 Gw refrigerator, ddodd gyfraen, a ddiolch yn ddigwydd ac mae'r cymdeithas y bydd yn diolch yn 19 yn ymgyrch. Roedd ynglyn â Gweithloedd Shona Robinson ac mae hi ddigwydd ar gyfer y cyfraen i Byl Kid, sy'n gweithio'r cyfraen i deudio'r cyfraen. Diolch yn ystod, iddo y rhan o gallu cyfraen o mwyaf o sgwrdd a ffair i drath o ddigwydd yma y gallu cyffraen i bob cyfraen i ddigwydd a'r cyfraen i ddigwydd yma a'r cyfraen i bêlio. Agenda item 2 is continued consideration of the management of offender Scotland to bill at stage 2. I refer members to a copy of the bill on the marshaled list of amendments and groupings for the SISEM, and I welcome back Ymza Yousaf, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials to the meeting. We will be joined by various parts of the meeting by other members who have lodged amendments. We now begin our consideration of amendments, and I call amendment 75, in the name of Liam Kerr, grouped with amendment 134. Liam Kerr to move amendment 75 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning. The committee's stage 1 report, recognised at recommendation 182 that robust risk assessment procedures are critical to the effective use of HDCs and other forms of electronic monitoring, and the committee agrees with the calls made in evidence taken about the importance of ensuring that decisions on electronic monitoring are informed by proper and appropriate assessments. The report went on to note that we needed more information on the risk assessment tool, and I raised that in my speech at stage 1. I recall the cabinet secretary's response in what I felt was a very good debate. I remain of that view that, surely, before we do anything to increase the numbers on electronic monitoring, we need a robust and trusted assessment tool. I understand from listening to the cabinet secretary previously that the development of such a tool takes time, but we cannot allow it to drag. That is my significant concern here. For example, I am looking at another piece of legislation in another committee right now in which the Scottish Government was required to develop a database, but nine years later it has not even been started, and we cannot risk that sort of outcome here. My amendment today requires the Scottish Government to develop such a tool, a risk assessment tool, in an effort to press the importance that it is not delayed. It also goes on to say that the courts will have to have regard to that tool when disposing of cases and requiring the ministers to publish a report on the operation of that risk assessment tool. I think that it is the right amendment. It is important that it goes in, and for that reason I certainly move that amendment in my name. I think that, convener, you were asking if I would speak to Daniel Johnson's amendment 76 as well. Is that right in that group or is that separate? Yes, please. I certainly say on that that I see entirely where Daniel Johnson is going. I am very interested to hear his representations in terms of the operation of that amendment, but certainly in principle I think that there is a lot of merit to Daniel Johnson's amendment. Daniel Johnson to speak to amendment 134 and the other amendment in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I thank Liam Kerr for setting out in his introduction the reasons for that. Indeed, my amendment has been tabled for entirely the same reasons, both set out in our stage 1 report and, more importantly, set out in the HMI, PSN and HMI CS reports. That is that there was an issue with regard to risk assessment. I think that what is important and there have been a number of discussions about this, and I understand what the cabinet secretary has said when he has previously been in front of committee about not putting the details of a risk assessment process on the face of the bill. I agree with him on that, but, as I have said to him in private, what is important is that such a risk assessment does take place. In essence, the intent behind my amendment was to ensure that that risk assessment did take place, but without being unduly burdensome in terms of the specification of that risk assessment process, providing for flexibility and, indeed, reflection within that. With regard to how my amendment sits next to Liam Kerr's, I believe that, broadly, it is complementary. I have two slight issues with Liam Kerr's amendment, which is why I am going to move mine. First, in terms of language, I am not entirely convinced that putting a tool or a risk assessment tool formally on the face of the bill is appropriate, given that that is potentially anachronistic and potentially goes into detail. However, I do not believe that it is overly specified in terms of his amendment, but, more importantly, that point of ensuring that that risk assessment takes place. My reading of Liam Kerr's amendment is that, while it requires ministers to develop the risk assessment tool, it does not actually require them to use it. My amendment, in particular, requires the implementation of the risk assessment. Therefore, I am going to vote in support of Liam Kerr's amendment, but also mine, because I believe that mine is necessary to ensure that that risk assessment is carried out. I believe that there will be a requirement to a little tidying up at stage 3, but I do not believe that there is anything in either of amendments that conflict with one another and that they are complementary. However, most important, in terms of establishing that trust in the risk assessment process, making sure that there is scrutiny of that risk assessment process, I believe that those amendments are critical in terms of the bill being effective in terms of intent and restoring public trust in HDC, which is ultimately a vital tool in terms of our ability to rehabilitate prisoners. I will not be supporting either of those amendments. Likewise, I am concerned about some of the language. For instance, if I noted correctly, there was a process. It is important that a risk assessment does take place, robust and tested. I think that we have heard very clearly that what we know anyway is that the entire Scottish Prison Service, almost everything, is subject to a risk assessment, whether that is the movement of individual prisoners within that or any activities within that. What we do know, too, is that it would be very clearly that there was a process in place for assessing the use previously. I think that the committee was quite entirely right to halt its consideration pending the examination that took place. However, what we have heard from there is a significant change around in the position of the number of people who are being granted this. I think that we have introduced risk aversion. I have every confidence in the Scottish Prison Service—indeed criminal justice social workers—to do this. I think that that is entirely well-meaning, but legislation based on any particular incident went—yes, indeed. I thank John Finnie for taking that intervention. I do hear what you are saying, but if it is open, or first of all, I am sure that John Finnie will accept that there appear to have been failures previously, which led to the situation that we were in, which to my mind almost mandates that we set out the lessons learned and what should happen going forward. Secondly, I understand why he says that risk aversion has been introduced into the system. If it is so possible to swing from one approach to another approach, surely he would accept that that is not what our justice system should be doing, and it would be far better to give a clear instruction, both as my amendment seeks to do and Daniel Johnson seeks to do, on how a risk should be carried out and how it should be taken forward. I thank the member for that intervention. I think that an important part of risk assessment is to continually assess the manner in which you do go about risk assessment. I absolutely readily accept that, but what we have heard unquestionably is a significant drop in the figures. That is not a sustainable position, but we also heard that the risk assessment process, while broadly the same, had been authored as regards the seniority of the individuals intervening or ultimately making the decision. