 I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's 26th meeting of 2015, and I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as they interfere with broadcasting even when switched to silent. I apologise and receive from Gil Paterson. I welcome Michael Russell, who is attending the committee, as his substitutinous promise to behave. Item 1, Declaration of Interest. I invite Michael Russell to declare any interests relevant to the committee. I have no relevant interests, but I note the petition about McGrawhey, which involves the name of Ian McKee, with whom I have written a book, and I thought I should put that on the record. As far as my promise is a concern, Christine, you know I never keep them. I have never seen you before, convener. I refer to my register of interests as member of the faculty of advocates in relation to item 3 of the agenda. Thank you very much. We now move on to item 2, Community Justice Scotland Bill. That is the third evidence session on that bill today, and we have one round table session. I welcome each participant to the session. Each of you should have a copy of the table plan on your desk. The purpose of this session is to allow a more informal discussion among you as witnesses on the bill. I go round the table anti-clockwise and invite each member and participant to introduce themselves, starting with myself, Christine Grahame, convener of the Justice Committee, member of Parliament from Woodlodhain, South Tweeddale and Lauderdale. Ilein Murray, MSP Fforddon-Fresher and vice-conviner of the committee. Your life will come automatically. You do not have to fuss. Alan Staff, Apex Scotland and a member of the CJA-VSF. Margaret Mitchell, member for Central Scotland and a member of the Justice Committee. Laura Mulcahy, criminal justice voluntary sector forum. Roderick Campbell, MSP for North East 5. Nancy Lawg, chief executive of families outside. Visiting Professor at the Centre for Law, Crime and Justice at Strathclyde. Mike Russell, member of the Scottish Parliament for our gall and butte and substitute member of the committee, which is my first time I have been in that role. Pete White, positive, prison positive futures. Tom Halpin, sacro. Good morning, Christian, and our MSP for the North Feast of Scotland. Good morning. Louise Johnson, national worker for legal issues at Scottish Women's Aid. Good morning, John Finnie, MSP Highlands and Islands. Emma Dull, senior policy officer at Shelter Scotland. Alison MacKinnon, MSP for North East Scotland. Christine Scalion, head of development at the Robertson Trust. Margaret McGregor, MSP West Region. Nicola Nair, Invict and Support Scotland. Thank you very much. I know that some of you have been here before and some have done around the table. If you haven't, if you just indicate to me that you wish to speak, I'll take a note of your name and call you and give if I can advance notice if I have a list of people who want to speak. I usually have committee members parked or quite considerable bit of the time so that we allow you to give your evidence first and foremost in the main. The first thing that I think I'd just to throw it open is what's right with this bill and what's wrong with this bill. Discuss. Mr Halpin. First of all, I very much welcome the bill and it offers a great opportunity in terms of leadership and accountability and delivery of community justice services in Scotland, particularly in terms of the performance framework. If we get that right, it's transparent and moves towards assuring outcomes for the vulnerable people that we work with. The opposite side of that is there are a number of areas where we have already indicated we feel it could be improved. It's about working with you on that. We really, as I said, welcome it. The idea that the third sector role is diminished by the bill in terms of engagement is one that causes us great concern. I know the intention is there to involve the third sector but we've moved from being at the table, being there during the design and the planning to when there's a consultancy and seen as a useful provider. Thank you, Ms Johnson. Our concern is the lack of consideration of victims of crime, also families, communities in the bill, and this has been raised, I note, by other evidence sessions and by Ailey Shangelini herself, who referred to the lack of focus on victims. There's no mention of risk management, victim safety, public protection in the community justice definition, which is a concern and is important given the Scottish Government's justice strategy, the equally safe strategy in relation to domestic abuse, and also the Scottish Government's direction of travel in relation to how we short-term sentences are going to be treated. The promotion of community protection orders and the extended use of electronic monitoring and just generally across the bill, we have concerns about how the national performance framework and the strategy will be devised with this particular emission in mind. We're going to have 32 community planning partnerships and sets of community justice partners, so the national strategy and the performance framework must embed the need for consistent responses and content across Scotland, which we're not confident that the bill actually currently allows. We think that there should be much more of a duty to engage, not just consult but engage with victims, victims, organisations and communities, and not just through the community justice voluntary sector forum, which doesn't really cover organisations like ourselves. That was raised by witnesses at the previous session. I've got Ms Doar, Ms Merrin and Mr Staff in that order, please. Thank you. We welcome the bill and we very much welcome the joint focus on having a national body as well as local accountability in terms of housing and homelessness, which is obviously our main focus. It's very important that when offenders are placed in a prison that there's equal opportunities for them to return to their home and have a safe place to live, regardless of where that prison is in the country, so we're hoping that a national body will give an opportunity to join up services which aren't currently joined up under the system that we have. In terms of what's wrong with the bill, we have significant concerns over where in this bill housing and homelessness might be represented at the moment. It seems implicitly that there's a reliance upon local authorities to do that within the community justice partnerships and there's no denying that local authorities are very important within that they provide housing for many people leaving prison. However, housing associations also do a lot to work with prison leavers and the voluntary sector provides a lot of the more innovative and creative ways of working with them. In terms of representation of the outcomes that this bill is trying to look for, in its introduction it says that this bill introduces requirements in relation to the achievement of particular nationally and locally determined outcomes and yet there's nothing to do with outcomes or the areas that those outcomes might address within the bill. Where we do appreciate that there's a need to let the local authorities, sorry, community justice partnerships on a local level decide what's appropriate locally, we feel that core fundamental issues such as housing, mental health, substance misuse, victim support, et cetera, should be outlined at a statutory level to be included within their national strategy such that they must be included in the outcomes we're looking for. Thank you very much. We feel this is a good opportunity for us to make sure that the needs of those affected by community justice in Scotland are at the centre of the design for any new arrangements. Our primary focus is obviously to make sure that victims have their voices heard by any structural arrangements for delivering justice in the community and that they are respected, informed, supported and protected throughout. Louise Johnson brought up what Dame Angelina said in one of the last evidence sessions. I'd like to coer directly. She said that this is not just about changing behaviours but about how we keep people safe. It is not just about the individual offender but about the victim and restoring equilibrium to the community. I think that that covers what the bill should be about and leads to the issue that we have with the definition of the bill. It's been mentioned before. I think that it's quite narrow. It doesn't cover public protection issues. It doesn't cover, I think, the assistance from crime and offending from an early intervention and prevention aspect. It should look at obviously public confidence but it should look at supporting everyone who's affected by community justice. Again, as I've just said, it's not just about the individual offender but those who are also affected, families and victims. Obviously, our main concern is a lack of reference to victims within the bill. It seems to have slipped away from the previous consultations that were a lot stronger in this area. We also don't feel the bill is aligned with the justice strategy for Scotland. If that's meant to be an overarching and consistent framework for all those within justice and community safety, we don't think that that's what we can see in this bill. A couple of examples would be priority 5, increasing public confidence and reducing fear of crime, making sure that people feel safe. Most important for us, surprisingly, is priority 12, supporting victims and witnesses, which says that victims should not be seen as passive spectators of proceedings but those who have legitimate interests and needs to feel supported, safe, informed and involved. We don't believe that the bill addresses those priorities with the lack of reference to victims' public protection and risk management, and we'd like to see that looked at. Thank you very much. Mr Saff will follow by Professor Looges. While echoing very much what everyone has said so far, we're quite concerned that the notion that the third sector consists of a range of small, competing organisations at a local level makes it almost impossible to engage them, engage with them other than at a, if you like, a personality level, local arrangements. The Community Justice Voluntary Sector Forum has for some time now been operating, albeit not with complete coverage of the sector, but has shown that it can speak well for the sector and be engaged in areas that are specific and general to the sector itself. We're quite concerned that the bill, in avoiding naming the sector as a partner, or indeed offering any real reassurance that it is supposed to be engaged, other than a local arrangement. We believe that that discourse, that it's only possible to work with the third sector at an individual organisation level, is wrong and should not form the basis of thinking about the strategy. We believe that the sector itself is well capable of addressing and contributing strongly, and therefore it's not about consultation, it's about genuine engagement. I just want to endorse the previous speakers, but also to say that the definition of community justice in the bill would benefit from being broader. There's a real opportunity here to focus more on prevention, for example, looking at things like housing, substance misuse, mental health, but also engagement with families and with the community on a broader level. It's not really mentioned, it's implied that it's something that could be considered, but it's an opportunity to do more within the bill. We also need greater clarity in terms of the actual powers of the national body to oversee some of the issues that will be raised within a community justice context. For example, using women's imprisonment as an example, which will be a greater issue for some local authorities than others, that support for women in the justice system not to be a postcode lottery. It's trying to make sure that that national oversight actually has some power to ensure that all community planning partnerships are engaged and that people in that situation will actually be supported on an equal basis across the country. There's also a wider issue in terms of engagement with 32 community planning partnerships where you have national bodies, whether it's the third sector, whether it's statutory national bodies, engaging across 32 community planning partnerships that takes a tremendous amount of resource unless something can be co-ordinated on a national level. As a concern, particularly for smaller third sector organisations such as ourselves, the logistics of operating on a 32 local authority basis is exceptionally difficult. First of all, I welcome the bill. I think that the direction of travel is offering a huge opportunity not only for community planning partnerships and local authorities, but also for the third sector and other agencies to get together and to work things out. I think that the bill is trying to strike a balance between being helpful and constructive while also allowing for things to happen locally. I