 Welcome to the 16th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. There are no apologies this morning. Our first item of business today is to consider whether to take item 8, which is our draft annual report in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Our next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum, which is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. I'm pleased to welcome the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, Tom Arthur, and two of his officials to the meeting, beggar pardon, three officials to the meeting this morning. Mr George Burgess, director of agriculture and rural economy, Mr George Dixon, team leader, defence, security and disrupt the Scottish Government, and Ms Kersey Anderson's solicitor with the Scottish Government Directorate for Legal Services. I refer members to paper one. So, just before we start our questioning on the LCM, I just wanted to make members aware that late yesterday afternoon, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee published their report on the LCM, which is the 32nd report of 2023. This report was circulated to members yesterday afternoon just as soon as it was published. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee's report makes a series of points mostly around the powers in the UK Government's bill, which would see regulations being made by a UK Secretary of State in devolved areas with the consent of Scottish Ministers. The DPLR committee wants to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise the Scottish Minister's consent decisions when the situations arise. On that note, I will now invite the minister to make some opening remarks on the LCM, and then we will move to questions. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to address members on the legislative consent memorandum for the UK Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. The legislative consent memorandum has been corrected by a letter from the Scottish Government on 19 May 2023, so that paragraph 115 makes reference to amendment 77L instead of amendment 77B. The bill is the second part of a UK-wide legislative package to prevent the abuse of UK corporate structures and to tackle economic crime. The Scottish Government is fully supportive of the policy intention of the bill. It follows on from the Economic Crime, Transparency and Enforcement Act 2022, which received royal assent on 15 March 2022. The Scottish Government welcomes the constructive engagement with UK Government ministers and officials on aspects of the bill and subsequent UK Government amendments which impact on devolved areas. The legislative consent motion recommends consent for the majority of the bill. It also recommends that consent for some of the provisions is withheld meantime, in the hope that those can be resolved through on-going engagement with the UK Government. That is because amendment 77L, which introduces new schedule 6 in section 303Z42, as inserted by schedule 7, both fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and would provide a power to create regulations without consent. The Scottish Government remains acutely aware of the Scottish Parliament's consistent view on delegated powers, which relate to devolved matters. There has been progress on this topic in some parts of the bill in relation to registers of overseas entities and Scottish limited partnerships. We continue to explore the issue with the UK Government. The policy objective of the register of overseas entities is to tackle money laundering by shedding light on who benefits from that property. It is a UK-wide register. The Scottish Government is committed to improving transparency of those who own and control land in Scotland. We fully supported UK-wide emergency legislation introduced following the invasion of Ukraine last year, which established the register. The bill includes provision to address gaps and loopholes that have been identified since the register was introduced last year. Most of the amendments are technical and procedural, and a number are designed specifically as anti-avoidance measures to close loopholes that have been identified in relation to trusts. Those are exactly the kind of measures that we support in order to ensure that the register of overseas entities captures the most opaque of entities. Elements of the register are within the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence and therefore require consent. Although fully supportive of the policy and issues that the provisions address, at this stage the draft legislative consent motion recommends withholding consent to one of the provisions introduced at Lord's Grand Committee by amendment 77L. That is because it contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations without any requirement to seek consent of the Scottish ministers and without any restrictions placed around its use. Limited partnerships, including Scottish Limited partnerships, will be used for a range of legitimate business purposes and have also been exploited by criminals for illegitimate purposes, such as money laundering. The changes made by the bill include the introduction of a power for the courts to wind up limited partnerships in the public interest where it is just and equitable. For Scottish Limited partnerships, such action by a court would come about following a petition by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Scottish ministers or following a petition by the Scottish ministers. That is a welcome addition to the arsenal to tackle the abuse of limited partnerships. There will be a regulation making power enabling the Secretary of State with the consent of the Scottish ministers to make provisions governing the process of winding up of Scottish Limited partnerships in the public interest. The bill also includes provisions relating to the winding up of dissolved partnerships, notification requirements where they are concurrent proceedings and regulation making powers to amend such notification requirements. The Scottish Government supports strengthening transparency requirements and action to tackle the abuse of limited partnerships, including Scottish Limited partnerships, by expanding winding up provisions. I will now turn to the justice-related provisions in the bill. Those are principally intended to strengthen powers to tackle economic crime and illicit finance. The Scottish Government shares those policy goals. The bill amends the Solicitor's Scotland Act 1980 to remove the existing statutory limit on financial penalties that can be imposed by the Scottish Solicitor's Discipline Tribunal for disciplinary matters relating to economic crime offences defined by the bill. That change provides for a greater deterrent against money laundering and economic crime in respect of legal services in Scotland, while also providing for parity with England and Wales. The bill includes provisions to strengthen the Procedures of Crime Act Pocca to tackle the unlawful use of crypto assets. It also aims to make it easier for relevant businesses to share customer information with each other for the purposes of preventing, investigating and detecting economic crime by disciplining civil liability for breaches of confidentiality where information is shared for this purpose. It also aims to reduce unnecessary reporting by business and new powers for law enforcement to obtain further information to tackle money laundering and terrorism financing. It provides additional powers to law enforcement agencies so that they are able to seize, freeze and ultimately recover crypto assets, which are the proceeds of crime or associated with illicit activity. That includes money laundering, fraud, ransomware attacks or terrorist financing. The bill updates both the criminal confiscation and civil recovery regimes under part 3 and 5 of the Procedures of Crime Act 2002 to ensure that it can be used effectively to tackle serious organised crime in relation to crypto assets and crypto asset-related items. Clause 167 of the bill introduces schedule 6, which amends Pocca to make provision in connection with crypto assets and criminal confiscation orders following a criminal conviction in relation to persons who benefit from criminal conduct. Clause 168 of the bill introduces schedule 7, which amends Pocca to create a new civil recovery regime to recover crypto assets and crypto asset-related items that have been obtained through unlawful conduct. Importantly, the provisions include powers to seize exempt property with senior officer approval if they are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is a crypto asset-related item such as laptops, wallet keys and codes. This will assist law enforcement to access the crypto assets. The initial detention period is 48 hours and then subject to further detention periods of 14 days at a time with court approval. Pocca is a UK-wide regime that relates