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I entirely agree with him, and it is almost exactly why I propose this amendment. At the moment, because of the circumstances, there is a degree of concern in undertaking the risk assessments by clearly setting out the principles and practice in terms of the amendments that were laid out before us. I think that one of the outcomes of that will be to give confidence to the SPS and the people carrying out those risk assessments, because they know that they will have the backup of that risk assessment process as set out in those amendments. I think that those amendments do exactly what he would want to happen in terms of building that confidence and seeing HDC used effectively and entirely properly within the prison service. Again, I hear what the member says. Just because you assess your risk and put in place mechanisms to mêlde at that risk, it does not mean that you ultimately eliminate the risk, and you are not going to ever do that when you are dealing with humans and you are relying on a point on judgment. This is not some mechanical exercise that is going to take place. That involves human beings, but I do not doubt the good intent of both members, but I will not be supporting their amendments. I would just like to echo a lot of what John Finnie said. I think that those amendments almost seem to come from a point where there is no risk assessment in place, and I am sure that that is not the intention. I am sure that Liam Kerrill will reflect on that and sum it up. To me, that is what they come from, as if there is already no risk assessment in place. We need to put something in as parliamentarians. I can tell people around the table from my experience what the criminal justice system has done. John Finnie said that that could not be further from the truth. There are robust risk assessments in place. Are they perfect? No, I do not think that MDA would suggest that. We know that the recent example tells us that, but we need to place our trust with the relevant organisations. Again, as John Finnie said, rather than putting that on the face of the bill in the Scottish Government official, I will not be backing those amendments. I will not be backing the amendments either. Liam Kerr used the words, a clear instruction. I do not think that his amendment is a clear instruction. I think that it is quite vague. What is a tool? We do not know what that is. Is it for pre-release or post-release? It is far too vague. I think that it is well intentioned as Daniels, as I can see the motivation behind it. For Daniel Johnson, it is quite vague. It requires ministers to make a kind of unspecified provision about risk assessment. It appears to be aimed at individual risk assessments rather than the overarching policy of risk assessment. To take up John Finnie's point about the turnaround, I do not think that it would be advantageous at this time to bring those amendments forward. My view is that they complement each other. They seek to provide a robust assessment tool in which public can have confidence. They require the development in light of the expansion of each DC to individuals who would otherwise be behind bars. While I note members' comments that there are already existing risk assessments, they have been found wanting in the past. We need to be very conscious of that. In terms of the concern that we all share about the risk averse culture that seems to have come developed, it seems to me that, by having a robust tool on the face of the bill, it will address that culture of risk assessment and help people to have confidence that they can use each DC as it was intended to be used in the legislation. I thank Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson for their amendments. I know that they come from a very sincere intent. Both members have been very consistent since stage 1 of the bill, particularly after the HDC reviews. They are very consistent in this point about risk management, the need for robust tools and your request to have something on a statutory footing. I am grateful for the fact that both amendments have been lodged, and they have come up not just from members but from a consistent theme of conversation, discussion and debate from those that you took evidence from. In relation to amendment 75, there was a discussion at stage 1 about the merits of placing risk assessment on the face of the bill. I have to say that I am still very firmly of the view that to do so would present a risk, and I believe that the risk management authority have written to the Justice Committee expressing their concerns. My usual concerns about putting things on the face of the bill very much extend to this amendment around the potential inflexibility of what is being suggested. I think that there is a better place for it. All that being said, I fully recognise why the members would want to have something that has a statutory underpinning to it. I am hoping that, throughout my remarks, I can perhaps bring forward a compromised position that can satisfy members' desire to have risk management on a statutory footing, but it does not necessarily involve being on the face of the bill, and I will come to that very shortly. In terms of just some of the language that is used in amendment 75, a risk assessment tool is not defined here nor elsewhere in the legislation. There are already a number of risk assessment tools that are used in the criminal justice system that are developed for the use with particular groups of prisoners and, of course, developed for particular situations. It is not clear from amendment 75 what sort of risk assessment tool would be created—one to assist the decision to release a prisoner or, indeed, one to assist the management of risk once that prisoner is released. A risk assessment tool carried out by the governor in relation to temporary release would, of course, be very different to risk assessments carried out for the purposes of HDCE or, indeed, parole. The creation of one risk assessment tool for all three very distinct forms of early release overlooks the very different nature of the various forms of early release. My understanding is that letters were sent to the committee both from the risk management authority and also from the pro-board, and I made just read out a paragraph just to emphasise that point. This is a letter from the risk management authority that talks about its framework for risk assessment management and evaluation. It just says in the fourth paragraph down that frame emphasises the distinction between risk assessment and tools and that there are a range of instruments that may contribute to risk assessment, but none that produces a risk assessment. Such tools vary greatly in the design, purpose and applicability, and there is not one that fits all situations. The pro-board and their letter to the committee, in the fourth bullet point down, says that the adoption and promotion of one generic tool oversimplifies the complex process of risk assessment, which should be informed as appropriate by specific relevant assessment tools, but should involve wider evidence and expertise. That just goes to emphasise the point that I am hoping to make. I think that the amendment would duplicate existing risk assessment processes across all forms of early release. There are existing statutory provisions that require risk assessment for the purposes of HDC for temporary release and also parole. If it is helpful for the committee, of course, I can provide some more detail on that in writing. The obligation of amendment 75 to develop a risk assessment tool sits alone with no corresponding duty on any organisation to use the tool or to have regard to it. There is a duty to consult certain bodies and it may be implied that those bodies are to have regard to the risk of that tool. Would my amendment not give the duty to carry out the risk assessment if both are passed? Potentially, and I will come to why that might be a bit of a problem and also why the amendment in itself in the way that it is drafted might actually be a problem. As I said, it could be implied, although it is not specific, but it could be implied that those bodies are to have regard to the risk assessment tools. One of those bodies that would then have to do that would, of course, be consulted, would be the pro-board. The pro-board is completely independent of Scottish ministers and any implication that the pro-board is bound by a risk assessment developed by Scottish ministers could call that independence into questions. That could, of course, then give rise to a potential challenge to the pro-board's decisions on parole under ECHR article 6. That is a right to a fair trial. Again, I understand that the pro-board has written to you in that same letter. Again, if I just quote directly on the fifth bullet point down in their letter, they say, mandating a single tool could be seen as tying the hands of independent bodies and reducing the effectiveness of decision-making bodies. I know from my public and private conversations and members around this committee that they value the independence of the pro-board and rightly so. In relation to amendment 134, there are some significant drafting concerns that some have been alluded to already that mean that this amendment would be unworkable for a part of the bill. Firstly, the obligation in subsection 1 refers to the risk assessment of an individual prisoner rather than the risk assessment process as it applies to prisoners in general. The obligation could therefore require the Scottish ministers to assess the risk posed by one prisoner rather than to create a general risk assessment process, which, obviously, would not be the intention behind the amendment. The obligation in subsection 1 must be complied with only once in the six months immediately after commencement, as the amendment inadvertently refers to an individual risk assessment rather than a risk assessment process. The Scottish Government could comply with the obligation by conducting just one individual risk assessment in six months following commencement. While the amendment appears to be designed to relate to the HDC, only the drafting could result in the amendment applying to all forms of release from prison whether prisoners are released on licence or otherwise. It is not clear whether subsection 1 obliges ministers to conduct a risk assessment for the purposes of assisting the decision to release a prisoner or assisting the management of risk once a prisoner is released from prison. Both of those amendments seek to address risk. However, I understand again their desire to have some of that on a statutory footing. My proposal is that having regard to amendment 130 from the convener may provide an opportunity to address the issue of risk more broadly, and therefore, I hope, satisfy the concerns of members. Amendment 130 in the next group seeks to