think that the potential of localism in all of this is tremendous. I know that it seems quite daunting at this stage, but it's something that we can all work towards. I'm fortunate enough to sit on some of the committees that deal with the goings on behind the scenes of the bill, and I'm very impressed by the intent and the level of detail that is being discussed outwith the bill. The bill will make a lot of things possible and the levels of trust that have to be built not only between communities and the people who've committed offences, but also between all the partners involved, that level of trust has to be looked at and built on very carefully and get away from anything to do with competition for the hearts and minds and the bodies of the people for whom all of this is intended. I think that it's a tremendous opportunity and we have to step into new territory in terms of how we deal with that. The bill is good in as much as it's not telling us how to do that. Thank you, Ms Cullin. Just to make it clear, we don't deliver services. We fund third sector organisations that work in the criminal justice sector. We've been working really hard over the last few years to move towards an outcome-focused approach so that, for us, is a massive positive of the bill and we urge that that continues moving towards positive outcomes rather than measuring reducing re-offending rates which has traditionally been the way in which you measure whether services have been successful or not. To say whether they actually can point to somebody and say, yes, we help that person not re-offend. If we can move towards those short-term outcomes of getting somebody a house, getting somebody a job, getting somebody connected back with their family, it's a much more positive way of measuring progress. We've been working with the justice analysts on a piece of work on that. On the maybe not so positive side, I agree with those who are talking about the restricted definition of community justice. In our submission, we gave an alternative definition that was actually used in the 2014 consultation paper which says the collection of agencies and services in Scotland that individually and in partnership work to manage offenders, prevent offending and crucially reduce re-offending and the harm it causes to promote social inclusion, citizenship and assistance. From our point of view, it's got some of the positives in there rather than the negatives of the current definition that's being used. Just to come in on that localism agenda, we certainly welcome leadership at a national level. Echo what Nancy says, that for small national organisations working across 32 is going to be a hugely resource intensive. Although welcome the localism, what we need to avoid is that repeat of a postcode lottery that we've all seen. So we've done a lot of work supporting young offenders, leaving polemont and there's a real, if you live in a certain local authority area services available to you at the moment, if you live in another area that same service isn't available and I think we do need to try and get some national consistency. The feedback that we've had from the forum is that the members absolutely welcome the ambition of the bill to be a more collaborative model and the fact that it does put in place to have a national strategy and to have a national performance framework is welcomed. I think where the members have concerns is particularly around the role of the third sector within the bill and the welcome clarity around that. There's also been some confusion about the relationship between community planning partnerships and the community justice partnerships as well. If we could tie to not that in the bill that would be helpful I think. Get muddled by them so perhaps you'll tell us the differences. To put it on the record it would be helpful. Our understanding is that the bill lists the statutory community justice partners and many of them but not all of them would be members already of community planning partnerships but we're not entirely clear of the relationship between the community planning partnerships and the community justice partners and that may be up to a local level to decide we're not sure. Is to help in your next do you want to clarify that more? On that specific point the feeling is that the bill is really focused on what the statutory partners are delivering in terms of services and the reality when you look at the register of interventions that we did some work on recently about 30% of services in community justice are delivered to the sector. The point that I did want to make though was around community justice Scotland because we're focusing very much in a lot of our discussions around community planning partnerships and it's unclear to me in terms of having national coverage and resilience in leadership thought leadership etc how does the third sector engage at their appropriate level within community justice if you think of the level of risk that third sector's involved in working with partners to manage as well that is significant we've already heard about the risk of so-called postcode lottery but that's reality for some people so I would really ask the question where do we have the opportunity I do believe that there was an opportunity for more accountability in terms of community justice Scotland to be in the way that Dame Eilish Angiolini saw it in her commission and that seems to be watered down in the bill. I'm looking around I've got some, oh I'm sorry some popped up, I'll get my glasses on Mr Staff, you want to come in can I see that to members I've now got Alison and Leane so I'll start taking members if they want to come in as well Mr Staff. The other thing that we haven't as yet has been concerned about how services are actually commissioned and clarification about who commissions within the sector had to manage a very fragile service commissioning arrangement over the years particularly with short-term funding and with the changes that happen at local authority level and we've been very concerned that yes this leads to postcode lottery it leads to inefficiency it leads to the third sector Scotland really not getting the best out of the third sector we spend a great deal of time fighting contracts and attempting to extract money and not as much time as perhaps we should delivering service. I've already done my dinger, got my dinger about that it's been like this for 16 years we hope for improvement I've now got Ms Meryn, please. I'd like to come in on the point on engagement again because I think there's two points for us here one is engagement with our organisation with third sector organisations in particular victims agencies and we are currently a statutory active partner with each of the eight CGA's since they've been established and we want to continue to engage with all the community justice partners both nationally and locally but we think it will be a significant challenge for us to do as has been pointed out the jump from 8 to 32 just won't be possible we don't think not just in terms of resources but in terms of staffing and time and currently the current structure is well aligned to our own management structure we have regional operational managers that will attend the eight CGA's and I think if it was to go down to a very local level we would struggle the second point is in terms of engagement with victims themselves we want victims to be able to and the community to be able to input to community justice arrangements such as input to what unpaid work would happen in their area but also in terms of the risk assessment element for us is a big issue we believe that risk assessment framework should be developed to ensure victim safety and protection requirements working closely with ourselves and other agencies such as women's aid and sharing information because that's one issue that we have noticed that you may have bail conditions in place to protect a victim's safety before a sentence has passed once that sentence has passed they are given a community sentence that information doesn't seem to go across and so you could end up with some unpaid work happening where the victim works, where the victim lives so we're looking to input and help the victim properly engage in risk assessments and without that information from victims I don't think it's a full risk assessment in itself and we have been talking with MAPPA in relation to the review so we'll look forward to see what comes out of that and see if that would tie in later on I had thought that the Victims and Witnesses Bill or ACT had dealt with in fact that victims must be kept informed by the Crown what somebody has been released or at what stage is particularly throughout because the main witness will be the victim generally and that was over so it's not happening that's in terms of the criminal proceeding so case progress information so that would happen but in terms of when it goes into a community sentence there's no mechanism there for victims to be able to say I'm scared of this particular situation and also for the two-way communication for them to say this is what this person will be doing or where they'll be going up to a point to ensure that their safety requirements are met so know it it's only really in relation to if they're given a custodial sentence and then there's release and that currently is restricted to 18 months sentences and above so there's a big gap there there's a gap, thank you Alison, follow by Elaine what some of the witnesses have said about the community justice partnerships I think the bill is drafted is not actually very clear at all on the relationship between them and the community planning partners and I wondered if the witnesses had any views on whether or not it would be better actually putting the responsibility on the community planning partnership itself yes yes, first of all yes, who have I got first of all, you're doing that Ms Johnson, follow by Mr Halff we're doing a dual thing my clerk is writing down witnesses and I'm writing down members we've got to get together on this more efficiently that's a very good question because in our submission we did raise concerns about the the current operation community planning partnerships and how we would engage with them specifically how local authorities account for violence against women in their work plans and we have carried out an analysis of single outcome agreements referred to in our consultation response and the response to the bill in that not all the local authorities have a consistent approach in some cases no approach at all to violence against women so how the community planning partnerships through the local authorities would actually ensure a consistent response we're not entirely confident with and we don't know either how the community planning partnerships will liaise with the community justice partners there seems to be a bit of a disjoint here and could we have two sets of plans perhaps because there are community justice plans and local outcome plans there's a plethora of plans and what worries me is that there will be gaps somewhere between this and it's going back almost to the national framework, the national performance framework and the strategy which Emma mentioned as well there's no real indication of what's going to be the baseline what they're going to use as guidance and how they're going to prepare this to be measured and listed so that's not just that's from the top down but also from community planning partnerships back up the way, how we're going to evaluate what people are doing Thank you, I've got Mr Halpin then Ms Scullion on this and for the members I've got Elaine Rodrick than Margaret so far on the list Mr Halpin please In my view this is a key issue in the bill that needs to be looked at how do you involve the third sector in partnership level that's not just a consultee after the event, it's about being at the table being involved in the planning third sector interfaces who are at community planning partnerships were never set up and not equipped to carry out that role and they would acknowledge that themselves they're not the experts in community justice and the risk here is that the actual work doesn't actually happen in the face of the community planning partnership that happens in a sub-committee where we're not there and what happens is that the designs are emerged and then brought to you after the event and all that thinking, creativity all the assets we all understand in the third sector bring come after the event so there are other builds that have gone through Parliament where the third sector are more explicitly involved and so we don't believe the answer that you can't put a statutory responsibility on a third sector organisation, we understand that but we don't think that that's the only solution, there are other solutions that are there in legislation I think it came through in the community empowerment bill and the thinking there of how you refer to it but if we don't do that the whole strategy the whole approach to community