieve and the means by which they can measure the progress they have made. The Scottish Government has been working extensively with stakeholders, including COSLA, the third sector and the statutory community justice partners themselves, to develop a suite of national outcomes and indicators that community justice partners will use in preparation of their plans and in reporting on and demonstrating progress in achieving such. In addition, there will be flexibility for community justice partners to also include locally determined outcomes and relevant indicators in their plans if they so choose. However, the local outcomes should be consistent with the national outcomes to align with the overall strategic approach. However, Dr Murray's amendments 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 we feel undermine that consistent and strategic approach to planning and reporting and the use of outcomes and indicators. Of course, we have been interested to hear Dr Murray's points, but the amendments remove, we believe, the need for plans to set out the progress towards achieving outcomes that have not been met and the actions they are going to take. They remove requirements on community justice partners to make local outcomes consistent with national outcomes. They remove the requirement for the plan to set out any indicators. Those effectively remove the planning elements of a plan. I note further that Dr Murray is proposing that community justice Scotland should be required to assist community justice partners in measuring progress towards achieving the national outcomes. We would generally be interested to know how that is possible in the absence of any reference to any indicators in the community justice outcomes improvement plans, but I appreciate that Dr Murray has not had an opportunity to set out her arguments. I turn to amendment 84, which amends section 23, in consequence of amendment 83, to replace the word, and I quote, relevant with national as regards indicators. Amendment 86, which is consequential to amendment 83 and 84 and removes references to relevant indicators, and I quote, in section 23, subsection 5. I strongly believe that amendment 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 86 would reduce transparency and consistency in measuring progress in the achievement of outcomes. I am sure that that is not the intent, but we believe that that would be the effect. That undermines the ability of the new arrangements to demonstrate progress in a consistent and incredible way to our communities, the judiciary, which I know is something that Dr Murray is keen to help with, and key partners and stakeholders. I cannot therefore support amendments 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 86, and I urge the committee not to support them either. Amendments 82 and 83, which Dr Murray proposed, will substantially undermine performance improvement under the new model by removing key requirements under the performance reporting arrangements. If those amendments are moved, partners will no longer have to report on any locally determined outcomes that they may have set for their area. They will only have to report against the nationally determined outcomes and when they do so, they will be under no obligation to use the relevant indicators. As a consequence, it is likely that partners will report only on the national outcomes that are provided for in statute and may not plan for any additional important local matters that exist in and are specifically pertinent to their area. In a model that focuses on local planning and reporting, that is a key factor that surely must remain and be expected locally. Furthermore, it will mean that across Scotland all partners will use entirely different measures of progress so that they cannot compare their performance with others. That would, we believe, result in being much more difficult to drive improvement. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 82 and 83 and I would invite the committee not to agree to them. Finally, I shall speak to amendment 85, proposed by Dr Murray. 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. Part of the assurance process is that Community Justice Scotland must be able to make recommendations to community justice partners, including in relation to promoting good practice or recommending specific action where progress towards an outcome is not being made. However, amendment 85 removes the requirement for community justice partners to inform Community Justice Scotland of how they will respond to any recommendations made by Community Justice Scotland, including whether they have already taken action. Without that information, Community Justice Scotland cannot properly perform its assurance function nor adequately share good practice nor achieve its overarching aim of supporting partners to deliver better outcomes for community justice in Scotland. For those reasons, regrettably, I cannot support amendment 85 and invite you not to agree to it. Convener, in its stage 1 report, the committee stated 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 in my name respond positively to that recommendation for providing clarity on the arrangements for oversight and performance management. However, regrettably, I firmly believe that Dr Murray's amendments undermine oversight and measurement arrangements by preventing the measurement of progress and achieving outcomes in a consistent and transparent way, as well as curbing the ability of Community Justice Scotland to assist community justice partners in planning their activities and use of their resources and in improving how they achieve community justice outcomes. Therefore, I cannot regret to support any of Dr Murray's amendments, and I urge the committee not to support them either. I move amendment 21 in my name. Well, you have been accused of undermining of the early age, so would you speak to amendments 74, please, and other amendments in the group? Thanks very much, convener. Those amendments are, as a result of suggestions from COSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am grateful for both COSLA and the legislation team for working together on bringing those forward to try to address