make guidance on HDC statutory. I accept the principle that HDC guidance should have a statutory footing and should be laid before Parliament. The HDC guidance contains a number of different components, including the purpose of HDC, but it also sets out detail on eligibility and the consideration to be taken in assessing risk. If Daniel Johnson and Liam Kerr are minded in light of those concerns to not press their amendments, I think that creating statutory HDC guidance to be laid before Parliament, as the convener suggests, including some of the elements of what is discussed by both members, will hopefully allay some of the concerns that they have around risk. I extend to them the offer that I will make to the convener in the next grouping on amendment 130 to work with them on a form of that amendment at stage 3, which ensures that the guidance that is covering HDC will provide that guidance on a statutory footing, but it will include provision on risk as well. I request that Daniel Johnson and Liam Kerr do not press his amendments, but if they are pressed, I urge the committee to reject them. Thank you, convener. I am grateful to the committee and the cabinet secretary for the comments. I think that John Finnie makes an important and interesting argument, but I do not just accept it. I take the point about the aversion that seems to have been introduced, but surely the most effective way to ensure appropriateness, fairness and consistency is to clearly set out how we risk assess and what the benchmark is going to be. Of course, you are quite right, Mr Finnie. We cannot eliminate risk, but we can surely reduce it. The best way to do that is through some form of test like this. Turning to Fulton MacGregor, he made some points that my starting point is that there is no risk assessment in place and that there are systems there already. Of course, that is quite true. Mr MacGregor suggested that we should place our trust in the systems that are there pre-existing, but, respectfully, that is what we were doing before and we saw that there were tragic consequences arising for that. I agree with much of what the member just said. In terms of what Fulton MacGregor said, I accept that there was nothing in place before, but if you look at paragraph 6.6 of the HMIPS report, it states that, although an assessment process clearly existed, it may not be regarded by some to meet the definition of robust. It then goes on to state very explicitly the terms by which a risk assessment should be established in order to address that issue, which is what I think—I wonder if the member would agree with me—our amendments seek to do. I agree with that. I am grateful for the intervention. I think that that is exactly the point that I am making and, clearly, Daniel Johnson is making, too. I hear the points that both Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson are making. I said when I spoke on the amendment as well that, of course, the risk assessment process is not perfect, as John Finnie said earlier. We are dealing with human beings, but I think that where we disagree is where the power to make changes should be made. I heard from the cabinet secretary and I think that that is a very reasonable offer for compromise that he has put forward to both himself and Daniel Johnson for the next section, and I would encourage you to accept that, because it is not nobody's saying that there is a perfect system in place, but where we disagree is how the changes can be made. I certainly deal with the amendment 130 in two seconds, but I wonder if, Mr McGregor, does that suggest that you accept Daniel Johnson's argument and my argument on that? We should not be placing our trust in the previous systems and that there is merit to moving forward and doing something differently, in which case it might respectfully suggest that bringing those amendments forward might be the way to do that. Are you letting me back in on that question? Of course, to answer that. No, I do not agree with that premise because the current system that is in place is already currently got the ability to change and make relevant changes as required. I think that it does still need further work, and that is what the cabinet secretary has outlined in his speech. I am grateful for the intervention. Moving on to the cabinet secretary's points, first of all, cabinet secretary, when referring to my amendment 75, understandably it suggested that it is going to be very difficult to try and design something to cover all situations. I might point him towards my subsection 2, which makes it clear, because I understand the point that has been made if you come at it from that end. However, if we look at subsection 2, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to assess the risk of an offender being at liberty to the safety of the public at large. That is a very different approach. It is not narrowing it down to a particular disposal or consideration. That is saying what is going to happen, what is the risk to the public at large if this particular offender is at liberty. To my mind, that is an all-encompassing purpose that can be put in place. I can deal with that objection, but, turning to the substantive point, I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for his offer on amendment 130. I see the merit to that. However, again, I refer back to the purpose at subsection 2 about assessing the risk of an offender, whatever that offender has done, whatever situation they are in, being at liberty to the safety of the public at large. I think that that is the right purpose. I think that that is the end of the telescope that we should be looking through. For that reason, I think that there is absolute merit in this amendment 75. Therefore, I move it in my name. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Right. Six against, three for, that amendment is not agreed. Call of Amendment 134, in the name of Daniel Johnson, already debated with amendment 75. Daniel Johnson to move or not move. That amendment is moved. Are we all agreed? No. The question is that amendment 134, we are not all agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, three for, six against, that amendment is not agreed. Call of Amendment 130, in my name, in a group on its own, and I'll move this and speak to amendment 130. Amendment 130 addresses the monitoring and evaluation of home detention curfews and licence conditions. This has been lodged in response to the findings of the HMIPS in October 2018, which noted that, where an individual's release on HDC was subject to additional conditions, not just electronic monitoring conditions, there appeared to be no monitoring of compliance. In its conclusions, the committee stated that it did not consider this to be acceptable and agreed with HMIPS that additional conditions need to be accompanied by monitoring arrangements and that they are agreed in advance and clearly annotated on the licence. Furthermore, if that is not possible, the committee recommended that serious consideration be given to not granting the HDC. In particular, the committee noted recommendation nine from HMIPS calling on the Scottish Government to develop statutory guidance with regard to those issues. The committee then called on the Scottish Government to consider making provision for this in the bill, requiring the Government to consult on, publish and maintain guidance, setting out the roles and responsibilities of the relevant agencies with regard to risk assessment and monitoring of conditions relating to the use of electronic tagging conditions. The amendment therefore provides that ministers must monitor compliance with the curfew condition and any additional conditions imposed as part of the licence conditions. It also states that where a condition has not been complied with, the Scottish ministers may revoke the licence and return the individual to prison. More specifically, it provides that, after the section comes into force, the Scottish Government must publish and lay before Parliament guidance on the monitoring of conditions. The amendment further provides that Scottish ministers must review the guidance and also consult with relevant bodies when doing the review. I move amendment 30 in my name. Do any other members have comments or questions? Daniel Johnson? Thank you very much for bringing this amendment forward. I believe that this is possibly one of the most important amendments that has been tabled, because it goes to the very heart of what went wrong in the tragic case of Craig McLean. Indeed, it addresses directly one of the most important points made in the reports by HMIPS and HMICS. It is vital that, if conditions are applied to people released on HDC, that those conditions and, indeed, any issues flagged in any risk assessment that others are taking, that those are monitored. That monitoring was not taking place, and that is why it is so critical and why I will be supporting it. I will briefly touch on what the cabinet secretary mentioned in the previous section. I quite agree that that goes some way to addressing those points. However, I do not believe that monitoring conditions is a substitute for addressing risk management. Nonetheless, given that the previous amendments on risk assessment did not pass, I believe that this amendment is absolutely vital to the bill and, without it, I believe that the bill will be seriously deficient. I totally understand the motivation for this, and I agree with what Daniel Johnson says. My reservation is that it almost replicates existing