justice will be disadvantaged without a third sector out the table Thank you, I've got Ms Cullian followed by Mr Staff I want to make the same point about third sector interfaces so that doesn't need repeating. I was at a meeting recently, Tom, you were at it too but I seem to remember Cosler saying that 17 local authorities were criminal justice was going into the health and social care integration so how that also works in with community planning and these mystery community justice partners is another conundrum justice will be part of health and social care in other areas, it won't so already we're going to have differences and then a final point which echoes what Alan was saying one of the problems with community justice authorities was that they didn't have the powers to commission so they weren't able to commission services and my concern is whether CPPs will be in exactly the same position and therefore services will tend to be delivered in-house by the constituent members particularly the local authority and there will not be the opportunity to start. Same point convener exactly our experiences that tense the default position is that all the work gets passed to criminal justice the possibilities of this bill is that we're starting to think about community justice that will kill it because everything will go into criminal justice we will continue to get what we've always had the opportunities to do something new I mean we have to move it away to a broader forum and not just criminal justice My first question really is that the bill only mentions the public sector partners there's no mention of the third sector partners rather than having that in the strategy or in guidance whether you believe that partnerships should be mentioned either as the community justice partners or possibly as part of the outcomes planning improvement planning section or indeed in the duty to co-operate in section 30 so whether there should actually be a specific duty in terms of consultation with the third sector on the face of the bill and the second question really relates to a point which was already made about the lack of sanction but if somebody doesn't do it in an area community planning partnership doesn't work and people don't bother to engage with the third sector should community justice have a power of sanction or intervention in those cases Mr Halepin The experience in conversations where strategy partners are talking about the strategy community justice partners and the tone of that is one where the contribution of the third sector is seen as a nice to have as a useful provider that's the tone that we're experiencing in reality it's very important that we address this it does, it's not guidance it's in the face of the bill the other point that you make around accountability is key to me to have community justice Scotland sit there and oversee and make reports without bite seems to me to be a lost opportunity not seeing anyone else sorry, a bigger part Ms Mcae Pick up one point that Elaine made absolutely we would be in favour of third sector being explicitly mentioned in the bill I think the one caveat I would have to your question was at the end you said something about should there be an explicit requirement to consults with the third sector there's various sections that can come in as either as the partners or there's also a duty for co-operation at section 30 but it only looks as if the statutory partners have a duty to co-operate with each other rather than they have a duty to co-operate with anybody else so it was just to clarify in relation to consultation we'd be looking for a stronger engagement in consultation now Roderick, please Margaret Mitchell I should say sorry Margaret McCullough do Margaret Dame Eilish when she gave evidence to us referred to her report and she referred to the fact that at that stage the effectiveness of community justice was not being measured therefore it was difficult to convince judges that it would make a difference are we happy that the provisions in this bill go some way to measuring the effectiveness anyone got any views on the effectiveness point going back to what I've said previously I don't think you can effectively measure outcomes first of all if we're not entirely sure what they're going to be based on going back to the performance framework and the strategy and also if victims voices communities and victims organisations are not explicitly included in the bill therefore we're not going to know whether the intended outcomes from community payback orders etc community safety whether victim safety has actually been proper exercised for Mr Halpin we've been actively involved in helping to work through some of this it's an enormously difficult job nobody underestimates how tricky it is but we've been very encouraged by the willingness to go away from this idea of hard outcomes rather simplistic hard outcomes towards a range of probabilities and basically we're moving to a position where now if you do certain things which are proven to have a positive effect that is considered to be an outcome as opposed to is this person re-offending or not I've got Mr Halpin I believe the point that Dame Eilish was making was around the whole system the actual level in terms of performance and outcomes and approving that there's loads of evidence up and down a country particularly in local courts where the local sentence sees the benefit of the interventions that are happening in community justice you just need to listen to some of the disquiet when these services are funding and they're no longer there how effective they were so I don't believe the point is does this work in terms of community justice whether the system has an overall performance framework that measures it in a way that gives you confidence about the investment that's being made at that whole level Tom's taking my line again you'll need to get in first I know I need time to get my brain working we've had a number of conversations about criminal justice voluntary sector forum with members of the judicial institute and certainly the feedback we would get from them would echo what Tom has just said it's about awareness of the services that are out there and that's the big barrier is actually getting information through to the judiciary and again the longevity particularly of third sector services as an independent funder that funds services for three, five years we're on the longer end of that but judges are not confident that if they referred them to it six months ago that in another six months that service will still be there and I think that's the issue rather than having confidence in the quality of the service Mr White I think we've got an opportunity here to remove the words criminal and community from in front of justice I think we want to get that where it's a level playing field and it's not going from one to the other I also think that we have an opportunity and it comes down to what progress individuals can make moving away from their offending background towards being confident members of their community I think we have to focus on the individuals involved not just the people who've committed the offences but everybody else and to see the people in all of this rather than the systems and the services to start with the people at the middle of it all and see maybe someone's going to stay out of jail for six months instead of six weeks that's progress, that's an outcome I think that we need to focus on the fact that we're dealing with people's lives on both sides of the offences and I think that we need to turn it round from that point of view rather than the services that are going to be provided and see what they've done is to see what the individuals have achieved themselves Meryn It's talking about following on from that from Pete's point on justice as an overall concept and how people are affected by community justice again it's not just the individual offender and I think there can be a danger in looking at your outcomes in terms of just looking at reconviction rates etc but also look at how people are supported when they have been affected something has happened let's look at getting better outcomes for them and their experience of the system in general and following on from Louise's point I think also you have to have all the way down within your outcomes something on victims and others affected by community justice outcomes as to see whether they're feeling informed supported and protected most importantly Public confidence has also been spoken about and I think there's mention of public confidence in the bill might be wrong but that's also linked into how individuals are treated and I think previously there's been locally I can remember when I worked in Irvine on the radio the South West Scotland CGA had done an awareness raising campaign on the benefits of community justice and I kind of felt like saying that's okay will that wash over people because they're not involved in it they don't understand it and you're trying to almost lecture this is what community justice is well if you have victims in your community who are involved that will have a ripple effect if they feel supported and informed to their friends and family and to the rest of the community and that is how you achieve public confidence Ms Doar In relation to outcomes I wanted to pick up on a point that Professor Luke has made earlier around this being an opportunity to broaden our understanding of community justice or justice broadly towards prevention and early intervention when we're looking at outcomes in terms of judiciary we have responsive outcomes whereas I would certainly encourage the committee to look at how this bill could be used to look at more early intervention and prevention measures such as stable suitable housing for people with interaction with the justice system mental health support for those who are at risk and so on Thank you I'm Margaret Mitchell followed by my apologies to get here all my Margaret smuddled up Margaret Mitchell please To me, the failure to recognise in the definition prevention is also linked to the failure to recognise the importance of the third sector I think if that's recognised then you automatically go to the third sector as the people who have the experience and the flexibility to deal effectively in the community with offending and preventing it Unfortunately when we were looking at the criminal justice system and Elish Angelini had a report there were two main criticism the crowded landscape and the lack of leadership so I suppose my question is to the panel is any less crowded are we in danger of having a pecking order in fact now that we've got a national body CPPs somewhere in the middle and then criminal justice authorities at the bottom and a lack of leadership and also a real fear about resources so the third sector when the criminal justice partnerships are being given the funding and local authorities are under such pressure just now to perhaps do it in house rather than to pass it to the most effective body to deal with the problem We've got the crowded landscape lack of leadership and funding so take your pick who's coming in on what Mr Halpin It's a fact of life it is a crowded landscape because people in the justice system have complex needs and multiple needs so it's not just organisations like myself who would focus on rehabilitation as our mission there would be organisations who might be the focusers on healthcare as their mission et cetera would see an equal need to engage with that group and what's really important is being clear on what need is being identified in assessments and who's best place whether that is public sector or third sector is about being a person centric service The thing about leadership I would draw the committee's attention to the reducing reoffending change fund and put together a number of funding partners here today and equally the third sector collaborated and came together and stood there as leaders and co-designed these services and had them running within very short time scales across Scotland and they are delivering outcomes that were identified in the logic models at the very start so I don't worry about whether we have leaders it's whether they have the right conditions to be able to lead Mr White I think the idea of the crowded landscape doesn't just apply to people who are caught up in the justice system it's a crowded landscape for everybody and I think it's important that we don't draw a line round the justice system and separate that landscape from everywhere else and I think that the more we can get people who are caught up in the justice system and affected by the justice system to recognise that they are part of the wider community and not a particular bubble on the landscape I think that the sooner we can deal with that the better because through that process people are less likely to be disadvantaged and marginalised and not just put into a particular box for the purposes of simple language The crowded landscape is a manifestation