to reserved and devolved matters. For example, money laundering and drug trafficking is reserved to the UK Parliament but fraud is devolved. As the general approach to Pocca is to keep a consistent regime across the UK jurisdictions, the Scottish Government believes that it is sensible for these amendments to Pocca to be made by the UK Parliament. Separate from Pocca provisions, there is a new failure to prevent fraud offence. The Scottish Government is keen for the new protections for victims to be realised in Scotland. Many of the organisations operate across the whole of the UK and the Scottish Government considers the UK legislation as proportionate. On that, convener, I will conclude and I hope that the committee will support the legislative consent motion. Thank you very much, minister. I will move straight to questions. I will open up. Clearly, the extent and the reach of the provisions of the bills is very welcome. It is good to see some much-needed changes to the legislative provision around preventing economic crime and protecting our corporate infrastructure, with particular reference to Scotland. I can pick up on a couple of the provisions. The first one I think I have got my head around. I have spent quite a bit of time reading through the papers ahead of our meeting today. It relates to the provision that will create new exemptions from the principal money laundering offences to reduce unnecessary reporting by businesses carrying out transactions on behalf of their customers. I am assuming that that is possibly where that compliance is perhaps a little bit disproportionate. I can certainly bring you in and then I will come to a second point of a may. I am really just looking at a wee bit more of an explanation as to what that means. Money laundering, while it is covered by the bill, is a reserved area. It is not one that is covered by the legislative consent memorandum or the motion. We work with the UK Government in relation to money laundering, principally to ensure that any provisions work appropriately in Scots law, but the content of those provisions is reserved. From discussions that I had in general with the UK Government, I think that it was their consultation that they had with businesses. I think that it was to reduce the threshold for them to report it to them. I think that this is really where the aim of reducing the requirement for a suspicious activity report is, where it is pretty clear that it is not actually needed. Yes, that is fine. That is what my understanding of that was. The other point that I had—you may respond in the same way—was around the new powers for law enforcement that will allow them to obtain information to tackle money laundering and terrorism financing. That is potentially quite a big new power that law enforcement agencies have. Again, it was just a little bit of commentary about that and whether that incorporates international law enforcement agencies as well. I am assuming that that relation to the crypto assets. The main powers for law enforcement is allowing them to seize crypto-related items before that was not defined. The law enforcement need to—in a lot of occasions—will need to seize the crypto-related items. That could be a piece of paper with a password on it to a laptop, but it is with the aim of them being able to use that item to gain access to the crypto asset. That is the main fundamental point of that. That is very helpful. I think that Pauline McNeill is going to come in and then I will bring in Jamie Pauline. I have a few questions. First, as a strong believer in devolution, as it always has been, I am always concerned if the UK Government attempts to undermine that in any way or without the concern of the Scottish Government. Can you say more about what the rationale is for in this case? I think that, Ms McNeill, what it reflects is that, as I touched on in my opening remarks, there are a number of those areas that cover both reserved and devolved competencies. There is also ensuring that we have a proportionate approach. I would want to say that you will be well aware and fully cognisant of the Government's position on a range of issues regarding the UK Government's approach to devolution. With regard to this legislation specifically, we have had a very constructive process of engagement and, in following engagement from officials and ministers, we have seen the UK Government bringing forward amendments. Although the LCM does not move for the concern of all the bill and its entirety, the outstanding areas are areas in which we are hopeful through further discussion that there will be an opportunity to remedy the outstanding concerns that we have. Indeed, ministers will be meeting with UK counterparts at engaging later on this week. I recognise that where we are now, timescales are tight. However, I would say that there has been a constructive approach. What it is seeking to do is to ensure that we respect the devolution settlement and recognise, in a piece of legislation, as complex and, indeed, as substantial on as long as this will be, there may be issues that arise where discrepancies are inconsistencies with the principles that we would want to see upheld, and through a constructive process of engagement with the UK Government, we have been able to remedy a number of them. I am hopeful that we will be able to do so with the remainder of outstanding items. Anything you want to add to that, George? I think that ministers really covered it well there. There is no great policy difference between the administration nor any great constitutional battle here. We are trying to get to a sensible, reasonable position. I think that, in some cases, we have identified in the memorandum areas where, strictly speaking, we could have taken a more purist approach and said, oh no, absolutely, we require consent here, but recognising the circumstances in which particular powers are likely to be used, we have opted to say actually simply consulting will be sufficient in this area because we recognise the shared policy goal of tackling serious crime. Thank you very much. That is really helpful to have that. My second question is unrelated. I measure removing the statutory fine limit to allow Scottish solicitors discipline tribunal to set its own limits on financial penalties imposed for economic kind disciplinary matters. I wanted to ask you about this because Parliament has traditionally set fines and fees for all sorts of disciplines. The one that comes to mind is accounting and bankruptcy. I personally think that there are some aspects, but it is right that Parliament sets this because it is more democratic. You can see clearly how fines are set. I am not really in principle in favour of organisations setting the fine limit when it comes to crime because—or you can correct me if I am wrong—this is in the context of financial penalties for economic crime and disciplinary matters. I have to have thought that that is surely a matter for Parliament and not for. I certainly would not want to go down this road. I am opposed to some fees being set by the professions themselves. I can think of lots of examples. The reason I do not know about the accounting and bankruptcy is that it is an extraordinary high fees that they set individuals who are trying to recover from their indebtedness, and I just think that it is more democratic to let Parliament decide it. I am sure that there is a reason for it, so I wanted to ask. I recognise the point that you are making. This would increase strength and powers of deterrence that I touched on in my initial remarks, but also create parity with the equivalent regime in England, and there are safeguards in place. I do not know, George, where you went to. That is the only thing that I would add is that in England and Wales they have an unlimited fine, so it is just to make it consistent across the board. One point that the Scottish Parliament will have an opportunity—there is the regulation of legal services bill that is now before this Parliament, so that would give a further opportunity to examine that issue if the Scottish Parliament wanted to make any further adjustment to the provision. We recognise, though, that using the economic crime bill at Westminster actually provides an early opportunity to close a quite significant gap between England and Scotland. That all sounds perfectly reasonable, but why cannot Parliament just set an unlimited fine? What I am really driving at is that the profession itself is going to set the fees for disciplinary matters. That is the parity, because it happens in England that English firms set the fines. It is setting the fines, but it is to strengthen the measures in place to act as a deterrent to the behaviour that we are obviously trying to reduce or minimise. It is really supportive of that notion. It is just a micro element of that, which is I am just asking why you do not want Parliament to