COSLA's concerns. I wonder whether the minister has indicated why he does not like certain amendments, but if we can look at how to address the concerns that are behind the amendments, because local authorities are important in the delivery of community justice, and they have to be confident about their role and the way in which they are undertaking their role. As I said, amendments were proposed by COSLA because they are still concerned about the reporting burden on local partnerships. They also feel that that would be absorbed by local government, and they wish to rebalance the relationship between the national body and local partners. They feel that the reporting and planning of local outcomes is overly burdensome, and they contradict the wider public service reform agenda. They want to stress that it is not simply about reducing work that local partners are required to do, but also maintaining a healthy balance between local accountability and national assurance. They feel that it is difficult for local partners to fully sign up to their reporting requirements outlined in the bill when there is still significant uncertainty about the performance framework and what it will look like in the minister, and they might be able to give some reassurance on that point. The burden of reporting requirements could seriously threaten the work of the community justice partnerships, and they stress that no resource has been allocated to them, whereas Community Justice Scotland will receive £2 million per year, and they are therefore placed to have a better place to gather data on national indicators. Again, there might be some assurances that the minister can make on that point. It is important that the outcomes and performance framework should be flexible enough to allow for local prioritisation, and they believe that the bill can be amended to ensure that that is the case. There is real local work to be done that will result in real local costs over the medium to longer-term, and COSLA emphasises the budget pressures on local authorities, which might mean that planning and reporting duties could take away from the meaningful activity on the ground, which will be necessary to ensure that the intentions of the bill are realised. COSLA and other stakeholders have made it clear that the local partnerships must be adequately resourced to perform their functions. Both national and local resources need to be provided if credibility is to be given to the message that they design of community justice represents a shift to a local model. They stress, however, that local government is signed up to an outcomes-focused approach to community justice, as is in other areas, such as community planning and supporting principle the notion of an outcomes framework, but they are concerned about the performance reporting being set in detail on the face of the bill and the number of the ministers that have gone through the effects of the various amendments. Can I say also that, in terms of the Government amendments, I think that these are the only amendments that we have had any representations not to support. Again, I would like to be appreciated if the minister could address COSLA's concerns over his amendments 21, 42, 40, 44, 46, 52 and 254. COSLA has concerns about those amendments as they appear to provide community justice Scotland with further powers of oversight over local partnerships directly contradicting assurances around the scope of the national body. The Scottish Government has been clear to date about the non-hierarchical relationships between CJS and local partnerships, and the inclusions of terms such as monitor are not in keeping with that. They are concerned that local partners, as a result of those amendments, must comply with any direction that is issued. They feel that that directly contradicts assurances around the scope of the national body and its relationship with statutory partners, and therefore they had recommended that the committee should reject those amendments. Again, I would appreciate the minister's comments and assurances around COSLA's concerns over those amendments. Any other member wishes to listen and then Roddie than Margaret's? I listened carefully to what the minister has said, and I wouldn't want to support anything that would reduce transparency or undermine the proposals. I think that there has been a very clear case made for the need for a national body. I have been repeatedly concerned at the variation of services around Scotland. I touched earlier on the wrangling behind the scenes about that, and I am disappointed that, at this stage, COSLA is still uncomfortable with reporting. We need to challenge that. We need to provide greater clarity in the bill. I agree with Elaine that you need to probe those things, and I find it difficult to support the removal of some of those provisions because it sets very clearly a direction. I agree with Elaine that resources must follow, and it is essential that the resources need to follow. Improving outcomes for community justice seems vital and measuring that improvement seems vital. I strongly support the idea of a nationally determined outcome as an indicator. The question is how far local outcomes should be consistent with national outcomes. I believe that they should be. I find it disappointing too that there is a lack of agreement with COSLA. The minister has talked about having worked extensively with them. Obviously, we are at stage 2. We have a way to go before stage 3. It would be helpful if we do not support COSLA's amendments today for that dialogue to continue. Clearly, there has to be transparency and a framework. All of that is good, but I have some sympathy with those amendments. They raise significant issues. First, when we had a briefing on the bill, then it was very much a partnership between Community Justice Scotland and the local justice partners. There is a slight concern that we are moving, as COSLA says, to a more overly directional and limitless function that comes from community justice Scotland. I take on board that it is not necessarily a good thing to have too much variation of services, a post-cord lottery-type situation. Nonetheless, we need to have flexibility, and each local