of the funding arrangements it's not a creation of the sector itself it's the fact that if you create a market economy whereby you effectively make a chunk of money available for everyone to complete you will create a market solution which is that you create lots and lots of different organisations all completing the more diverse you make the commissioning and procurement arrangements the more likely you are to have lots of different solutions to that I'm not advocating supercharities or anything like that but I would say that strategic commissioning over the peace is something that we would wish to see taken forward Miss Scotland please You won't be surprised that I feel it's appropriate to comment on the funding aspect I've already expressed concern that there will be potentially a reduction in funds available for third sector organisations I'm also concerned I've read with interest responses in the other sessions that you've held and a concern I think about we're back to the role of the national community justice Scotland at the moment they have the power to commission services at a national regional level but I know that others have a concern about that but I would urge that that's kept in the bill so that there is the opportunity to commission at a national level rather than always having to go through the 32 local authorities and in terms of the lack of leadership I think it for me comes back to the community justice Scotland needing the teeth that Tom talked about so that they can provide that leadership role Mr Stewart Just to pick up on a point there that Christine made there's actually something very useful about the national body of community justice Scotland being able to have the function to commission nationally in as much as there are some particular issues where the lack of current national funding is problematic for example housing where the current situation where there are locally very knowledgeable housing advisers in a particular prison for example Perth Perth is a bad example actually if you're in Balini there will be people there who know about the surrounding area but you might have somebody in Balini who comes from in Inverness the housing advisers there haven't got a clue about what's available in Inverness so where we've had our supporting prisoners advice network in three of the prisons on the east coast of Scotland we found that the networking of knowledge up and down the east coast and then with other shelter Scotland services in for example Glasgow has meant that where a prisoner is moved around the prison estate that knowledge has really been very useful in preventing their homelessness on leaving prison and so we would be looking for a national if not commissioning at least a national mapping and understanding of how best to join up housing knowledge across the country the committee is well aware how important housing is when we were released Professor Lukes I want to come in briefly tying together the question about funding with the previous question about outcomes as third sector organisations were funded almost entirely based on our outcomes I'm over simplifying a bit when I say that statutory sector providers are funded because they are statutory sector rather than because of their outcomes I'm just a bit concerned that the bill needs to be tighter about ensuring that the CPPs for example are actually providing the outcomes that they are funded to do I'm also just making the point that prisons for example are not measured on their outcomes I'll leave it there That's an even bigger one Margaret, are you content? Can I move on to the next member? Thank you very much John Finnie followed by Margaret Meadoole Thank you, convener I was hoping to lob in actually so I'm grateful you did mention it I would align myself with a lot of the comments that Mr Staff made there because market forces do come in to play here I'm interested in the tensions that apply the tensions within local authority areas between national suppliers of we heard last week from a gentleman from the Outer Hebrides community just as authority and he said it doesn't matter what's agreed nationally because there isn't the aggregate number of resources locally anyway so is it not the case that we do need the statutory people because at the end of the day when a lot of you national charity good folk and great work that you do when you don't go to north west southern when you don't go to rural Argyll when you don't go to the Outer Hebrides the statutory authorities are the ones who are it they've got to do it That's another grenade I don't think that's accurate predominantly local authorities deliver in remote rural communities there's no doubt about that and I wouldn't want to paint a false picture I wasn't suggesting that but what I was saying is that a lot of the national third sector organisations don't do because it is about aggregate numbers What I would say is that if you look at the design and I was I was very involved in the design of the public social partnerships and there was specific work went into how we support remote rural communities by building relationships with very local organisations might be individuals even working with local authority that we can provide the support there and there's never been any reluctance in the national providers to go to those communities we did deliver services on islands what you do tend to find in those communities they are so self-reliant understandably that the opportunity to go there is not as obvious at times as it is in other urban communities Yes, Professor Lukes Just to clarify going back slightly on my previous comment I'm not saying that there's not a need for the statutory sector anymore there's not a need for the third sector I think that they're all essential is that there is parity within the bill in terms of the requirement for outcomes and being able to demonstrate effectiveness Anybody else? I'll move on to Margaret Doogle, please I just want to ask a question on transitional funding £1.6 million per annum for the 32 local authorities over three years Do you think that's enough when you've got £50,000 per annum for the criminal justice voluntary sector forum to build on capacity compared with £2 million to set up the community justice Scotland I just wondered what their views were on these funding arrangements When you mentioned engagement in terms of the criminal justice voluntary sector forum we would have some issues in terms of whether we, as a victims agency along with other victims agencies could be represented there meaningfully I'm not sure whether you can have a third sector representative that can really represent all of the variety of organisations coming from providing different services and also when you're there as a representative you're always going to have a third sector representative on for your own organisation when you go I think that there's a gap there in terms of, I mentioned it earlier on for ourselves with the 32 CPPs we would look for some regional engagement for us I've got the echo to Nicolle Merdyn's comments Obviously the community criminal justice voluntary sector forum does not include victims organisations in response to the bill so there's a huge gap there in how engagement with victims organisations and victims is actually being facilitated and again on representation locally and nationally obviously we're a national office so we would have national representation but we are therefore going to have the local women's aid groups having to sometimes go across local authority areas if you've got 32 community planning partnerships community justice partners that we are looking at in terms of organisations to engage with and how do we ensure that and not just consultation but proper engagement and victims voices organisations supporting victims communities are actually heard throughout this and represented adequately I can't get a little lost because I think we're on funding there whether you put the back to funding on the funding because the funding is just for the community justice voluntary sector so there's nothing really saying how victims organisations are going to be funded to engage across either national or local level because we're going to have all these partnerships, community planning partnerships community justice partnerships so that's the issue thank you very much somebody else is coming in on that one oh yes you've got another question I know that, Ms Mulcahy can I just clarify what the transition funding that the forums received is for it's not for the forum to build capacity of the forum to represent the third sector in 32 different areas the funding for a specific project and that we're working in a couple of local areas with the statutory partners and broad range of third sector providers and TSIs to look at what the most appropriate engagement mechanisms is so I suppose I'd just like to I wonder if that helps that's what in terms of alleviating some of your concerns what was it's it doesn't include the constituency of individuals that we support, we victims and that's probably looking predominantly I would suggest that the offender management side so how we engage as organisations is obviously going to be an issue and there are resource concerns in terms of time money attending workers just being there to do that Margaret Just to continue on the theme of membership the community justice Scotland doesn't include elected members at the moment the CGA's are made up entirely of elected members but there doesn't seem to be any elected members on community justice Scotland I just wonder what the comments were on that who's coming in first do you think that elected members should be on the community justice Scotland board? I think you're being targeted Mr Staff if you can say a few about that forgive me the where we've had problems with the CGA's has very frequently been that they have spent a great deal of time fighting local issues and without wanting to lob any grenades into the room that has largely been the fact that the large number of elected members with if you like an interest in their own particular area fighting their own corners and it did pose a problem I've sat as a member on a number of CGA's across the country and that's been quite a common factor that it's actually interfered in some ways I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen I'm saying that our experience and you're asking for our impression is that it's been a problem and therefore do I think that they should be on community justice Scotland on balance possibly no You argued yourself into a position at last you got there a bit of exact same position community justice Scotland needs to deliver accountability and it needs to deliver the leadership envisaged by the Angelini commission it needs to do that and really this is about fairness and participation for all those that have got a stake in this system so yes elected members should be on that board but so should the third sector and so should other key stakeholders but have the responsibility while they're on that board and there's loads of models in terms of sound governance with the responsibilities to deliver the purpose and the aims of community justice Scotland while they're on that board but they are elected members you cannot deliver community justice without involving communities and that's the elected representatives on the local levels so they must be there it's just like to clarify for me you're saying that councillor should be on community justice Scotland's board which is not your position I understand what Tom is saying I can understand why he's saying it my worry is how you get someone who would be representative of all you think they'd be pro-kill I do any other views on that please keeping your heads below the panaphys have you suspect no right we have to leave that one and we move on please to Christian Allard please thank you convener I just wanted to come back into local third sector organisation and how we can engage with the 32 local authorities best local organisation will not want to engage with 31 will that make them easier for them have they been denied maybe a chance on participation or maybe on the funding or the share of the funding is it maybe a bit too complicated just now will that make it easier or not it's appear to be worn out I come at the end not yourself I mean you've thrown a question I've got no volunteers you've always got a volunteer or Mr Haltham what would we do without you my mother said that at the local level involvement of those smaller organisations who are very local is key as much as the large organisations this is not about scale or size or it's not about power it's actually about delivering outcomes for people now if a small local organisation is seen local as being key to achieving that at the moment they will be involved they are involved through the local authority as a key commissioner of services etc my worry in terms of where the bill is at the moment it's not about giving sacro permission to be 32 authorities it's