legislation. Monitoring is already possible under the existing legislation in the bill. It has already placed a responsibility for electronic monitoring arrangements on ministers. However, if something could be worked out to do with the wording around it to accentuate that, that would be helpful to strengthen the point. However, to bring that in, it would just be replicating existing legislation. On the outset, I have a huge amount of sympathy for large parts of this amendment. The duty to monitor compliance with the HDC conditions and the power to revoke an HD licence if those conditions are breached are, of course, already provided for in existing legislation. However, I consider that there is some merit in the creation of statutory guidance for HDC. HMICS and HMIPS have made recommendations in their reports on HDC in October 2018 in relation to the need for an extensive review of home detention curfew guidance. That work has started, but it will not be concluded until we are able to take account of the changes made through this bill, such as the changes to the powers of recall, for example. It should be borne in mind that, given the HDC guidance of statutory footing, it would not necessarily materially change the obligations that are placed on the Scottish ministers or those other organisations' tasks with the living HDC regime. The nature of guidance is that it is not binding even if a duty is placed on certain persons to have regard to it. However, all of that being said, the statutory guidance that is prepared by Scottish ministers would require to be aimed at other criminal justice organisations involved in delivering HDC. As drafted, the amendment does not place any duty on the criminal justice organisations involved in delivering HDC to have regard to the guidance. The amendment would require that the Scottish ministers produce guidance covering the monitoring of compliance with the HDC licence conditions, which are just one element of the HDC scheme. Scottish ministers already provide guidance covering a wider than just monitoring range of roles and functions of different justice partners in the administration of HDC. It may be possible that that guidance could form the basis of statutory guidance that the convener is seeking here. However, if the convener is content to press our amendment, I am happy to work with her. As per previous discussions with Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson to develop an amendment to return with the stage 3 that would require Scottish ministers to produce statutory guidance on the administration of HDC more generally, which may address the concerns expressed by members about other aspects of HDC, such as risk assessment, pre-release, or indeed risk assessment, post-release. I thank the cabinet secretary for those comments. This is a really important amendment, given what has happened in the past and the fact that we know that conditions and licences are not being monitored. It cannot be more serious than that. What the amendment does is reflect how seriously the committee took the issue and the recommendations, notwithstanding what Rona Cymru said, are the recommendations that we made. For that basis, I am minded to press it. However, if there are deficiencies in it, if it passes, if it does not pass, I would very gratefully take up the cabinet secretary's offer to work on it at stage 3. With that in mind, I press this amendment in my name, and the question is, therefore, that should amendment 130 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. All those in favour, please show. All those against, please show. Three in favour, six against, that amendment is not passed. I call amendment 133 in my name, in a group on its own, which I will move and speak to. Amendment 133 seeks to amend the criminal procedure Scotland Act 1995 to impose particular restrictions of liberty conditions. It seeks to clarify and give a better understanding of the precise location or area covered by any exclusion zone condition. Exclusion zones place restrictions on the ability of abusers to have access to specific locations where their victim may be found. The amendment therefore gives examples of specific locations such as the offender's home, the offender's child's school or their partner or ex-partner's workplace. It also provides for exclusion areas and named locations. Amendment 130 is particularly relevant for the domestic abuse perpetrators in that it seeks to prevent these offenders from causing further distress to their victims by excluding them from various locations and places where they could seek to confront or harass their victims. I move amendment 133 in my name. Do members have any comments? I again can understand why the convener has brought this amendment. I think that it may relate to some concerns that women's aid had around the use of GPS, but the amendment, as it is drafted, does not say that. It may end up—a court can currently designate a specified place as a restricted place. The amendment, as it stands, might have the effect of restricting the places to which the court can exclude an offender, which I know is definitely not the intention of the amendment, but I think that the drafting of the amendment is a bit problematic. I have complete and utter understanding and sympathy with women's aid concerns, and I know that that is the intention of the amendment, but I just do not think that it is clear enough, and I do not think that it sets out enough, and it may have unintended consequences. Likewise, convener, I do not mean that I am disrespectful, but I do not understand what the intended effect is. I get the sentiment behind it, and I would like to hear moving into stage 3 if it is rejected or if it is passed exactly what women's aid think about this particular amendment and how the intention can perhaps be met, but I do wonder about unintended consequences, for example. The nature of domestic abuse, which I think is the amendments mainly based on through women's aid, has already issues with the restriction of liberty orders that the criminal justice system works day in, day out to try and manage the nature of coercive control, for example. I am really unsure if that would be interesting to hear what the cabinet secretary says, particularly if it is going on at stage 3. Just on that point and before I bring the cabinet secretary in, because it may be helpful for him, the exclusion zones just now can be drafted very wisely. It could be Glasgow White, for example. That clarifies and tries to put examples, not as Rona was saying to suggest no places that definitively must be in, but concentrates the minds on places where exclusion zones might be targeted to bring some clarity and conciseness to this, which can only help the victims of those breaches. I think that that is exactly my point. I do not know whether that argument that you are making is necessarily likely to be in the best interests of victims of those offenses. I am not saying that it is not, but I think that at this stage, with the amendments in front of me, we would need a lot more information before I could vote for it. Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much. I was interested to hear of your intent behind those amendments. Again, you have had a consistent approach to defending the rights of victims of domestic abuse, so I completely understand the intent behind some of that. I am not convinced that the amendment is necessarily required for the additional ability for ministers to prescribe a specified place. I will try to give you some reassurances that those powers already very much exist for the courts, and therefore there is not a need to press this amendment. Courts are already able to restrict people on restriction of liberty orders away from or to a broad range of types of specified place, and they already do so under the current radio frequency service. People can currently be restricted away from a partner's house and it does not have to be a broad geographic location when it comes to electronic monitoring. In fact, it has to be a very specific place. Courts have, under the current service, used electronic monitoring to make, for example, local supermarkets a specified place to deter a persistent shoplifter. A restriction of liberty order may, and I'll directly quote from section 245A of the Criminal Procedures Act here, and again, as I said, I quote, they may restrict the offender's movement to such an extent as the court thinks fit and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing, may include provision A, requiring the offender to be in such place as may be specified for such periods or periods in each day or week as may be specified, be requiring the offender not to be in such place or places or such class or classes of place or places at such time or during such period as may be specified, end quote. So, those are already broad powers. The GPS monitoring capabilities when introduced will just change the ways in which those specified places are monitored. We do not see any need to change how those specified places are defined. Indeed, there's a significant risk that seeking to prescribe the places that can be specified in an RLO—this amendment may be seen as limiting the power of the courts to only specify those places that are prescribed. We're unsure why the ability to prescribe the places that may be specified in an RLO, if it were to be beneficial, would not extend to other forms of electronic monitoring such as monitoring of licence conditions or indeed sexual offences prevention