set the fees. Why would you want the profession to set the fees? That is a bit I do not understand. Is that the parity bit with England? I get that unlimited fines make absolute sense here. I am not aware that any of this provision deals with fees. This is simply around fines so that where solicitors have basically in some way facilitated economic crime, that the disciplinary tribunal can give them rather more than a slap on the wrist. We would want to make sure that there is not any internal market within the UK that it is easier to get a Scottish solicitor to… I do not know if I am making myself clear enough. I am just going to finish on this. The note I have clearly says that the statutory fine limit to allow Scottish solicitors, the disciplinary tribunal, to set its own limits. It does not say in parity with England to set a no limit. It says to set its own limits on financial penalties. I would be grateful at some point if I could just say why would you want Scottish solicitors to set their own fines in relation to serious organised crime? I do not understand. Why would Parliament not set those limits? I think it might be better to do with this in correspondence, but this is not Scottish solicitors setting the fines. This is the disciplinary tribunal that regulates the profession that is setting them. There is nevertheless control through the court of session, so there is an appeal route from the disciplinary tribunal to the court of session, so it is not that the fines are uncontrolled in any way. I am trying to pick up the pieces and move on. I actually have a second question, which is quite linked to that. The first one is about the petitions to wind up limited partnerships. I think that, if I quoted the minister correctly, the Secretary of State can apply to a Scottish court with the consent or support of Scottish ministers—was the language used—or Scottish ministers could make petitions themselves. It sounds like there may be two avenues to petition to the Scottish courts. I wondered what the scenario planning had been for any dispute resolution mechanisms whereby the Secretary of State intended to make a petition, but ministers disagreed or vice versa. I know that it is a minor technical point, and it may never happen, but I wondered what the process would be to deal with that scenario. In such a scenario, the circumstances are rising. With this legislation, there is no broad agreement on the policy intent, but there is a need to ensure that the processes for effecting that are consistent with the devolution settlement. Hence, the amendments that we requested in the UK Government extended to around consultant and consent mechanisms. Is difficulty in business perhaps such a scenario arising? I do not know if you would want to comment on some of the thinking behind it, George. Not in great deal, simply to say that this is the sort of thing that we would expect there to be good liaison between the law enforcement agencies and public bodies. It is going to come down to a case-by-case analysis of, in a particular case, which body is the one that is best placed to take it forward. It may be a particular case that the Secretary of State and company's house and other bodies like that have been most closely involved, in which case, presumably, Secretary of State would be the best way to deal with that. On the other hand, it might be a case where it has actually been the civil recovery unit at Crown Office here that has been the one that has been leading on the case. That is the sort of thing where the law enforcement agencies will work out between them what is the most convenient for and what is the best way of dealing with it to get the right effect? That is in practice how it would operate, but I am just conscious of that role now in statute for Scottish ministers. It allows that direct accountability back to the Parliament, which I know is a particular concern of the Parliament, and it is something that we have sought to ensure. However, in practice, as George outlined in such a scenario arising, there would be a degree of co-operation and co-ordination in any way. The issue of a dispute arising in such a context seems remote, but there would be that means of Scottish ministers for their decisions on consent being held to account by Parliament. That is fair enough. Thank you for that. The second is a follow-on from Pauli McNeill's line, a question around Scottish listers and regulation around that. Obviously, the Government has introduced other legislation in the legal services regulation bill. I wonder more generally what the Scottish Government is doing, given that Scotland and England also have both different legal and regulatory systems around both the judiciary and legal services, to ensure that serious organised criminal gangs that do work across borders do not see one particular environment as an easier place to do business than the other, to some more general policy question on that. As the committee will be aware, the UK Government had undertook extensive consultation ahead of this legislation and introduced that there has been a lot of close engagement between Scottish Government officials and UK Government officials, particularly in the Home Office. I do not know if George, of course, you want to add anything about the engagement that has taken place with UK Government officials on this matter of developing? There has been extensive conversations with all policy areas, of which there are quite a few, and certainly from my point of view, there is definitely close liaison to make sure that it is the worst right for Scotland. I assure the convener's view that this bill is absolutely welcome. It is long been clear that companies' houses can be abused by criminals, and it is not some abstract concept involving just overseas individuals or regimes. It matters here in Scotland. It is quite common, in fact, to find multiple companies' house entries for individuals trying to either pass or, indeed, mask the true ownership of companies, and that includes individuals involved in high-end organised crimes such as the drugs trade or VAT fraud. It is all to be welcomed. To be frank, this has come to us as a committee at fairly short notice. It is highly complex. Even trying to read the report that we received last night was not quite a challenge. The difficulty that I have is trying to bring it back to some simple questions and then making the point. The opening question would be if the UK Government published this bill in September 2022, what has been the delay in getting it to us now? I recognise that you are making, Mr Finlay. This is a challenging time table that we have to operate to, but it reflects, broadly speaking, three elements. One is just the complexity and nature of the bill. It is a very long bill. Two is the multilateral nature of engagement that has taken place between the Scottish Government, both ministerial and official level. The third point is, of course, that this has been subject to a significant number of amendments up to and including at the end of April. That has meant that, in terms of achieving clarity and getting to a position where we can consider the LCM as we are doing today, it has been challenging. Indeed, the LCM is, we obviously highlight, in some specific areas where we are still seeking to reach the desired outcome with the UK Government. I would add, though, that this is just a reflection of a very complex piece of legislation that has been subject to a significant number of amendments. It does, of course, impinge upon devolved competence, so the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government, have had a role in that. I think that it is really just a reflection of that complexity and the volume of amendments and the amount of constructive engagement that has been going on that has meant that it has taken out that we find ourselves in the situation that we are this morning. Of course, I have expected that there might be broader lessons that we can reflect on in terms of the process between UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament and UK and Scottish Governments, but sometimes just with a piece of legislation of this complexity some of that might be unavoidable. My next question, which is, is this the end of the process, is the end of the road? If we do not agree to this today, or if we put an option for us to put it in ice, there is still room for negotiation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. We are continuing to engage with the UK Government on these outstanding issues that I highlighted earlier. Of course, the timetable for this legislation will be determined at Westminster and that is something that we have to, a context within which we have to operate. I do not know if George will want to come out more broadly on process, on timetabling, where we are and when the bill will reach its next stage in the Lord's Commons. Yes, as