about the broader third sector and if in that local scenario in that local service a very very small organisation is the key person for that bit of the agenda they have to be involved so how we work this about including the third sector on the face of the bill is not about giving an advantage to large national organisations it's about the whole third sector I'm not going to agree with Tom on this one we fund a large number of small charities working in single places looking at Nancy thinking of a number of small organisations who run support services for families of offenders and they really struggle to engage at a local level some of them have disappeared in the last 12 months they stumble from year to year looking for independent funding because they do not get any funding from statutory sources I this potentially could make it easier because it's very difficult for them to engage with their CJA because if they're only in a local authority area they're not considered to be an important voice so potentially if there's a strong local community justice partnership then they could be in a better position I guess time will tell but the small ones have always been fragile and will continue to be fragile and I think that we need to get the focus once again down to communities in smaller places and recognise the value of what goes on there and not look at the broad brush approach in terms of statutory services or the bigger third sector organisations we have to get down to the people scale of things rather than seeing them as blocks and groups and so on because without that focus we're going to overlook the people for whom all these services are intended to deliver better lives forgive me I think we've pretty well gone round again but I think we've heard that particular message about the smaller charities and I've got two other Mr staff and Ms Doar unless you want to say something that's very different because you do do you if that's okay yeah of course it is I just wanted to highlight that there's some really great work that has gone on under the CJA's around joint working between local authorities and working across those local authority borders where it geographically makes sense or where it makes sense for the smaller organisations to maximise their impact and so with the 32 separate ones I wouldn't want to lose that opportunity to maximise impact in that way well I think pretty well we've exhausted I think the third sector yes I'm not looking up because there's nobody on the list what I'd like to do in conclusion is to go round the table and ask you're only allowed one thing you see one thing you would want to put into the bill or take out of the bill one amendment that you would say would improve or whatever the bill so I'll leave you who wants to start which direction shall I travel first you're ready Ms Merran just one thing it's quite an easy one engagement with victims organisations individual basis understood you could have one answer in two parts you were listening last week but we're not letting it grow arms and legs and become one answer in three parts you do two parts part A is including early intervention prevention and part B would be around the movement towards outcomes and measuring movement towards positive outcomes rather than not re-offending of itself we'd like the bill to name the areas that the national strategy and national outcomes framework should address without prescribing what that should be we would like housing, mental health substance misuse families and victims to be named as something that strategy must always in its various forms address similar to Nicola Merran inclusion of victims and victims organisations are more of an obligation to engage not simply consult greater clarity in the purpose and the methods for accessing the innovation fund what we don't need is gatekeepers that stops the creativity of the third sector coming forward thank you Mr Wynd I would like the term offenders to be removed from the bill because the way it is at the moment it says some of who at any time in their life has committed an offence I think we need to take something out of there and put in a better word do you have it to hand? people with convictions okay Professor Lukes we agree with some of the others in saying that we would like to see a broader definition of community justice so it is genuinely about communities including families, victims and the wider justice system thank you Ms Mokahi clearer line on how the third sector will be engaged in the new model will be Mr South I would like to see the community justice community justice Scotland ensure that there is the awareness and the skills that the third sector can bring are actually integrated into community justice Scotland so it's not just a civil service approach that there are actually the knowledge and the understanding of what the sector can bring actually embedded into that organisation, that body thank you very much thank you all very much for your evidence it was very interesting as usual and I said to the committee our next evidence session on the bill will be with the minister for community safety and legal affairs on 6 October and I'm going to suspend for five minutes to allow the witnesses to leave and for us to readjust our positions at the table thank you very much March for now resuming and we move on to item 3 criminal justice Scotland bill day 2 stage 2 proceedings and I welcome Michael Matheson cabinet secretary for justice I also welcome officials who are here to support the minister but as you are aware are not permitted to participate in these proceedings members should have copies of the bill the marshaled list and groupings of amendments for today's consideration we will not go beyond part 6 straight away I call amendment 69 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group in its own cabinet secretary please to move and speak to amendment 69 convener, amendment 69 inserts a new section into the bill and it would place an obligation on the Lord Advocate to publish what is some time knows as a prosecutorial test when Lord Barnaby published a review I undertook to consider whether any of the recommendations could be taken forward in the current parliamentary session after consulting the Lord Advocate I'm of the view that this is one such recommendation this amendment would accordingly require the Lord Advocate to publish the prosecutorial test this is the matter at which prosecutors must take into account when deciding whether to commence and thereafter continue with criminal proceedings the Crown Office already voluntarily publishes its prosecution code which includes the current prosecutorial test the proposed amendment would place these voluntary arrangements on a statutory basis Lord Barnaby was of the view that this would assist in ensuring transparency and consistency of decision making in criminal proceedings and I agree the independence of Lord Advocate is also however of vital importance and therefore want to stress that the wording of the test would remain entirely a matter for Lord Advocate and a move amendment 69 Any other members wishing to speak? It's really more of a question than anything else because I'm not opposed to the amendment anyway but when we discussed the publication of the prosecutorial test it was in connection with the abolition of the requirement for corroboration and whether it was necessary there to have some sort of reassurance under those circumstances so I just wondered really why it is required now since that part of the bill has been dropped I do support the amendment as far as it goes I think there's a real appetite amongst the public for more transparency around how the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service reaches its decision but the cabinet secretary has chosen not to adopt Lord Barnaby's recommendation in full because the draft legislation set out in the post corroboration safeguard review also included provisions in relation to regularly reviewing the statement and consulting publicly when it reviews it and if it was possible for the minister to address why he hasn't picked up on those two points I support this amendment I think the key thing is to emphasise the distinction between publishing prosecutorial test putting it on statute and a requirement to publish it and obviously I've failed the latter one if it was in the statute itself it would be prescriptive so I think we're moving in the right direction sorry Margaret Just a point of clarification as well as looking at initiating and continuing criminal proceedings will there be an explanation of why you wouldn't proceed with proceedings Members, cabinet secretary Okay, let me try to deal with several of these issues why we are placing this in statute is that it's a voluntary arrangement which is in place at the present moment and as Lord Borriam recommended it should be put on a statutory footing so that's the reason behind taking forward this amendment at this stage so that there is a legal obligation on the Lord Advocate to publish the prosecutorial test In relation to why we haven't chosen to take forward the recommendation for that particular test is on the basis that we believe that the test is a matter which should be left to the independence of the Lord Advocate to determine and there are important constitutional issues around the role of Lord Advocate and their independence in determining these matters to provide for a consultation process would be to some degree would be to fetter that role and to seek to influence that role in some way so that's the reason why we have not pursued the issue of consultation on this matter I think in relation to Rod Campbell's point as well I think this does help to improve transparency and accountability in the process that's put in place for decisions made by the Crown Office in seeking to be more open In relation to the final point that Margaret Mitchell raises as well she'll be aware that this year there were new parts new provisions within the Victims and Witnesses Act that community force which plays a requirement on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that where a victim of a crime wishes to understand the decision not to pursue a case for a particular reason is that they now have a right to be able to be provided with that information by the Crown and the prosecution on why they've chosen not to continue with a case to a case Cabinet Secretary The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 70 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary group with amendment 71 and 72 Cabinet Secretary pleased to move amendment 70 and speak to the other amendments in the group Convener, amendment 72 seeks to remove section 83 to 85 in their entirety from the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill Members will recall that part 6 is introduced including provisions in relation to people trafficking Given that these provisions have now been included in the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Bill I'm seeking to remove the people trafficking provisions from this bill since they are obviously no longer needed here and I move amendment 70 Members wishing to speak No indication on that I take you don't wish to wind up Cabinet Secretary No The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 71 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary I'm ready to debate on amendment 70 Cabinet Secretary to move formally The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 72 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary I'm ready to debate on amendment 70 Cabinet Secretary to move formally The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 73 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, to move amendment 73, please, and to speak to the other amendments in the group. Section 86 of the bill, as introduced, makes provision in respect of the use of TV links for the accused in criminal court cases. An important feature of the provision is that, even when their case is of a nature which can be dealt with in this way, the court is required to consider in each individual case whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. That ensures that the rights of the accused are fully protected. This group of amendments is largely technical. It arises as a result of consideration of the way in which the provisions were originally drafted and further discussion with stakeholders. Amendment 73 takes account of concerns expressed by stakeholders about the practical implications of convening ad hoc hearings, distinct from the substantive hearings of a case, for the purposes of allowing the court to determine whether or not the substantive hearing of the case itself is to be dealt with by using a TV link. The amendment makes it clear that the court can take the decision about the use of TV links before or during the substantive hearing of the case without the need to convene a separate ad hoc hearing. Amendment 74 is consequential to amendment 73 and reaffirms that the accused person