orders. Overall, the bill has largely sought to leave untouched. The underlying orders that can be electronically monitored as to do so risks opening up a number of unintended consequences that we have not had the opportunity to consider or take evidence on the bill to date. On that basis, I can't see a clear benefit from an amendment of this nature, although I completely respect and sympathise and understand the intent behind it. I should say that my officials have also had conversations with a number of organisations that represent women, particularly in relation to victims of domestic abuse. Although they have raised concerns around the bill, my understanding is that they have a very detailed understanding of what can be done in the current legislation in terms of restrictions with electronic monitoring. I would urge Margaret Mitchell not to press the amendment, if the amendment is pressed. I would urge the committee to reject it, but, of course, I am more than happy if it is rejected to work with Margaret Mitchell before stage 3 and, indeed, any other stakeholders and members to give her confidence that we have in place the necessary powers to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly victims of domestic abuse. The cabinet secretary for those comments is an area in which we always work together for the good. It seems to me that what the amendment does is provide flexibility, the flexibility to prescribe a specific place, but not to have to do that. I noticed that the cabinet secretary said that it might be unduly restrictive for offenders, but areas that are located as exclusion zones can be city-wide. That is clearly not the most effective use of it, both for protecting the victim or for being proportionate in terms of the offender. I am minded to depress this. My whole attitude to the sexual offences is that we do as much as we possibly can. We provide the belt and braces. I think that amendment does that. There will be opportunity at stage 3 for organisations to come forward if they have any doubts or reservations about it. I have to say that no one has come forward knowing that I have tabled this motion with these doubts, which is not to say that that might not happen at stage 3. I am minded to move it, but, again, if it falls, it is very willing to take up the cabinet secretary's kind offer to work and look and see if anything else can be put in at stage 3. As it stands, I think that this is a good amendment that will increase the protection for all victims and, in particular, those victims of sexual offences. The question is, is amendment 133 agreed? All those in favour, please show. All those against, please show. 2 in favour, 7 against. That amendment is not passed. The question is, is section 48 agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 72, in the name of Neil Bibby, has already been debated with amendment 71. The question is not that amendment 72 has not been agreed. Amendment 78, in the name of Liam Kerr, grouped with amendments 76A and 80, Liam Kerr to move amendment 76 and speak to all amendments in the group. First, amendment 76. My view is that both monitoring and swift and visible responses to breaches are essential to public safety. I am sure that the committee will accept that proposition, but monitoring and a swift and visible response require sufficient resources to be in place. The amendment 76, which I hear by move, will require ministers to prove that resources are in place before the bill comes into force. Throughout the course of this session, looking at various amendments, for example, amendment 78 or amendment 131, we have talked, this committee has talked and rightly about the need for resources. Many aspects of this bill will be resource intensive, so we must get this right. The implication, it seems to me, of voting down this amendment, is that we do not think that we should ensure that there are resources in place before doing this. I think that that would be somewhat irresponsible and not a course that I can commend to the committee. Since I am speaking to the group, I will be supporting the further amendment 76A, in the name of Daniel Johnson, as it provides extra clarity to my amendment for which I am grateful. Convener, I believe that you wish me to speak to amendment 80 at this time as well. So, moving on, this is about CPO completion rates, community payback order completion rates, having a particular threshold. Throughout this bill, or as a result of this bill, it seems to me that the Scottish Government is proposing something that will have a considerable expansion of the use of community sentences, in particular community payback orders. This comes at a time when the cabinet secretary will clarify my statistics if I am not spot on, but I think that I am that over three in ten community payback orders are not currently completed. Within that context, my amendment requires a modest improvement to a specific measure that is contained within the criminal justice social work statistics, which is the completion rate for community payback orders. Yes, I will, but, of course, I may come back. I am just wondering if the member in his preparation for today has given any thought or done any research on some of the reasons why community payback orders are incomplete, or is he just simply interested in the figure of three in ten? I thank you for the information. Of course, I have done research on why those things are not being completed, but the bold fact, Mr MacGregor, is that the completion rate for community payback orders currently stands at 69.7 per cent, and that rate has remained virtually unchanged for around three years. What I am suggesting in my amendment is that, if we do not have a basic improvement to that, if we do not put a threshold, if we do not put ourselves to a higher standard, we can have no confidence that community payback orders are a robust alternative to prison sentences, and perhaps more importantly, neither will the Scottish public. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the member is saying in terms of ensuring that non-custodial sentences and community payback orders are effective and that we seek improvements in that. However, in setting such a hard threshold, does it not run the risk of creating a version from sentences of the very kind that is counterproductive to the intent that lies behind it? Indeed, could the member provide any reason or rationale for why he has chosen the threshold of 80 per cent in particular? I do not accept that setting a hard threshold is a reason not to put ourselves to a high standard, Mr Johnson. If it makes an aversion to use community payback orders, then that should be the right thing to do, because they are clearly not working. Three in ten are never completed, and unless we hold ourselves to a higher standard—yes, I will, Mr Finlay. Mr Kerr, I am not minded to support your amendment, as I am sure you would predict, but are you able to share the extent to which the information you gleaned on why there is that level of non-completion? What are the important factors in that that you learned, please? For a start, I go back to amendment 76, which is the point about resourcing. Mr Finlay is well aware that an awful lot of the agencies in place to help people and to assist in completion of various programmes are—I hesitate to say under resource, because I do not want to say anything—but they have certainly put forward that perhaps the funding models and the amount of funding that they are getting preclude a higher completion rate. All that information is there. That information is perfectly available, but going back to Daniel Johnson's point, why 80 per cent? That is because it is a higher standard, but it is only a modest higher standard. It is only an extra 10 per cent. The completion rate is currently 69.7 per cent. I am suggesting that we need to give public confidence that the alternative that the increased use of community payback orders is actually the right thing to be doing. Now, I look back to some of the evidence that we heard in this committee. Victim support Scotland told us that communities have no faith in community sentencing. It is my view that this amendment could have helped to address that, because the data will actively show that it is a robust and genuine alternative. Anticipating where the cabinet secretary will go on this, rehabilitation of criminals is absolutely vital. I accept that, but it must never override public safety or real justice for victims of crime. Therefore, community censuses have to be robust, intensive and strictly monitored. If we do not push for the improvement of those completion rates, we are sending a message that it is acceptable for three in 10 offenders on community orders to go unpunished, unrehabilitated and undeterred. I accept, cabinet secretary, that picking up Daniel Johnson's point that this is pressure. A threshold of 80 per cent puts pressure on the system to deliver. It puts pressure on us to be confident that it is right to put more people into that system and that it can cope. However, I am sure that that is an appropriate principle, and I am sure that this committee will vote for that principle. Leigh MacArthur. Sorry, Daniel Johnson. I have missed you out. Sorry, Daniel. To move amendment 76e and speak to amendments 76e. I will not take that personally, convener. I will just speak briefly to my amendment 76. Amendment 76 is welcome. Much of what is contained in this bill is very reliant on resourcing, but I also, in particular, I think what we have discovered, both