the minister said, there is engagement probably later this week with UK ministers on those remaining small number of outstanding points. Our hope would be that, if agreement is reached there and the UK Government does bring forward some further amendments to make those adjustments, we would then be able to come forward with a supplementary legislative consent memorandum and indicate agreement to the whole bill. The timescale, though, is not in our hands. Lord's Committee has been completed. It will be heading to Lord's report. I do not think that a date has yet been said for that. Given the number of amendments that have been made in the Lord's, the bill will of course have to return to the Commons, so there are still a number of amending stages to go. We are not quite at the end of the road. Hopefully, this approach will mean that we are able to do this in two bites. Today, on the main legislative consent memorandum and a much shorter and simpler supplementary one later, had we come to the Parliament at a much earlier stage, we would have probably been indicating a much larger number of areas that we still had outstanding issues with and possibly two or three or four coming back round the course. That might be more of a procedural point for the clerks, but if the committee does not support the legislative consent motion today, I do not know if that is competent or feasible, we can revisit it if we have time to do so. I touched upon the impact that you have been in talks with the Home Office in regard to the impact that it has on devolved areas. I particularly wanted to focus in on any impact assessments that it has had on the charitable sector. Oskar, given that that is a devolved area, has been known quite widely that charitable sector and also trusts have been widely used for money laundering. I wonder if you could touch upon that. Yes, I think that that in a way draws attention to where, where there is the general reservation on business associations beyond that, it strays in to devolve competency, which has triggered the legislative consent process. There is not much that I can add on that. Certainly, from my point of view, you are dealing with the process, we certainly did not consult with the Charities Commission, I am not sure the extent to which the UK Government consulted either. The reason why I am asking number two hats here is the convener for social justice. We are just about to put through the Charities Bill, and it has been a big focus on Oskar and the reporting aspects of it, so that would have a knock-on effect. Maybe the other policy officials that are dealing with trusts may have had that, so we can check that out with them. I have a specific question for you to follow up in correspondence, just to clarify. Do you say that the general broad engagement that took place in the preparation of the legislation was undertaken by the UK Government as a UK Government Bill? You highlight an area where devolve competence comes into play, hence the LSTM. However, as we have said previously, we generally try to have as much coherence with the regimes across the UK. Given that, that is part of the best way to affect the desired outcome that we all share. Thank you. Any other members who wish to come in with any questions? On that note, thank you very much minister, and we'll just have a short pause to let minister and his officials leave. Thank you very much. Thanks very much members. Our next item of business is consideration of any issues for our final report on the LCM. I would just like to open it up to members to come in with any issues that you wish to be included in the committee's report on the LCM. I'm just going to open it up to members. I just wondered if the report could reflect that it's clear that there's positive dialogue between the two Governments, which is helpful in this scenario, given the subject matter. However, there are clearly some on-going mopping up to do, which I don't have any particular view on for the Governments to decide clearly there's been some movement already and some of the amendments proposed by the Scottish Government. I think that's fair and due process. I think the point that Russell made was a very important one, and it was quite a meaty report. It only appeared in our papers this week, but it was then followed up very light in the day yesterday with the DPLR report. It is complex and technical of an HRD. I would request where possible that we could ask the Government to give us advanced notice of complex LCMs as far in advance as possible to give members time to read what turned into worn piece committee papers this week. I think that that would be helpful. It would mean that we would perhaps even spend less time in session discussing it. Thank you very much. Any other comments at all? Okay. Russell. Just to pretty much repeat that, but also to understand what is expected of us today, what our options are. I'm not sure I'm entirely clear. I'll probably, Stephen, articulate that better than me, so I'll hand over to Stephen just to outline some next steps. The question really for the committee in terms of where you stand and timing at this stage you're being asked whether or not you want to make a recommendation to Parliament on the issue of consent and specifically the Scottish Government has set out its views as they stand at this point on the provisions that they're recommending consent for those except in one area in the way that the minister outlined. So this morning you can decide whether you agree or disagree with that, or alternatively perhaps you might decide that you're not in a position to make that recommendation at this point just given the time you've had available to consider the matter. Mr Burgess, though, did say that he expected negotiations to be ongoing and that there would be a supplementary legislative consent memorandum to emerge at some point on the negotiations that are still ongoing. So an option might be for you to agree with the Government at this point, but await the supplementary legislative consent memorandum and then consider that before making final conclusions on the matters that are still outstanding. Sorry, Stephen, it's almost like a panel. Is that a question for yourself? Based on that last option you said there, if we agree, but wait, is that as effectively consenting to what was put in front of us today, which is where I would probably want to be, or is it consenting to it with provisions? To be clear, the issue of consent is a matter for Parliament as a whole rather than this committee, so it's what recommendation you want to make. So an option available to you is to agree with the Government now, agree to recommend consent to the provisions that the Scottish Government is currently happy with and await the outcome of the negotiations that are still ongoing, and then make your views clear on those provisions when you see the supplementary memorandum. So you'd recommend it, you're with the Government at this point, but you await the outcomes of those negotiations and then look to see what the Government is saying about those negotiations. The question of when this goes to Parliament, I don't have information to you that that would be a matter for the Bureau. I suspect that the Parliament would await the outcome of those ongoing negotiations rather than agree consent up to a certain point and then have to agree again for what remains, but I don't know that for sure. We'd have to wait to see what the Parliamentary Bureau recommended to Parliament. I hope that's clear. Yeah, no, that's helpful. Collette, did you want to come in? No, no. Okay, thank you. Sorry, I saw your hand up. Russell? Yeah, thank you. Just come back to what Stephen suggested. I mean, it could be that this is nothing to worry about. It probably is nothing to worry about, but given the complexity and the last minute nature, it would be nice I think if we could have the option that was suggested, which is, we agree, in principle, but we have the option to revisit it once the negotiations have concluded. Okay, thanks for that. That's helpful. I mean, I think we're broadly all very supportive of the Bill, the provisions within the Bill, the spirit and the content of the LCM, where it appears that the Scottish Government and UK Governments have certainly been engaging regularly and are almost there, I think, in terms of the provisions as they impact on Scotland. I agree with the comments that have been made in and around the very tight timescales. There is a lot for us to get our heads around and understand, but I think on the basis that we are in agreement with the direction of travel with this, what I would propose to do is, obviously, thank you for raising the issues, because that's very helpful for us in terms of what we include in our report. Just so that I'm clear where the committee is, my question is that if the committee agrees at the moment, at this point in