can be required to participate by the TV link in the part of the process that determines whether the substantive hearing is to take place by TV link, whether that part of the process occurs before or during a substantive hearing. Amendment 75 to 78, followed on from amendment 73 and 74, removed the term ad hoc hearing from the bill and made it clear that the provisions of the bill in respect of TV links apply during a substantive hearing of a case or other proceedings that would include the part at which a decision on the use of TV links is being taken. Amendment 79 amends a provision in the bill as introduced, which provides that the leading of evidence as to a charge is prohibited for when the accused is participating by TV link. The effects of this amendment is to specify that the prohibition applies only when the charge is on any indictment or complaint. As a result of the amendment, there will be no absolute prohibitions against the leading of evidence in other kinds of hearings. For example, a breach of community payback order at which the person concerned is appearing by TV link. However, as in every other case, the court will still have to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis whether or not it is contrary to the interests of justice for evidence to be led while the accused is appearing by TV link. Amendment 80 to 82 and 101 deal with the possible consequences of situations where the court decides not to proceed to deal with the case before it is using a TV link. It is anticipated that applications to have the accused appear by TV link will mostly be dealt with immediately before the calling of a substantive case. However, the court could refuse the application and retain a power to revoke an application that it has previously granted. If a technical issue arises with the TV link itself or where further information comes to light during the substantive hearing, which, in the view of the court, makes it no longer appropriate to proceed in this way. Where the court decides not to proceed with the appearance of the accused by TV link, it can be seen that practical difficulties might arise. The accused may well need to be brought to court, which might not be readily achievable on the same day, so the postponement of the hearing could be necessary. Where the accused is appearing from custody, any difficulty has to be balanced against the accused's right to be brought promptly from the court. Amendment 80 makes a general provision that, where a court has refused an application to deal with the case by TV link, it may postpone the substantive hearing to a later day, rather than necessarily the next day. The bill, as introduced, could have been read as providing that the court could postpone a hearing only until the next court day where an application was refused or revoked. Amendment 81 removes an hour-redund provision within the bill. Amendment 82 deals with the effect of postponement. Where the accused is not in police custody and the postponement is until the next day, that day and any day on which the court is not sitting, do not count towards any time limits in the case. However, this provision does not apply where the accused is in police custody and awaiting a court appearance. The effect of this is that when a postponement is necessary for an accused in custody, the accused still has a right to argue that the requirement of section 18 and the convention to be brought promptly to court have not been complied with. If, for example, an accused has to spend an extra night in custody solely because an unsuccessful attempt was made to present him for appearance by TV link and there was no backup plan to bring him to court, it remains open to the accused to argue that it would, in fact, have been practicable to have brought him before the court in time. It would then be up to the court to decide if the circumstances provide sufficient justification for the delay. Amendment 101 amends section 18 of the bill. This section gives effect to the convention right to be brought promptly before a court on arrest for suspicion of having committed an offence and provides that an accused being held in custody must, wherever practicable, be brought before to use the term in the bill a court by the time, by the end of the court's first sitting day after the arrest. The effect of this amendment is to ensure that someone appearing from custody by TV link to be regarded as having been brought before the court only when the court has made a determination that the substantive hearing is to be dealt with in that way. If the court decides that it would not be appropriate to deal with a custody case by TV link, the obligation to bring the accused promptly before the court remains in place, which will generally mean that the accused will be physically brought to court. Together with amendment 82, this ensures the rights of the accused in custody to be promptly to a prompt hearing are protected. Amendment 73. Cabinet Secretary, any members wish to come in? They don't, so I take it that you don't wish to wind up, Cabinet Secretary. No. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move the amendment 74 to 82 on block. Does any member reject a single question being put on these amendments? Thank you. The question is that amendment 74 to 82 are agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 86 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I just say in the meantime, Cabinet Secretary, I know that members are feeling the cold in here. Some vindictive person, instead of putting the heating on, has switched it to fridge conditions, so I apologise for members, but at least you'll stay awake before you freeze. I move on to amendment 83 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group in its own Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to amendment 83, please. Amendment 83 inserts a new section into the bill, which in turn inserts new subsections into section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. This section allows the High Court to regulate practice and procedure in relation to criminal procedure through acts of a journal. This amendment will ensure that the High Court has power to make provision for the greater use of electronic documentation and electronic signature in the criminal justice system. It will mean that the High Court, which through the Criminal Court rules council is well placed to work with criminal justice organisations who operate the system on a day-to-day basis, can regulate the pace of change as it thinks is appropriate and necessary for more efficient functioning of the criminal justice system, making the best use of developing technology. The associated repeals are mainly to remove material from the 1995 act, dealing with certain things that are now to be done by High Court by act of a journal. This is to make sure that the use of the new power is not fettered by express provision already found in that act. I move amendment 83. The other member wishes to speak. No, we were just shivering. Cabinet Secretary, take it, you do not want to wind up. Question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I believe that there is a change now. Thank you very much. I will suspend for a minute. I call amendment 84 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group in its own cabinet. Secretary is pleased to move and speak to that amendment. Part 3 of the police act 1997 permits the police investigations and review commissioner to authorise property interference and for the purposes of prevention or detection of serious crime. That includes entering or interfering with property or wireless telegraphy. Authorisation may be granted on the application of a staff officer of the commissioner. The commissioner may also designate a staff officer to grant property interference authorisation in her absence in cases of urgency. A staff officer is, however, undefined by the 1997 act, so there is a degree of uncertainty as to who may apply for these authorisations or grant them in the commissioner's absence in urgent cases. The Scottish Government intention is that any member of the commissioner's investigation staff should be capable of applying for property interference or surveillance authorisation or being designated if the commissioner considers it appropriate to grant those authorisations if urgent in her absence. The necessary provision was made in respect of surveillance authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Scotland Act 2000, but unfortunately not in respect of property interference authorisation. Accordingly amendment 84 is a clarifying amendment which inserts a definition of staff officer into part 3 of the police act 1997 for the purposes of property interference authorisation. This will ensure that both members of staff directly employed by the commissioner and those seconded from police forces may apply for property interference authorisation or be designated by the commissioner to grant those authorisations in urgent cases where the commissioner is absent. I move amendment 84. Any other members which I thought people would come in for this one, John? It's just to say that this is welcome. If it's a tidying up exercise, I certainly welcome it because I think the public won't be assured of that. The police investigations and review commissioner has the full range of powers and can act impartially and thoroughly, so it's welcome. Anyone else? Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Do you wish to wind up? No. Thank you very much. The question is amendment 84. We agree to it or we all agree. And now there's another, I think, change of officials. So I'll suspend again for a minute. Call amendment 105, the name of Margaret Mitchell in a group in its own market, pleased to move and speak to amendment 105. I recently lodged amendments to the Victim and Witnesses Scotland Bill, which would have had a similar effect to amendment 105. It's encouraging the policy intention of these previous amendments gets important from other committee members during stage 2 of that bill. Amendment 105 would require independent legal advice to be provided to victims of sexual offenses at the point of a request for medical information and our other personal details. Such legal advice would provide victims with information on their rights and would explicitly make them aware that they are able to refuse such requests. This is something that I know to be welcomed from the expressions of support for this amendment that have come from victims themselves. In some instances, legal aid would be required to be extended to cover such legal representation, although it could also be provided on a pro bono basis. Access to independent legal advice is routine, a routine entitlement across European jurisdictions, such as France, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Greece, Spain and Sweden. In Ireland, which has an adversarial legal system, sexual offence complainers have a right to independent legal representation if the defence makes an application to the judge to introduce sexual history evidence. In general terms, it's worth noting that the reference group of the Bonomere review was supportive earlier this year of the provision through legal aid of ILR, i.e., independent legal representation, for victims of crime in relation to issues affecting their rights, including their privacy. It's stipulated that ILR would relate to legal aid funding for legal advice and representation for victims who are not usually legally represented in criminal proceedings about whom documentary evidence may be sought by the defence during either the pretrial or trial process. Representation would be confined to procedural issues and would not involve representation at the trial. The proposed changes are therefore a practical way in which to help rape victims to avoid unnecessary distress during the court process. Currently, they have little opportunity to challenge the legality of the use of private personal information in court. Furthermore, it's my understanding that ministers may have recently made a determination that legal aid should not be made available to sexual offence complainers in circumstances where their private records are being sought, which, if that is the case, seems a great injustice and I'd be grateful if the cabinet secretary could address that point. In concluding my remarks, convener, it's important to stress that the experience from victim support groups is that the Crown is not robust enough in challenging section 274 and 275 applications, a reason that was put forward previously for not supporting amendment 274. However, the real and most vexing issue is that this type of evidence, including medical records and sensitive information, is routinely being used to discredit witnesses and to play to the prejudices and myths that are known to reveal around sexual offences. It is to be hoped that my amendment would therefore help in no small measure to address this issue and consequently improve the chances of a successful conviction. I