through taking evidence but also the tragic circumstance that did occur, is that interagency working is also particularly important. I think what I concluded is just the importance and pivotal role of both the police and also local authorities in making sure that the ability to monitor conditions and carry out those regimes. The resourcing of those bodies in particular is hugely important, which is why I felt it was important to specify them in particular. I think that it is all well and good putting obligations and duties on bodies, but I think that not providing them with the resources in order to carry out those duties is a very dangerous thing to do, which is why this is in here. Just briefly on amendment 80, I would just say this. I think that legislation should avoid being anachronistic. I think that Mr Kerr is not being ambitious enough. I would hope to get to a point where 80 per cent is an absurdly pessimistic threshold by which to assess community payback orders. I say that partly in just, but partly because I think it is potentially an unhelpful threshold that is arbitrary and one that genuinely we should be seeking to move well past 80 per cent. However, I agree with the sentiment that we must look to measures to improve the effectiveness and successiveness of those orders, but I just do not believe that amendment 80 does that. Liam McArthur and Fulton I entirely agree with what Liam Kerr had to say. The issue of resources will be imperative to the success of the measures that have been brought forward in the bill. Where I depart from them entirely is the suggestion that voting against amendment 76 would somehow send the signal from the committee that we do not subscribe to that view. We will all have debates at various stages about whether different aspects of the criminal justice system are properly resourced. However, I cannot see the benefit in putting in place this amendment, albeit with the clarification from Daniel Johnson. We will have our robust discussions about the resourcing of different elements of the criminal justice system going forward, and that is right and proper. However, as a result of that, we will all take a different view as to whether or not the community measures are appropriately resourced. Therefore, by passing amendment 76, we stand at the serious risk of leaving ourselves in suspended animation and not being able to take forward any of those measures at all. I am happy to take an intervention from Mr Kerr. I understand the point being made. How does the member propose to ensure that there are sufficient resources in place and that somebody is making that assessment on whatever threshold we decide sufficient resources means? By using the powers that we have as parliamentarians to hold the Government's feet to account, we will have a financial memorandum attached to the bill that should give effect to the provisions within the bill. We have an opportunity at every budget cycle to hold the Government's feet to the fire that, if areas of the criminal justice system are not appropriately resourced, it is up to us to hold them to task based on the evidence that we have available. I rather suspect what we will see is patchy, perhaps inconsistent, application of community-based measures across the country, which will be the result of a variety of different factors, some of which may be to do with resources, some of which may even be to do with the attitudes of individual sheriffs and judges. I think that that is something that we will continue to have, but it is not aided, I do not think, by passing amendment 80. I would entirely agree with the point that was made by Daniel Johnson earlier. I think that this locks us into a self-defeating exercise, the notion that those, even those, the three out of 10 that Mr Kerr continues to refer to, might not be considered unpunished, unreabilitated and undeterred. I think that, on the basis of the evidence that he has presented to the committee to substantiate those claims, it is hard to fathom and hard to justify it. By putting in that rigidity to this bill, we run counter to what we know to be the case, which is that, very often, the period in prison can be self-defeating in terms of rehabilitation, in terms of reducing re-offending. Therefore, I cannot understand the logic of moving amendment 80 and we will certainly be voting against it. Thanks, convener. In terms of amendments 76 and 77A, I think that the main points have already been covered by Liam Carther that I would like to express, and I won't be supporting them, but I wanted to concentrate on the remarks on amendment 80, which, I'm sorry to say to my colleague Liam Kerr, I just honestly can't fathom out. I think that it's shown a complete disregard for the criminal justice system, particularly the social work aspect of the system, and perhaps even a lack of understanding with it. The first thing that I would say is that you want to play a numbers game, people could argue that 70 per cent is a pretty good success rate, given what some individuals who would find themselves in these situations are dealing with. You didn't answer myself for John Finnie's questions earlier around some of the reasons, so I will give you some of the reasons. People have very complex mental health difficulties, very complex drug and alcohol difficulties, complex poverty issues, people needing to get to food banks, people in the throes of austerity. Those are all things that need to be taken into account, and to throw figures out there is no help from the slightest. You've also got the figures of the 70 to 80 per cent—I'll just make a wee bit of progress and I'll let you in, because I know that you've got a chance to sum up as well—the 70 to 80 per cent, but Daniel Johnson says why you're not just going for 100 per cent on that basis, and at least then your argument would be consistent. On that point, I understand the reasons that you've given. My point is simply that, statistically, 69.7 per cent are completed. I don't understand why we don't have the ambition, coupled with giving proper resources, to say that this could and should be better before we start pumping more people into the system. I'm saying that that's where you're not showing your understanding of the system. If we're going to give people the opportunity to be rehabilitated in the community, which I think everybody around the table is supportive of, and there's a lot of work going into within our communities and through the Scottish Government, then you need to understand that the offending and the patterns of offending are very complex and they're linked into some of the things that I've already said. I really would strongly encourage you to withdraw this amendment. I think that you've got the whole mood totally wrong on it, and I think that it actually gives—to even be talking in this sort of way—it's a dangerous road to be going down in terms of where we stand in the community. Just as it's very stark, I know that you don't intend this, because I know that you personally, and I know that you don't intend this, but it's the start of a slippery road down to removing community justice as a key feature of this Government, and I cannot fathom out why you went down this road, so I will definitely 100 per cent and I'll be supporting that. If I could just remind committee that in its report in relation to financial matters, the committee emphasises that an increase in the use of electronic monitoring will only be successful if adequate budgets are put in place for criminal justice social work and the wider services that support people subject to such monitoring. Those include help with housing, employment and all of that. A failure to make available sufficient resources will hinder the effect of use of electronic monitoring failing individuals involved and potentially increasing the risk to wider society. Additional resources may also be required to keep the use of electronic monitoring compliant with data protection rules. It seems to me that this is an amendment about that resource. It is absolutely the key to the success of the legislation that adequate resources are put in place. That has been made clear to us even before we started the scrutiny of the bill, making sure that adequate resources are there for things like community payback orders. In an ideal world, we would want 100 per cent compliance, but as Fulton MacGregor says, then there are reasons why it can be unintended consequences. It can be people with drug addiction, with chaotic lifestyles, but in seeking to give a community payback order, I would expect all the recipients and the individual being considered at all their circumstances to be known and provided for. We are not setting them up to fail, and I am afraid that that is what is happening just now. Resources are very much key to that failure. It seems to me that Daniel Johnson's amendments are absolutely key to ensuring that people are not set up to fail and that the legislation works as it was intended. To do that, as Daniel Johnson said, you need the co-operation of intergovernment agencies and voluntary organisations that must be adequately resourced. I thank members for their explanation of their amendments. It will not be any surprise to them that I will not be supporting them and I will be asking them not to be pressed. It was a really good discussion to listen into from my point of view, particularly the points that were made by Lee MacArthur and Fulton MacGregor just a moment ago. I will go into some of the substance of the amendments. Before