partnership has that flexibility to address the concerns of their local issues. I very much hope that the minister would work with the member to see if there was some common ground. There are some real concerns, especially over funding, where we know how much funding there is going to be for the national body, but not for the 32 local authorities, whom we all know are severely strapped for cash or present. I took some reassurance from Elaine, saying that COSLA was not a versed and outcome focused approached. I agree with Roddie that it would be good that there continues to be dialogue. It would be very disappointing if that was some sort of turf war, because, as Alison alluded to earlier, we must remember why we are here in the first place. I am supportive of the Government's position on that, and I hope that dialogue will continue. I will not be supporting Elaine's amendments. I thank members for their comments. I appreciate the motivation behind the direct response to Dr Murray. It is very helpful to hear from Dr Murray and the rationale behind the amendments and the causes of thinking in that area. We certainly want to provide as much reassurance as we can. I certainly give assurance to Dr Murray, to Rod Campbell and John Finnie and others that we will continue the dialogue with COSLA as we approach stage 3, to try and make sure that we reassure them where there are concerns. We want to put it on record that we do not see community justice Scotland as becoming a new regulator. That is really important, because I think that some of the concerns that have risen are because perhaps we are creating a new national body and it is seen perpetually as a new regulator. That is not what we intend. In setting out the provisions in the bill today and the amendments in the bill today, we are trying to give greater clarity to the committee and the other stakeholders that we are looking for in terms of how community justice Scotland would engage with ministers and local partners. I hope that that has been helpful in setting out the steps that are mainly about providing advice and support to local partners, rather than stepping in with attackity boots. Obviously, there are provisions in there for recommendations to be made to ministers and we have tried to set out the circumstances in which that would happen. As a last resort, rescue task force would be the approach that is taken, but we would obviously want to avoid that and work with local partners where we can. I am sure that that is the approach that community justice Scotland would take, too, to try to help and support and provide advice and guidance and spread best practice. Helpfully, the performance framework and the indicators will help in format process to understand where things are going well and perhaps where, off their own volition, local partners may decide to look at what is happening in another area because they see that there is strong performance in that area. Obviously, building up both local and national indicators will help to fuel that. We will certainly be keen to try and see where we can do between now and stage 3 to give as much transparency to what is emerging in terms of the performance framework as we can. It is obviously the early days and we would not want to prejudge anything that will be coming forward in that sense, but to try and be open and share what emerging thinking is coming forward to give some reassurance to Cosland and other stakeholders that, hopefully, the framework is something that they can live with and actually see as helpful to their own performance. I take on board the points that Margaret Mitchell and John Finnie and others have said in relation to supporting the principle behind what Dr Murray is looking for. I would hope that the committee will reject the amendments today, but I take forward from this that I will try and work to give as much reassurance to Cosland and other stakeholders that there is not a new regulator, but an organisation that can help them and that ministers will ultimately have a role if things do not go well, but we would hope that we never have to use those powers. Thank you very much. The question is amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call of amendments 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, all on the minister and all previously debated. If you move them on block, please. Does any member reject a single question? The question is that amendments 22 and 27 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call of amendment 28, the name of the minister in a group on its own. Minister to move and speak to amendment 28, please. Thank you, convener. Section 3, subsection 4 of the bill empowers the Scottish ministers to make regulations altering the functions of community justice Scotland. Amendment 28 proposes that if the Scottish ministers in the future wish to make regulations to alter the functions of community justice Scotland, they are required to consult the other community justice partners as well as the existing statutory consultee set out in subsection 6 before doing so. At present, only community justice Scotland and such persons, as ministers consider appropriate, are required to be consulted. Of course, the other community justice partners could have been consulted under the current provision, but amendment 28 puts it beyond doubt that they must be consulted before ministers make regulations under this section. Amendment 28 therefore acknowledges the key role of community justice partners in community justice and will ensure that they are involved in any proposal to change the functions of community justice Scotland should that arise. I move amendment 28, in my name. I do not want to wind up ministers, nothing to wind up about. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Questions at section 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that sections 4 to 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I intend to stop there, I know that I am stopping a bit early, but it seems a decent place to make a break, minister, so we will continue consideration of stage 2 next week, and thank you very much for your attendance, and we now move into private session as previously agreed.