time, that the Scottish Parliament should give its consent to the provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, as they've been set out in the draft motion, but perhaps include reference to the fact that we understand that there will be further amendments considered and that they will potentially, in all likelihood, come back for further consideration. Are members in agreement to that? Why were we there? Is that clear? I think that what we'll do is, given that this is not just the most straightforward LCM, we'll move on in the agenda and then we can circulate some more helpful wording that I can just cover off in order to be clear where members are in terms of our recommendation and next steps. Who are members in agreement with that? Fulton? Can I just say, just for the public record, based on what I heard today both from the minister, the questions that colleagues asked, the papers and Stephen's explanation, that I'm quite happy with your approach, but I'm happy at this stage as a member to consent to what was asked of today. I just felt that that would be worth putting in the record, but your approach is fine if that's going to lead to a similar conclusion anyway. I think that we're all on the same page with this. I just want to be absolutely clear with what our recommendation is, and so we'll just come back to that in a moment. Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to our next agenda item, and that is our consideration of follow-up correspondence received as part of our regular review of our action plan and the priorities for reform of the justice sector in this session. I refer members to paper 2, and within that we have responses from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service, COSLA, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum, and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I'd like to record our thanks to all those organisations for their comprehensive replies, and so just for ease of reference, I'll go through each of the replies in turn and just open it up to members if you want to make any observations or comments on them. Obviously, the first one is the Scottish Government response. Okay, lots in here, but I'm sure others will cover some other ground. In respect of the assessment of the new HMPs sterling in the two new community custody units for women, during our visit to prison yesterday, we were told that Glasgow University had just been awarded a contract to conduct this assessment work, so it may be that the minister's response was prior to that being known, but it might just be worth noting or exploring that further, what are the terms of the process and when is it likely to conclude and so on. I'm assuming it won't begin until July because that's the apparent opening of HMPs sterling. And there's another thing here, in respect of the numbers of young people in secure accommodation. Now, I can't remember what we asked, if this is correct. We only asked about numbers that deals with it, page 5, but I thought we'd perhaps ask more around about the funding arrangements because from the evidence we heard essentially, if or as in when, the provision to not send young people into prison, but to use secure accommodation happens, that will put a greater strain on the limited number of beds there are. As a consequence of that, if we understand it correctly, others elsewhere in the UK who are paying more for these beds, it might have some kind of impact on where the funding would come from to subsidise it in Scotland. I suppose my only response to that would be numbers can change almost day to day or week to week, so if you're specifically looking for that information just bearing that in mind. It's not as much the numbers which are fluid, it's more just the inevitability of more Scottish spaces being required and they're paying less and the providers have already given evidence to the effect that this would have an impact on their ability to be viable. This is on the letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, dated 6 April, is that correct? First of all, it's six weeks perhaps out of date, so I know we've had a lot on as a committee with legislation so we haven't been able to look at it, so there may be things in here that already have been updated since then, so apologies to the Cabinet Secretary if she's watching. At first there's obviously the court backlog and I just wanted to query something because we've spent a lot of time over the last year or so talking about clearing the backlog as such, but my understanding of the response here is that the intention to clear the backlog essentially means returning to what is an acceptable backlog rather than what I would consider clearing the backlog as to a net scenario. The number given here in the paper is that the aim is to return to a point where the number of cases across courts is 20,000, which I presume would be what is deemed an acceptable pre-Covid level of backlog. I want to query that because I guess what I'm asking the Government is, are they stating therefore that a normal backlog would be 20,000 and that's the ambition to get to that level rather than to actually clear it in any shape or form, so all we're doing is clearing the delta between what was already a backlog before Covid and then what that was increased to over the period, so I just want to set expectations because we talk quite openly about the issue of curing backlogs and I don't think really the public fully understand that what the Government is trying to do is not clear the backlog as simply to get back to what they think is an acceptable backlog, which is 20,000 cases in the system, which is still a lot and still there were lengthy delays in the system before Covid, so I don't think that's an acceptable response actually. I think we should be pushing for a slightly more ambitious approach from SCTS and the Government on that. I am aware and I can't pre-empt the outcome of what it will say, but I understand that there's an Audit Scotland report on this due out imminently that will give us an update to what is here from the 6th April. I guess one of the things I'm quite keen to see is where there has been improvement in the clearing of cases that we look carefully, perhaps even as soon as in the next couple of weeks, as to what that data shows us in terms of the clearing across the Solomon summary cases and the cases which are still deemed to be difficult to clear quickly. I suspect that although I haven't seen the report but that will tell us exactly that, that those most serious cases including those of serious violence, murder and sexual crime are still taking considerable period of time and I'll be looking to see what the updated expectation is for clearing those. Jumping head to a point that Russell Finlay raised on the number of young people being held in adult institutions, the response on the 6th April said that there were eight under-18-year-olds held in a YOI. A couple of paragraphs down though, it states that there clearly is occupancy and secure accommodation. The statistics are helpful, but I guess the wider question is why are there under-18-year-olds and YOIs of which seven are clearly on remand when there are places in secure accommodation. I may be misreading the information that we've been given, but that doesn't add up. If there are spaces in either the independent secure accommodation network or otherwise across the network, why are there still people in YOIs that the Government doesn't want to be in those places? I know that it changes on a daily basis, but there seems to still to be a pattern there that needs to be addressed. On the next page, which is page 6 of our papers on misuse of drugs, the work on DTTOs, the Government talked about the review and the final report on areas for consideration, and it says that we expect a report to be published in spring 2023. I wonder if that report has been published since the letter was produced. Maybe we've missed it. It's due shortly. My worry is that if we take spring 2023 to be the language of Government, that could be as light as perhaps the last week of June, which is technically supposed when summer starts, which leaves us no time to look at it as a committee between now and September. I'd be keen to get an off-the-record track knowledge of when that might be published. If we could look at it before summer recess, that would be very helpful. The next point that I wanted to raise is around the issue of deaths in Custody on page 7. The Scottish Government said that it has no intention to create an online centralized system where delivery of the recommendations can be tracked. There is a short response from the Government on that, but it clearly is sticking to that position. I think that the problem that we have with that is that the families of those who've sadly lost their life in Custody are looking for much, much more than one paragraph of a