I do that, I can just talk about amendment 76, making commencement regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and why I think that that is not the correct approach. Commencement regulations are typically not subject to procedure for good reasons of principle, but also of practice. Parliament considers that scrutinises debates and the provisions of the bill during the bill's parliamentary passage. In my view, it would not be useful to seek to have that debate again using subordinate legislation procedure to do so. Commencement regulations are a mechanism for giving effect to the legislation in which Parliament has already passed. Commencement regulations themselves do not contain policy changes but rather are the tools to deliver the policy contained. In the bill, constraining Scottish ministers powers to commence parts of legislation, the Parliament has already approved strikes at the core element of any act. It is extremely rare in statute to have a requirement placed on ministers before commencement by placing any condition in commencement. There is a risk of potentially placing in jeopardy all parts of the bill, including issues such as parole, such as spent convictions, which seem unrelated to policy that is being linked with those amendments to commencement. Seeking to tie commencement to CPO completion rates is also an approach that I find unusual. I do understand Liam Kerr and other members' desire to have greater rates of completion. I am also committed to doing that, but I thought that voting in my Gregor's intervention was particularly interesting and well-made. I think that it articulated very well. Indeed, anybody who has spoken to those who deliver community payback orders will know that they are dealing with people who often have chaotic lifestyles. Anybody who has gone through that CPO that has that chaotic lifestyle, that has managed to transform their lives, that has managed to become rehabilitated, and I have spoken to many of them, will tell you that their journey was not a linear journey. The journey was often one step forward, two steps back. It had peaks and it had troughs, they went forward and then they went back. Therefore, believing that simply throwing money—I will come back to the deserwer's point— would see a higher completion rate, I am afraid, does not take account of neither the evidence nor the lived experience of those who have gone through CPOs, of course. I think that it goes beyond throwing money. It is money to provide the support, to provide the personnel, to be there when they look as though they are failing and to be on top of that at the first available opportunity, to provide that support to see why they are failing, to then try and make the necessary arrangements to adjust the terms of the community service order to make sure that they are compliant. That is what is not available just now, and it is not available just now very often because criminal justice social work and anyone else who monitors do not have the resources to do that. I respectfully disagree on a couple of points. One is important for me to say that we have ring-fenced the budget for criminal justice social work, not only that, but for an advance of, hopefully, passing the presumption against short sentences of 12 months. There has been an increased budget to local authorities to address that particular issue. What I would say, conveners, is that even if we doubled the money going into the hands of those delivering community payback orders, there will be some people who will not complete them. There will be some people because of the chaotic lifestyles, as articulated well by Fulton McGregor that just will not complete them. Again, I do not take away from the fact that there is a desire to see a greater increase of completion rates of community payback orders, but I am afraid that that is not the way to do it. I wonder whether, cabinet secretary, last month or just recently, the Government made an announcement that there would be additional funding for prison monitors. Was that throwing money at it, or was that addressing the issue and making sure that the legislation worked to encourage rehabilitation? That is a prison monitoring. Again, I am not suggesting that there is an issue around resources. I know that people will always want to understand more resources. Of course, resources are a part of the issue. I am just simply making the point that if you were to double the budget, quadruple the budget, you are still going to have people because of the points that were articulated well by Fulton McGregor, because of their chaotic lifestyles, because rehabilitation is not always a linear journey, that there will be people who will not necessarily complete CPOs. That would not be a reason to dismiss the entire system, which I respect, Liam Kerr and Camino. You are not doing, but it would be the wrong approach to take. I think that placing a condition on commencement in relation to CPO completion rates is not the correct approach in general, but, in respect of the framing of the particular amendment, there are some issues that would make it unworkable in practice. Amendment 80 prevents commencement until the statistics. The board has produced and published statistics on the proportion of CPO completion rates. The statistic board has functions and powers under the Statistics and Registrations Act 2007. Crucially, the board is not required to produce statistics in relation to CPO completion rates. The 2007 act does not enable us to compel the board to produce those statistics. That could mean that we are prevented from commencing even if the Scottish Government's own statistics show the requisite levels of CPO completion rates. We are also being asked to make commencement contingent on placing a report before Parliament on why we consider sufficient resources that are in place for the other provisions. Parliament has already considered and approved the financial resolution for the bill. We have discussed the element of uncertainty that always exists where justice services have to interact with sentencing, which are necessarily dependent on the behaviour of those passing sentences. We have set out in the financial memorandum illustrative costs that would apply, depending on how electronic monitoring is used by the courts. We have set out the budget increases that we have made in this area, including increased funding to social work services and increases to the electronic monitoring budget line. We have also made clear that our approach to the development of the service will be through seeking a pilot of new technologies being used. In setting up pilots, it will be at that point that we can look at the specific funding that might be involved if we were to enhance and roll out the service even further. There is an important principle, which Liam Carther rightly touched upon and articulated, which is seeking to separate out and consider budget allocations in this way. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to allocate its budget across whole policy and legislative commitments. The annual budget process allows for detailed scrutiny of decision making and that respect. Seeking to separate that out and consider budgetary provisions on an act-by-act basis would be a departure from that established practice and not, I would say, a welcome one. On amendment 76A, it seeks to assess the impact of provisions prior to commencement, which, again, seems to place at risk the commencement of the bill and some elements of the bill, which hither too enjoyed positive support from members. The bill processes the way in which Parliament assesses anticipated impact, requiring that the Scottish ministers assess actual impact as a condition of commencement that seems in almost impossible condition to fulfil, which prevents any part of the bill being commenced. I urge members not to press their amendments and if they are pressed, then I would urge the committee to vote against them. As ever, I am grateful to the committee and the cabinet secretary for the comments, which I think have provided a lot of food for thought. That has not been said just to address a couple of the important points. Firstly, Liam MacArthur's point that the cabinet secretary just referred to about the annual budgeting process. I understand the point being made, but I do not accept that it necessarily works. If it did, presumably, there would not be departments, there would not be areas that are saying that we simply have not got enough funding and are saying it consistently year on year. I accept the point that I am just not convinced that it is a reason not to go forward with the amendment. I am grateful. No, it certainly was not arguing, but it suggests that any of us do not have a responsibility to monitor this, to hold the Government account, probably through the annual budget cycle. Liam Kerr, like myself, voted in favour of this bill at stage 1, along with the financial memorandum, which in a sense expressed the estimated cost. As the cabinet secretary rightly said, there is an element of estimation there that only really bears out once the legislation impacts with reality. At that point, it is absolutely incumbent on this committee in particular to hold the Government account and make sure that those resources are in place where they need to be in place. However, setting out the amendment as it does and to frontload that process seems to be utterly the wrong way around to do it. As I said, it is a departure from the vote that was expressed at stage 1, which saw