move amendment 105, which is also supported by the Law Society of Scotland. I would oppose amendment 105 for a number of reasons. Firstly, we didn't deal with amendment 105 in any detail at stage 1, and it's an important issue. We would need to have dealt with amendment 105 in some detail if we were going to agree to amendment 105 today. I think that it also remains the case that this has wide ramifications beyond sexual history. We know that in some jurisdictions in Denmark, for example, it started off being restricted to sexual offences and it's now being applied much more widely, so there's certainly a floodgates issue. I've got some sympathy with the general principle and I ought to keenly recognise that, for many complainers, they're somewhat mystified by the judicial system where they don't quite understand that the Crown represents the public interest and not their own personal interest. I recognise also that there are occasions in which they would need, perhaps, possibly to get some legal advice, but I think we've moved on a bit since Margaret brought amendments to the Victims and Witnesses Bill in so far as that there is now funding available from the legal aid board, I think, 215,000, to the Scottish Women Rights Centre for the very provision of providing legal advice on gender-based violence. I think it's got wider ramifications. Margaret's also referred to the Bonomy report. I think it's fair to say that the Bonomy report recommended, as a general principle, that they favoured independent legal representation, but I think they also favoured more work on the point. The evidence as to the effectiveness of sections 274 and 275 hasn't been looking at that since about 2007. I think if we are concerned about this principle then it seems to me that the effectiveness of those sections need to be reviewed before we go down this path of supporting Margaret's amendments. Thanks, convener. We resisted this amendment in the Victims and Witnesses Act, and I'm not yet convinced, although Margaret Mitchell has clarified some of the aspects, because there was a sort of feeling that there might be three different, lots of legal representation in court, and I think that Margaret's clarified that intention. I'm still not convinced, despite having heard from the Law Society about this, that it's legal advice that is going to be the most important for victims of sexual offences. I know, for example, that additional resources have recently been made, I think that I heard about it last week, to rape crisis and women's aid to help them to support witnesses throughout the legal process. Am I feeling in terms of the expenditure by the public purse, that sort of more holistic support might actually be more helpful to victims than additional legal advice at particular points in the process, so I'm not yet convinced that this is actually the best way of supporting victims. Alison. I commend Margaret Mitchell for the work that she's done on this and how she's developed this as it's gone through. There's currently a significant imbalance in the system in relation to rape victims in particular, and the release of medical evidence in particular can have huge ramifications on the future health of the witness, and it shouldn't just fall on the voluntary sector to deal with this problem. I do think that there's a real issue to be addressed, and I hope that the Government will be able to do either by supporting Margaret Mitchell's amendment or by bringing forward something of their own, and I'll support Margaret Mitchell. Thank you, convener. As the committee will be aware, they will recall similar proposed amendments during its consideration of the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Bill. Our concerns about the amendments of this kind then and now have never been from a lack of sympathy with the intention behind it. I've always sympathy with the attempt to support the alleged victims and protect them from unnecessary distress. The reasons for being unable to support this proposed reform remain the same as two years ago. Amendment 105 would represent a major innovation in our criminal law, introducing the complainer as a third party separate from the crown as a third party in the process. Additionally, giving complainers those rights in one category of offence and not in others would be inconsistent. This committee has rightly, in scrutinising other proposed reforms, been very careful in considering practical implications and potential unintended consequences. While I'm sure many members will be as sympathetic as I am to the intention behind this reform, I do not consider that such a substantial change in Scots law and practice requires a great deal of further thought and consideration. I do have a suggested way forward for this committee to consider this important issue, but before I elaborate on that, it may be helpful if I explain some of the background to the current legal position in Scotland. Just as two years ago, it remains the case that the protection which section 274 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995 gives to complainer—a complainer in a sexual offences case—is comprehensive. The provision in section 275, which allows exemption to that protection, requires a court to consider appropriate protection of the complainer's dignity and privacy. Further, the court must have regard to the ECHR rights relevant to the application. That includes the complainer's right under article 8 of ECHR, and a court will balance appropriately the rights of the accused with the complainer's rights to respect for private life. No evidence to my knowledge has been provided that this is not done properly. What has changed in the last two years, and I lay great stress on this particular point, is the level of support that the Government has given to victims of sexual offences and complainers in those trials. The committee will recall that at the result of the debate during the course of the Victims and Witnesses Bill and subsequent to that grant funding was made available through the Scottish legal aid board to support the establishment of a Scottish women's rights centre in providing legal assistance to women affected by gender-based violence. The centre was established earlier this year. It provides a legal helpline staff by volunteers from the University of Strathclyde Law Centre, giving information as well as signposting to support services and other sources of advice, and a full-time solicitor supervising and undertaking casework and representation for clients. It is also developing advice surgeries eventually to be held around Scotland staffed by project solicitor or local solicitors. In a further clear demonstration of this Government's commitment to make real improvements for victims and provide direct and sensitive support in relation to access to justice for them, I announced record funding for Rape Crisis Scotland on 10 September. This was part of an unprecedented additional £20 million support package announced in March to tackle domestic abuse and sexual violence and provide better support for victims. £1.85 million of additional resource is now being provided over three years to support victims of sex crimes across Scotland. It will open for the first time ever rape crisis services in Orkney and in Shetland in partnership with Women's Aid. It will also provide 80 per cent extra funding to each rape crisis centre until 2018. This will ensure consistency of provision across the country for victims. It will support those who have made the decision to report the crime to the police as well as those who may be considering reporting. This additional funding will provide vital support for victims at the time they most need it and recognises this support may be needed well beyond their experience of court. This unprecedented package was announced after Margaret Mitchell had proposed her amendment. The difficulties with independent legal representation have been debated before. This new package and the provision already in place for access to legal advice, another support, gives in a concrete fashion the kind of support amendment 105 seeks to provide. I mentioned earlier there is a lack of evidence for such a major reform. However, I want to ensure that existing arrangements are operating as effectively as possible. I therefore propose to review a review of whether there is any cause for concern about the way the courts deal with recovery and disclosure of confidential information relating to complainers. It would be timely to undertake this work alongside considering how the package of reforms that I have mentioned earlier is having effect in practice. At a previous stage 2 session, I referred to our plans to develop a holistic and balanced package of future reforms. That would cover consideration of Lord Bonnymi's recommendations, the collaboration reform and any other relevant issues. I consider this proposed review of the disclosure of confidential information to be one of those relevant issues that should be included in this. For the purpose of clarity, it is important to recognise that Lord Bonnymi's review group did not make a recommendation on independent legal representation in this particular area. I can also reassure members that we intend to work closely with stakeholders when undertaking this work, hopefully to achieve consensus on any future reform that could be taken forward. As I have mentioned previously, this work will begin later this year and I will, of course, keep the committee informed of its progress. In the new circumstances that I have described, and with the possibility of gathering real evidence, I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance that amendment 105 is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time. I therefore ask Margaret Mitchell not to press it. Margaret Mitchell, to wind up, please. Just to address a few of the points that the cabinet secretary and other members have made reference to the £1.85 million for support of sexual offence victims, which he points out will be partly funded, fatally funded, dedicated advocacy workers. However, as the rape crisis has confirmed, the advocacy workers will not be lawyers and will not be providing legal assistance. That is a totally separate issue, which my amendment would address now. In terms of Lord Bonomy, who I think may not have addressed this amendment specifically, he did talk about legal representation for issues affecting a complainer's privacy, so I think that that covers it. In terms of setting a rule or giving those complainers rights, it would not be available to others. Surely that is how the law develops. You look at case law, you look where it is falling down, you look where it is not working, as it should do, fairly for the victims of rape and for the victims of sexual assault, who still are having routinely this kind of information used to discredit them and play to the prejudices of juries and where it is clear. Victim support groups will quite clearly tell you that the Crown is not robust enough in challenging the so-called protections that are there just now under section 274 and 275. In conclusion, convener, rather than again defer this, we could do something now to help these victims. If the Government is sincere in its assertion that it wants to improve rape and sexual assault convictions, there can be no excuse for not supporting this amendment today. I move the amendment to my name. The question is amendment 105. We agree to it. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That is 247. Against that amendment is disagreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 86 to 89, 91 to 190. Cabinet secretary, please remove amendment 85 and speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendments in this group relate to the establishment of a police negotiating board for Scotland. This body will negotiate paying conditions of service for police officers in the Police Service of Scotland. Unlike the Westminster Government, who abolished the police negotiating board covering the UK in favour of a pay review body, I believe that police officers in Scotland should have the opportunity to negotiate their terms and conditions directly with those who manage and fund the service. The aims of the PNBES is to create a modern negotiating body in which consensus on matters under its remit is the norm. Abituation should be used only where all other options are exhausted and when both sides agree to it. Following consultation with stakeholders, I proposed Government's amendments to the bill, which relate to the functions and procedures of the PNBES to ensure that it can operate effectively. Of most significance, amendments 87, 89, 96, 97 and 99 will deliver a commitment made by my predecessor to make arbitration on police pay legally binding on ministers. Together, these amendments provide a framework to ensure that when the PNBES makes recommendations to ministers based on an arbitration award, ministers would be bound to take all reasonable steps to give effect to those representations. However, I propose that binding arbitration should apply to pay and all pay-related matters under the remit of the PNBES. The details of this will be set out in regulations subject to affirmative procedure. Essentially, there will be a maximum of two referrals to binding arbitration within a reporting year, one of which must automatically include the main annual pay award. My officials have discussed and agreed this approach with the official and staff side of the PNB. Amendment 91, 92, 93, 95 and 100 remove the post of deputy chair, but amendment 94 allows for a temporary chair to be appointed if that is ever necessary. Amendment 88 allows the constitution to define the PNBES reporting year in a way that suits its purpose and amendment 98 ensures that regulations are required to bring the constitution into effect. I am sure that the committee will welcome the parliamentary scrutiny that this amendment will provide for. Amendment 85 allows greater flexibility when ministers have required the PNBES to make representations and amendment 86 removes police clothing and accountments from the remit of the PNBES in line with stakeholders wishes. Finally, amendment 90 sets out the consequential and transitional provisions of the PNBES. The PNBES will come under the provisions of the Freedom Information Scotland Act 2002 and the chairperson of the PNBES will be regulated under the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc Scotland Act 2003. To allow the seamless transition from a UK to Scotland only body, there will be provision for the recently appointed independent chair of the PNB to be chair of the PNBES and to ensure that all previous agreements made by the PNB UK are to be regarded as if agreements within or involving the PNBES. Therefore, amendment 85 will come under the PNBES. Thank you very much. Any members wishing to speak? I've got John and then I've got Margaret and I've got Roderick. John? Very brief and not surprising. Very strongly welcome this development. Thank you. Roderick? Yes, strongly welcome to convener. I think it creates an appropriate balance, but I welcome to emphasise that arbitration is hopefully the last resort and hopefully negotiation and consideration will prevent the need for arbitration arising. Margaret? If I could perhaps ask for some information, further information from the cabinet secretary, he made reference to the police negotiating board being abolished in England and Wales, and that was the result of the Windsor report. I think that that was because they found that when police pay moved from being index linked to another system, then there was a failure to agree. The first question is, how is police pay based just now as index linked? Is there another method of suggesting the remuneration? And while again picking up what Rod Campbell said, originally arbitration was supposed to be a last resort, I think the failure to agree meant that it was becoming the norm and therefore the negotiation board was looked at as time-consuming, costly and not in the best interests of the police or the public. So I'm really just seeking reassurance from the cabinet secretary that he's looked at this and he's quite confident that the same won't happen here in Scotland. I think that you've gone further than just the negotiating board, but cabinet secretary, do you want to respond to any of this? On the latter point, I refer to say the discussions that we've had with the police is that they're very keen in having this type of provision facilitated in Scotland and I don't detect any concern from them about them thinking it is unduly bureaucratic or not an effective way in which to deal with these types of issues. I can't speak for police officers in England and Wales but I do recall there were significant concerns expressed at the time when the UK government indicated they wanted to go to a pay review system instead. With relation to your first point in regards to police pay, it's not index linked, it's negotiated with officials. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendments 86, 87, 88 and 89 on the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated, might the cabinet secretary to move these amendments 86 to 89 on block? Does any member object to a single question when you put on these amendments? Questions amendments 86 to 89 are agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 87 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendments 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 100 all on the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated, might the cabinet secretary to move the amendments 91 to 100 on block? Is there any member object to a single question when you put on these amendments? The question is that amendments 91 to 100 are agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 90, the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 85, cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I say to the committee that we'd like to say that, ends consideration of amendments for today and I thank the cabinet secretary and the officials for their attendance and I suspend for a couple of minutes to allow them to clear. I move on now to item 4, Public Petitions. I say before I start that other committee agreed to continuing petitions 1501, 1567, 1479, 1510, 1511 to the next session, next agenda, I think we can do these next week to allow petitioners if they wish to attend. Are you agreeable? Thank you very much. We therefore move on to petition PE1280 on fatal accident inquiries. Are you committed to recall? We agreed to consider this petition as part of our stage 1 scrutiny of the inquiries into fatal accidents in the sudden death of the Scotland Bill. We took evidence from the petition as part of the scrutiny, you may call, and as the clerks paper noted, she appeared to be broader contempt of the relevant provisions in the bill, and I should add that I think the petitioner wishes this, would wish this to be kept open while the bill goes through passage through Parliament to see how it develops. Are you agreeable to keeping it open? Thank you very much. I now move on to petition 1370 on inquiries into conviction of McGrawhey. I make a declaration of interest here that I am a member of the Justice for McGrawhey group. You note the recent High Court ruling that relatives of some of the victims of the bomb are not able to pursue an appeal on McGrawhey's behalf. We have had a late paper, I would say, because I know that members of the Justice for McGrawhey campaign are here, but that late paper will not be referred to as it came in too late for the committee to consider, and we will be able to consider it at another date. I can have your views on the petition. Roderick. We should continue the petition for the time being. Obviously, operations stand would have some way to go. As far as the family of McGrawhey are concerned and whether or not they ever want to appeal against the conviction given the state of the world, the state of Libya at the moment, I think we should allow a substantial period of time before we want to close it down. I'm a wee bit concerned by some of the comments being made about the Lord Advocate, but in terms of the issue as to the independence of any Crown Council appointed, it may well be that we should seek clarity from the Lord Advocate on just how that is going to play out. John. I would concur with Rod Campbell on what he said there. I think there are a number of positives associated with this, not least as operations stand would in the grip that the Police Scotland have taken on this, and I think credit to DCC Ian Livingstone and his team for gaining the trust, and I think that's because of the diligent way they've gone about their business. I think it's important to say that there are a number of aspects of this case that make it unique, and I think that we should maintain an on-going interest in it. If I can quote from the letter of 26 May, and forgive me just to put it on the record, we strongly believe that in order to acquire a fair and prejudiced and truly independent reading of the final police report, a special prosecutor must be appointed by a process independent of the Lord Advocate in the Crown Office and must be seen to exercise his or hers decision making and prosecutorial functions without reference to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office. The dilemma we have is when we use the term Lord Advocate we associate that with an individual. I think if we depersonalise this and treat this as a process rather than about personalities, then I think there is a way to go yet with this, and it goes on to say since the Lord Advocate's position and independence as head of the prosecution system Scotland is enshrined in the Scotland Act, such a mechanism must be put in place by the Lord Advocate himself, failing which the Scottish Government seeks from the UK Government a section 30 order in council to enable a Scottish Government to do so. I think there are challenges, but I think given that the inquiry is on-going and maybe sometime before reporting we have time on our side, but certainly I concur with the justice from a gravity view that the response that we have heard from the right hon. Frank Mulholl and QC does not meet the terms of what people would understand to be independent, so I think we need more thought put into that. I think there is also the issue as a separate leg of it as the SCCRC's position, because quite rightly as Roderick Campbell says that the only better of which an appeal against the McGrath's conviction community is who the deceased relatives or the executives of the estate, and the idea that you can actually quite happily get in touch with the executives of the estate and get them to sign, get these documents out of Libya and the current situation is just miles from fact. So I think there are several things on-going here. I also think it is very important that you refer to the Lord Advocate as a position rather than as an individual, and whether the Lord Advocate's office can make inquiry into the Lord Advocate's office is the corner that we are in, and there does not appear to be a mechanism, but perhaps there has to be. So I think that we leave this. I am quite Margaret. Do you need reference to the Lord Advocate having submitted? There is a late paper which I am not tabling because with other late papers, and we just got it today, and with late papers as before, we cannot use them when nobody said the opportunity to consider them, but I am happy to bring it to attention. Is it in relation to this petition now? It is, but I cannot go any further than that because we are not in a position to discuss it, so perhaps that is an even better reason to keep the petition open. John. Can I confirm that that letter will be put in the public domain? We have to confirm the position as to whether we can, because there is an issue about the Justice McRahey committee wrote to the Lord Advocate private and confidential to start with. We have a sort of response. We have to confirm with the Lord Advocate that we can now release this information. I think that that would only be appropriate. I do not think that there will be difficulties, but he has not been physically available to do it. Will, in turn, if it alludes to a letter that was sent in confidence by Justice McRahey, would it be appropriate to contact them to see if they are content? They are content. The issue is the Lord Advocate, so I think that it would not be appropriate for the committee to publish something without the Lord Advocate. So I do not think that there will be a problem with it, but I would like to have that consent. Will you agreeable? I think that that is appropriate. Thank you very much, so we continue that petition. I think that the Lord Advocate is well aware of the proposal for an independent council to be appointed in the independent council's position. Do you wish us to write about that, Roddy? What was your point? He simply said in his letter of the 8th of May 2015 to you, Christine, arrangements were therefore put in place for independent Crown Council who has not been involved in Lockerby case to deal with this matter if and when the need arises. I think that there is just some greater clarity on that appointment process and who that would be. John? Well, the need will arise because our report will come from Police Scotland to the Lord Advocate's office, and it is a question of seniority. I think that we need to be on mind here. Shall we just indicate to the Lord Advocate that we are raising the issue about publishing what we have but also point him to the record of what we have said today and ask if he wishes to comment? That would be appropriate. Thank you very much. That is our next meeting, so that concludes the petitions. We are continuing the other ones I should know next week. The next meeting will be on 29 September when we will consider amendments to parts 1 and 7 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill at stage 2, and I formally closed the meeting.