review with respect to Ms Emory. There cannot be lessons learned if there is no sense—I mean, this is one of our committee recommendations that would be a centralized system of tracking recommendations and progress to recommendations. It seems to be that every time there's an FAI or an investigation into death in Custody, many of the same recommendations come out time after time, year after year. We're quite good at tracking progress of the Government on whether it's doing what it said it would do, but it's disappointing in this response. I think that this response will become a disappointment to the families who are asking for Government to do more and for lessons truly to be learned. I'm hoping that the Government might expand on more of the work that it is doing to give some comfort to those families. My last point is around legal aid reform, and that's specifically the legal aid reform bill. Again, the Government just says that it's committed to reforming the current system of legal aid, and we'll do so within this parliamentary session in my conversations with solicitors that they can't wait until 2026 for this reform. There is obviously some temporary measures in place around fees, but that's not a sustainable position nor does it provide any long-term comfort to those in that profession. I'm hoping that the Cabinet Secretary could elaborate on what this parliamentary session means from a timetabling point of view, given how busy the Parliament and indeed our committee are already, assuming that Bill came to this committee. I'm hoping that that will be sooner rather than later in the session so that we can do it justice and give stakeholders an opportunity to get involved in that process. That's all for this letter. Thank you, convener. I've got three points. First is the continuation of Jamie Dean's points, which I wholly agree with. What matters here is getting the delay in relation to weeks. The 95 act is clear that it's 110 days, 140 days. Anything above that is contrary to the 95 act, so I don't really know what. You can see that there's a drop in the number of cases, so it looks like the delay is reducing, but I think that the committee needs to see what that looks like. How many weeks on average would you be waiting for a rape case, a sexual offence case or whatever in the courts? The second point relates also to Russell Finlay's point about our visit yesterday. It is my overall impression, and I won't say too much until I've read my notes and considered it in some detail. It was extremely impressive, I have to say, as the previous visits have been, but my concern is two points, which I think the committee really needs to drill down further into. The first is that the model, in my view, of following the Angelina report, could be undermined by the numbers of places within the settling estate being 100. It was supported as 80, but yes, I was clearly told 100 because I wrote it down. So there's two units that we know of to be assessed, but the report recommended five. The result of that means that some women, as we discussed yesterday, will be in male jails, albeit in women's wings of male jails. I totally accept, as a geographical dimension, to this, at Grampian, for example. I say no more than that because it's beyond my knowledge, but I am concerned that it's going to undermine if only a percentage of women end up being part of the estate which is designed to change the way we treat women's offending. So I'd like to just lay that concern as something the committee should come back to. Third is, again, the same point as Jamie Greene about deaths in custody. What is not mentioned in this report, if you go back to it, for me, one of the primary recommendations is for families to have unfettered access to information following a death in custody. So this is really important because FAIs take so long. Many families have complained that they don't get immediate access to knowing what happened and to ask questions, so that particular recommendation is really important to families. I guess that it's just perhaps a follow-up convener with Gillian Imre, who's cheering it, to ask, well, what conversation is she having? That's my particular interest, but just for completeness, I have asked in the past, when it's come to Parliament, for Cabinet Secretary to explain how unfettered access is going to cut across police investigation. That's just why it's not all it's set out to be, because I think it could be problematic, but it's important for families who see that recommendation that it's followed through. Okay, thank you. Just before I bring in Katie, just to pick up on the points that you made, Jamie and Pauline, about the backlog. I don't know, and it's something probably should know, if the backlog means just the number of open cases that are in the court system at any one time, or if I'm interpreting that wrongly. So I think there is maybe some merit in us just clarifying what that is. If it is just open cases, then I would imagine that there has been work done around that figure of 20,000 being a kind of acceptable sort of court workload, if you like, but I'm quite happy for us to check that and confirm that. In terms of your points about YUIs, Jamie, in terms of the numbers that are in YUI, that would have been a decision of the court, and obviously just the children Cairn Justice Bill hasn't been enacted yet, so perhaps there's still a bit of a lag in terms of seeing those numbers starting to change. I'm happy to check on progress in terms of the DTTO report that you flagged, and in terms of your comments on following our visit yesterday, Pauline. I think we did have a helpful discussion with SPS on the models. Obviously, there was reference to an evaluation process that will be coming forward. I think you mentioned that earlier, Russell, in and around the CCUs. My understanding was that that would incorporate a wider focus. I could be wrong with that, but I'm happy to track that. In terms of the points that you've made about death and custody, I'm happy to follow that up with Jill Emery. Thank you, convener. In relation to the secure units, the officials did say quite clearly that, currently, when they gave evidence that there wasn't any 16 or 17-year-olds who legally could be moved into secure units because of the disposal of the court, I think it would be helpful to ask confirmation from the Scottish Government that that remains the case, and that commitment that that will continue to be the case that 16 and 17-year-olds will be held in secure units wherever possible. If, for whatever reason, that was not possible, if the committee could be advised, if they could write to us to alert us to the fact that there had been a change, the further point that I was wanting to make relates to the issues around data and women in custody that we've discussed many times. The committee has expressed concern on numerous occasions, both publicly and in our private sessions, about the lack of data that's available to us and the difficulty in us carrying out our scrutiny work when we don't have an understanding of the profile and the nature of the people who are being incarcerated in this country. In relation to women, the intention of the Scottish Government seems to be to reduce the number of women in custody, but the reality is that we know that the numbers of women in custody are currently increasing, and there seems to be concern that they are going to continue to increase. It would be helpful to get more information from the Scottish Government about the profile of women being held in custody and the reasons why there might be an increase. There might be a range of reasons for that, and I don't want to speculate here as to what they might be, but I do think that we need to get an explanation from the Scottish Government as to why that is. It's far from clear whether the bail bill will make any difference to the numbers being remanded. We were told yesterday that the current figure of women who are on remand within the prison estate is 37 per cent, which is a high level. It's very unclear that the bail bill will make any difference to that, but it would be useful to get information from the Scottish Government as to whether it believes that that legislation will make any difference to the numbers of women being held on remand and to have an understanding of why it remains the case that so many women are being held within the prison estate. We know that the new custody units, at maximum, have only had a capacity of 53 per cent, which tells us that, at other times, they've been less than half full. We should be expressing concern about that. As a committee, I think that we should be writing—I fully understand that that issue is now being raised and that the Scottish Prison Service is looking at the issue, but those custody units have been open since August. The committee was very impressed by what we saw when we went to visit