Parliament accept the financial memorandum to this bill. I am grateful to Liam McArthur for the intervention. I am going to muse on that as I go through the next amendment, if I may. Perhaps a more substantive point was made by Mr MacGregor. He suggested that my amendment would be a slippery slope to removing community justice. I fundamentally do not accept that, Mr MacGregor. He says it as if it is my personal preference, so I will come back on that basis. I absolutely support community justice. My point is—to my mind, it is a very simple one—that we must resource community justice properly. Otherwise, as the convener rightly says, we set it up to fail—I will let you back in in a minute, if I may—we set up community justice to fail if we do not properly resource it. Whatever resource is taken to mean, whether it be financial, whether it be in terms of provision. My point with the amendment is that I believe that we can do better if we support community justice properly, if we improve the outcomes before we introduce further electronic monitoring, then I think that we can hold ourselves to a higher standard. I am aware that you went to come in. I would argue that I am fully in support of those community alternatives, but we must fund them properly to ensure the right interventions for the right challenges that both you and Mr Finnie brought up and deal with the chaotic lifestyles that the cabinet secretary refers to to ensure that the outcomes are increasingly delivered. Mr MacGregor, you asked me why not set it at 100 per cent. I think that the cabinet secretary answered that question exactly right and succinctly. There will be some who will not complete it, and there will be some who cannot complete it. He is absolutely right to say so, or take the intervention. I want to take the opportunity to make it clear that I did when I spoke earlier that I did not think that it was your personal view that you would want to deal with community justice in Scotland. However, I think that I would want to make the point again that that is where everything starts. It starts with a policy level, it starts with ideology, it starts with changes and I would predict that even a committee like that could start diluting the importance of community justice and lead to more punitive approaches. That is my view on the way that you went. Of course, the funding aspect of criminal justice social work needs to be funded fully, and criminal justice social work has been funded even in the climate of difficult funding capacity by the Government. I think that most people in the criminal justice sector believe that there has been a reasonable settlement. I want to ask Liam Kerr whether he has a figure in mind that would satisfy him in terms of the additional spend that should be spent in terms of the resourcing. The points that Fulton MacGregor makes are correct, and they allowed me previously to increase the ring fencing of the budget in community justice in Scotland, plus additional money in terms of the electronic monitoring budget line, etc. However, does he have a figure in mind that would satisfy him in terms of the commencement of this to additional resource partners that deliver community sentences? No, I do not. That exercise requires the Scottish Government or the resources that the Scottish Government has to assess the landscape and what needs to be put in place and the requirements of the sector to say that this is what we need. Those are the specific resources in terms of cash, in terms of discipline, in terms of personnel resource, if I might put it that way, to deliver the service to deliver the extra 10 per cent uplift that my amendment cries out for. On Mr Greger's point, I hear what he is saying. He concluded that the possible consequence of this would be to dilute community justice, or he is concerned looking at this amendment that it would dilute community justice and lead to more punitive approaches. I would argue that this is the exact opposite of that, which I think we are agreeing on, is the right approach to take the exact contrary to that position. Having said all of that, I am moving two amendments here, and I have listened very carefully to the debate. Taking the second one first, amendment 80, the cabinet secretary put a practical point, which, if I heard it right, he was saying that the amendment, if it was inserted, could prevent the act, or the crucial sections of the act, coming in by virtue of the statistics board not producing statistics which they are not mandated to produce. In the unlikely event that they didn't, but nevertheless the possible event, we could have an amendment that prevented the act. I am persuaded by that, and that seems to be a reasonable challenge. For that reason, I do not think that it would be competent for me to press that particular amendment. Comfort on that, when we deal with your amendment, Daniel Johnson, to wind up on amendment 80. I have not dealt with my first amendment, which I will do now, which is the amendment concerning the resources. Again, because I have listened to the debate quite closely, I listened carefully to what Liam McArthur was saying. He makes a reasonable point on which I would prefer more time to muse, because I think that it is a good point. For that reason, at this stage, I think that it would be the best thing to do not to press the amendment, if I am so permitted. Daniel Johnson, to wind up on amendment 76A, press or withdraw. I will press that amendment. The question is that amendment 76A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Three in favour, six against. That amendment is not agreed. Liam Kerr, to press or withdraw, amendment 76, as amended. At this stage, convener, I choose to withdraw. Do members have any objection to this being withdrawn? They don't. Collar amendment 80, in the name of Liam Kerr, already debated with amendment 76. Liam Kerr, to move or not move? The question is that amendment section 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Collar amendment 68, in the name of Daniel Johnson, already debated with amendment 2. Daniel Johnson, to move or not move? Not moved. Collar amendment 69, in the name of Daniel Johnson, already debated with amendment 2. Daniel Johnson, to move or not move? Not moved. Collar amendment 70, in the name of Daniel Johnson, already debated with amendment 2. Daniel Johnson, to move or not move? Not moved. Collar amendment 127, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 111, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. Those in favour, please show. Eight in favour, one against that amendment is agreed to. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I agree. That end stage 2 consideration of the management of a vendor Scotland bill-a-bill will now be repinted as amended at stage 2, and Parliament, as Parliament has not yet determined when stage 2 will be held, then members will be informed of this in due course along with the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments. In the meantime, stage 3 amendments can be lodged with the clerks in the legislation team. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending and for a five-minute comfort break. Agenda item 3 is feedback from the meeting of the justice sub-committee on policing on 4 April. Following the verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments on questions. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk, and invite John Finnie to provide that feedback. Thank you, convener. The committee has a feedback note in its papers on the most recent meeting of the sub-committee. That was a private session on 34 April, at which time we considered and agreed a report on Police Scotland's proposal to introduce the use of cyber kiosks throughout Scotland. That report was published on Monday, 8 April, and a copy was provided to members of the Justice Committee for Information. The sub-committee also agreed its work programme up to the summer recess at agreed to invite Police Scotland and the Police Authority to give evidence on cyber kiosk report at its next meeting on Thursday, 9 May, and to invite the cabinet secretary for justice to give evidence in early June. Finally, the sub-committee agreed to begin its pre-budget scrutiny of the Scottish Government's 2020-21 draft budget by taking evidence in late May on the policing capital budget. Thank you very much. Members, do you have any questions? Important piece of work is going on there. I think that the sub-committee has excelled itself in scrutinising that and potentially saving or avoiding all sorts of problems. Thank you very much, convener. I entirely agree with those sentiments. At the outset, it was not entirely clear where that was going to end up, but it has demonstrated the value over recent months. Equally, the recent headlines on some of the questions being raised in relation to the use of similar technology south of the border may give the sub-committee an opportunity to share some of the work that we have been doing with the counterparts in the House of Commons, because I am sure that it will be of interest to colleagues there, too. Is there anything that you want to add to that? I think that that is an excellent proposal. Clearly, a lot of those issues are dealt with on a UK-wide basis, so reference to the House of Commons would be helpful. That concludes the public part of today's meeting. The committee will be undertaking a fact-finding visit to a commandant prison next week, so our next meeting is on Tuesday, 14 May. We now move into private session.