them. There clearly has been a massive investment both financially but also in other ways in those facilities. It's important that they are a success, so I think that we should be expressing in the strongest terms our concerns about the fact that they have not been used to their full capacity. We should be calling for urgent action in relation to that. We know that people are putting custody because of the legislative framework but also because of the lack of alternatives to custody. In relation to the alternative to remand reference group, we need a great deal more detail about what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that there are genuine and robust alternatives to custody. We know, for example, that often people who are given community service orders are not required to carry out the measures that they have been sentenced to. We need to see a shifting of resources into alternatives to custody if the Scottish Government is going to be successful in enabling the courts to dispose of cases in another way. We know when we look at the budgets that the money is not being put in there and the direction of travel is in the wrong direction. The amount of money that is being put into alternatives to custody is going down rather than up. We should be expressing in the strongest terms to the Scottish Government the need to shift resources now if they are going to have any success in their stated strategy. I think that you are right that there are positives. There are opportunities and challenges. I note your point about data collection and that will be relevant to our next piece of work around the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Bill. Note all your extensive comments in and around the women's prison estate. I think that there is a role for the committee and we will look to take that forward either as part of our work programme or as an additional piece of work. Just conscious of the time, we have still got a number of pieces of correspondence to work through, so I will bring in Rona. I agree with a lot, if not all, of what Katie was saying there. Regarding the custody units, I have heard that it may be an issue of eligibility and criteria for women to get there, so I think that it would be useful to ask what is that eligibility? Has it been set too high and is the criteria not realistic? We need to definitely chase that up and Katie's points about remand and data. I was just to reinforce that we have talked about the young people in YOIs instead of secure care when there is capacity. I can't understand that, so I think that it would be useful to find out why that is happening, albeit it might change when the new legislation goes through, but it really shouldn't be happening now anyway. The other thing is to say that a thread running throughout a lot of the responses is reference to reviews and reports being published in spring. It might be helpful for us to have a like a wee table of stuff for yourself to have. I don't want to put more work on the clerks or maybe Spice could do it, just what's coming or what's late or what's expected so that we know because there are so many reviews and reports that are just out there, so thank you. That's helpful, Rona. Just to flag, one of the things that we covered yesterday was the evaluation on the CCUs that will be coming forward, so I'm sure that's of interest to yourself. Note your point about YOIs and I think that that's probably a helpful suggestion in and around just being prepared for what's coming down the line. We have five more letters to consider and a lot to get through this morning. I absolutely don't want to curtail debate, as you know, but I wonder if I can maybe just ask members if there are specific points of follow-up or remarks that you want to make on the other pieces of correspondence, then I'll bring you in just in the spirit of time. I think Russell first, then Katie, then Collette. I'll be quick, and it's very specific questions that's relating to the in-cell telephones that refer to in this letter. The letter's day-to-day promise says that all establishments should be completed by the end of April and the last month, so it would be useful to know if that's the case and I think the context is also important. We know that more than £4 million was spent providing mobile phones due initially to Covid, but we also know that this was abused in more than 7,000 different occasions by more than 4,000 prisoners and we're also used in the commission of some serious crimes. I suppose the questions are the cost of the in-cell telephony. Does this replace the mobile phones or will they be running in tandem? I think it's safe to assume it replaces them, but it doesn't actually state that. If it is the latter, then how much would that cost to run both these schemes? Crucially, given the problems around the mobile phones that we were told would not happen and did happen, what measures are the SPS taking to ensure that the in-cell telephony will not be abused in the same way? Okay, that's noted. Thank you very much. Katie, briefly. Points relate to the letter from the Scottish Prison Service dated 26 April and again it relates to data. The terms of this letter are very general, but they do relate to areas where the Scottish Prison Service, as I understand it, do have data. When Theresa Metters appeared before us on a previous occasion, she said that there was more data that the Scottish Prison Service could provide to us. We can't wait for the victims' bill to get more data to be able to do the job that we've been tasked with. I would suggest that we do write to Theresa Metters and ask if she could look at what the Scottish Prison Service could currently share with us, because she made it very clear that there was further data that would be available. I'm understanding from talking to people within the system that there is a great deal more data that we've not seen that could easily be shared with us, so I think that we should write and make specific requests. Thanks, Katie. I think that we can maybe have a wider discussion about that in agenda item 6. Okay, thank you. Collette, I think that you wanted to come in. Yeah, it's really on-purpose selectivity. There's a comment that says that there's undertaken a post-Covid recovery activity review. I would just be keen to follow that up and find out exactly what they're doing. The other thing that I picked up on is that it includes work placements outside the prison, so that would be relating to the open prison. It was touched upon before that the open estate had only been used 50 per cent capacity. I became to know I monitored that and see if that's increased, or why it's still not full capacity. Okay, I'm aware that's been a gradual trend in terms of capacity in the open prison estate, so I'm happy to follow that up and ask for a bit more information. Any other points that anybody wants to make on any of the correspondence? Jamie, then? Nope, Jamie. Yeah, I'll try and rattle through then. On the letter that we just discussed from prison service, I had the same question as Russell Finlay on incel telephony. The second is around purposeful activity. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what the reality is versus what the law says. It very much gives the impression that purposeful activity is available to all prisoners. That was a point that was reiterated in last week's bail and release from custody scrutiny, where the cabinet secretary just wanted to check the official report. Prison rules do not exclude remand prisoners from work or purposeful activity, and the prison service will, where possible, offer access to work and educational opportunities to those on remand. I just wondered what the reality is on the ground versus what it says in this letter and what we were told. There seems to be at least, if nothing else, a perception that remand prisoners participate in much less purposeful activity, including education, counselling and training, and indeed work. I appreciate there's a difference between forcing someone to do work and whether or not they're sentenced versus someone who's on remand, but I think that we just need a bit more clarity around that because it's a bit unclear. There seems to be two different worlds that exist in terms of perception reality. I don't think that we can look at correspondence without noting the letter from COSLA, which is quite detailed. We've obviously put a lot of work and time into this in conjunction with their community justice partners. I think that it's quite stark in their letter. It makes it clear through what we already know, through the budget analysis, is that practically every other aspect of the justice sector received an improvement in the 23-24 budget compared to the 22-23 budget, with the exception of criminal justice social work, which had a flat cash settlement despite their pre-budget scrutiny warning or the consequences of that. They go into great detail in the letter which I won't go into about what those consequences might look like, but it is effectively quite a substantial real terms cut year on year in the criminal justice social work budget. The problem is that they make it clear that that makes it incredibly difficult for them and their local council partners to deliver the Scottish Government's own vision for justice, national strategy for community justice. In their own words, it widens the existing implementation gap between national policies and local delivery. I know that that sounds like technical jargon, but it's a really important point. It's all very well having a national ambition, but if the people on the ground are tasked to deliver that, and we can't do it with what you've given us, then there's an issue there, and I quite like the Government to respond in detail to this specific letter from COSLA and local criminal justice social work. I think that this is the sort of letter that the Government ought to be replying to them and including us in that response. It's not just a money conversation, it goes into other conversations about workload and people retiring, etc. The last point was around the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service letter, which was short and sweet. I know that the Deputy Assistant Chief Officer said that 50 per cent of all operational staff had voluntarily conducted training on overdose awareness and such like. It wasn't quite clear from the letter how many operational staff actually participate in the scheme or carry the pouches with the product, administering naloxone, so there must be a difference between those that have done the training and those that actively called the product. It just says that there's clearly been limited progress, but 50 per cent doesn't sound like limited progress, so there's clearly a delta between those doing the training and those actually carrying the product. It would be helpful if they could have been a bit more explicit with that. I'm slightly nervous by the language that says that a delivery plan will be in place once broader agreement to deploy is confirmed, with whom presumably that would be those front-line workers or indeed their union representatives. It's a bit unclear. I can only read between the lines there, but if they could keep us up to date on that, it would be very helpful. Thank you very much. I'm a bit covered there. I'm happy to share the correspondence that we received from COSLA. You're right. It was very comprehensive. It was very, very helpful. I'm happy to share that with the Government. We can, of course, monitor progress with the Scottish Mire and Rescue Service in relation to their roll-out of naloxone. Thank you very much for those points, I think, very quickly. Are we finishing up, or have we referred to these other lessons? I was saying that if you have points, specifically points of action in relation to the other correspondence, you can just flag them, and then we will note those to take them away. There was one thing in the SETS letter, page 31. It says, SETS successfully achieved customer service excellence. No idea what that is. It would be quite good to know. We've asked them about the complaints process, and they've told us how wonderful it all is, but there's no data on how many complaints, how they're resolved, are they going up or down, et cetera. That might be quite interesting. There's a few other things that would cause LANS-SFRS, but I'll leave it's now. Okay, thank you very much, Members. That concludes our scrutiny of our correspondence on the action plan. We'll move on to agenda item 5, which is consideration of a negative instrument, the discontinuance of Cortenbroil Prison Scotland order 2023. That's SSI number 132 of 2023. I refer members to paper number 3. Before we discuss this, I just want to thank Teresa Methurst and our team at the Scottish Prison Service for a really interesting and informative visit to the new national women's prison at HMP YUI Stirling earlier this week. It was really good to visit the prison before it's open and learn a bit more about how it will differ from the previous facility at Cortenbroil in particular around the more trauma-informed and person-centred environment that women will be in once the prison opens. The purpose of the instrument before us today is to formally discontinue the prison of Cortenbroil on 6 June 2023, the day the order comes into force. The discontinuance order is the formal legal act required to reflect that a prison has ceased to operate. Can I ask if members have any recommendations that they wish to make in relation to the SSI, which will otherwise come into force? A very quick comment. I also wanted to put on record the appreciation of the trip to the prison yesterday and the official that answered so many questions. It was fascinating and seeing the new building alongside the old one kind of puts contrasts quite well. However, it is also worth putting on record the appreciation of the staff. There was a board in the new prison showing some members of staff of Cortenbroil with a 40-year service and some 30 and some 20. It is also worth noting that, over the years, many women took their own lives in Cortenbroil and just to note that as well. First of all, I apologise for being unable to make that. I wonder if the SPS would be willing to host members of the committee who were unable to meet that visit. It would be very interesting to get a proper tour of it perhaps once it is operational. I know that that makes it slightly more difficult, but there is certainly a willingness among members to go back or attend for the first time. I had a question around, obviously, that this is a legal SSI, which means that the prison can only be used as a prison building itself site. I wonder if the Government has indicated what its plans are for the building or the wider site, and that may have been answered yesterday. It probably was actually, I imagine, sort of thing somewhere around that. I think it was, but I've forgotten what it was. It's no longer being used as a prison. What will it do, just to be demolished in Government property? Essentially, as we saw yesterday on, I would say, about three quarters of the site, that's all been knocked down and replaced by the new HNP-Y-O-I sterling. There are a couple of buildings that remain of the old Corten Vale, but they indicated yesterday that those two will be removed over the next year and replaced by new parts of HNP sterling. Essentially on what used to be the same site and the same existing footprint, all the previous buildings relating to Corten Vale are taken down, demolished and replaced by new buildings for HNP sterling. I'm sure that that will become clear when I do get to visit. Thank you for that. We can certainly follow up on your request in terms of the visit. I think it would be very worthwhile for members. Pauline, and then Fulton. Just to add to what other members have said, it was an excellent visit in John Docherty, who has hosted us twice now, answered thousands of questions and found it really informative. Just for completeness, convener, I mentioned this earlier. We were clearly told that there was 100 places and I just wanted to note for the record that the note that we've got says this included a new national president for 80 women, so there's disparity of 20 somewhere along the line. Pick that up, thanks. Thank you, and Fulton. Yeah, thanks, convener. Just like others, I wanted to take this opportunity to put something on the record and what I think is actually quite a historic moment and possibly and hopefully a real change in culture about how we deal with women's custody and justice in Scotland. Obviously, Cônton Vale frame dates at any involvement in the criminal justice system, either as a user of services or of working in that sector. Cônton Vale is synonymous with Scottish justice and therefore almost a household name, as Russell Findlay alluded to, not always, over the years with the best reputation, but that has nothing to do with staff and such like the work that I want to put on record, my thanks to staff, but I think what we are seeing now is a real change in how we approach women in the criminal justice system and that can only be welcomed, but given the institution's status in Scottish society, I thought it was important that I also put on record my acknowledgement of that change and my thanks to all staff who have worked here over the years and what must have been some very difficult circumstances. I certainly would also put my grateful thanks to Scottish Prison Service and staff for their commitment over the years at Cônton Vale, and we certainly look forward to hearing about progress as the new facility opens. Thank you very much indeed, members, so that concludes our business in public this morning. We will now move into private session. We will take a short comfort break.