 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9-621, in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the bail and release from custody Scotland bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button. I call on Martin Whitfield to move the motion. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the bail and release from custody Scotland bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 16A, the marshaled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after any debate and that subsequent divisions will be 45 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons or enter the letters RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. I would advise members that there will be some comfort breaks and members will be notified of the timings and duration of the same in due course. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments and we turn to group 1 decisions on bail, relevant information. I call amendment 67 in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pauline McNeill to move amendment 67 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 67 in my name. The focus of the bill is to limit custody to those who pose a risk to the public safety of when it is necessary to prevent significant risk of prejudice so that it clearly benefits to reducing the damaging effects of short term detention. Section 1 of the bill requires just the social work to be given the opportunity to provide information to the court when making decisions about bail. Interesting to note the language of the bill is that the opportunity is a mandatory opportunity, but what I do think is a good intention. I have raised this at stage 2. I was concerned about the inconsistencies of the provision of just the social work across different courts across the country because in Glasgow we are well served and other parts of Scotland we are not. That opportunity is not going to be equal across the country. Amendment 67 replaces the requirement that the court must request information from just the social work to make this discretionary and insert may request information from just the social work. In the written submission to the Government, the Senators of the College of Justice stated that there were many occasions in which such input is plainly irrelevant and on the imposition of a statutory requirement to seek your report in certain circumstances would seem inappropriate. For example, if a person is charged with a series of fines of violence and has a significant record of similar offending, there on the face of it is very little prospect that that person would be granted bail. In such cases it is difficult to see that any purpose in requiring the court to seek a report with attendant delay demands upon the resources of the social work department. David Fraser of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service also noted that if just the social work reports were required in every case, then they would create the potential for reports not being available when they are required in court. I would like the Parliament to know, in my exchange with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, as the age 2, that she clearly set out helpfully that there was no intention of the provision to delay any proceedings of the court in this manner, although some people had thought to that. However, it just seemed to me that, given that, it would make more sense to say that there may be an opportunity rather than there must be an opportunity because it does not have to be taken up in every single case. My amendment removes the statutory requirement to seek a report and set out a degree of discretion depending on the context of the case and the history of the alleged offender. I now call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 15 and other amendments in the group. Before I speak to my amendments in this group, I would like to thank the victim support organisations and others who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard in this process. I appreciate that we will not all agree on everything today, but I am grateful to them for their insight and expertise, and I refer members to my register of interests. Amendments 15, 16 and 21 focus on the new victim safety element of the proposed bail test. I have listened carefully to the voices of victims' organisations throughout the scrutiny process who rightly wish to ensure that the court has full information, as full information is possible about victim safety concerns at the time of the bail decision, including decisions on special conditions of bail at a time that decision is being made. My amendment 15 aims to help strengthen this area. In particular, amendment 15 adds to the court's general power to seek further information that is relevant to the bail decision from the prosecutor, the accused's legal representative or, as amended by the bill, justice social work, by expressly enabling the court to ask the prosecutor to provide it with information in relation to the risk of harm to the complainer. Amendment 15 makes it clear where victim safety is a relevant consideration in a case before the court, for example in cases of domestic abuse or sexual offending. Then the court can ask the prosecutor for additional information to help it to make a determination on bail. The amendment also serves to emphasise to the court the importance of the victim safety element of the new bail test and being as fully informed as possible when making bail decisions. Amendments 16 and 21 are consequential to amendment 15. Amendment 16 is a technical amendment necessary if amendment 15 is accepted. It makes minor and technical amendments to the amendment in section 1, 3C of the bill to reflect that subsection 7 of 23B will no longer immediately follow subsection 6 of 23B. Amendment 21 amends the definitional power in section 2, 2C of the bill to ensure that the definitions of complainer, harm and psychological harm also apply for the purpose of the new section 23B, bracket 6A, that I am proposing to be inserted into the criminal procedure Scotland Act 1995. Presiding Officer, I ask that members support amendments 15, 16 and 21. I now call on Casey Clark to speak to amendments 68 and other amendments in the group. I move amendment 68 in my name, which focuses on the resources local authorities need to provide justice social work. It requires the Scottish Government to report on the operation of section 1 of the bill and the impact on local authorities. In particular, whether they have adequate resources to meet the requirements of the legislation or whether further resources are required, and if so, what action is needed to be taken to address that? The amendment requires the Scottish Government to consult both local authorities and any professional bodies representing social workers in preparation of the report. The background is that funding for justice social worker has been flat over the last three years, a real terms cut of £86.5 million. Social Work Scotland has said that members report that waiting times for assessments, support and treatment are all increasing, and in some social work teams over 30 per cent of positions are unfilled. Unison Scotland has said that justice social workers are faced with some of the highest caseloads and that many local authorities are scaling back social work services as a result of real terms cuts in local government funding. It is clear that the Scottish Government wishes to enhance the role of justice social work in the provision of information to the courts, and Scottish Labour also wants to see that. However, it is difficult to see how that can happen without additional resource. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary acknowledged the budgetary challenges when I put down the same amendment and said that introduction of the legislation would be phased. However, the financial memorandum does not recognise the very serious cost and resource implications of those proposals. It is not possible to lodge amendments to require the funding needed for adequate resourcing, so this amendment has been put down to ensure focus and scrutiny on the resourcing issues. I now call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 19 and other amendments in the group. I also put on record my party's thanks to all those organisations who have worked with committee members and others over the passage of this bill. This is a bill of two parts. In my view, part 1 is the substantive part. It is the part of the bill that deals with that pivotal moment when a judge has to make a decision on whether to remand someone into custody or bail them on release back into society, often with conditions attached. That is a very grave and difficult decision. As we go through the next couple of groups, I want to make it clear that I think that there has been little doubt as to what the real intention of the bill more generally is, which is to reduce the remand population in Scottish prisons. However, the question that I sought to answer from day 1 was a simple one. Is that the stated intention of the legislation or the inferred one? It is not an earthing that. We need to look at what the response has been to the proposals from the Government, by the judiciary, by victims' organisations, by justice practitioners or courts or police, but most importantly by victims themselves. This afternoon, I will present a series of amendments that I think deal with some of the deficiencies in the bill, even at this late stage. Indeed, I go as far as saying that when this bill was published, we spent far too long talking about improving the experience of the accused or the offender than of the victims and complainers. I sought to redress that imbalance at stage 2, and I am doing the same today at stage 3. I do not think that we can vote against amendments today which change our bail system and which will put families or victims at any greater risk than they currently are. The onus is on all of us, as members, to look considerably at the amendments before us, not to reflect on the source of the amendments but on the content of them. That is an ask that I make of all of us today. I have worked extremely closely with Victim Support Scotland, which will feature often in my comments today, in the production of my own amendments. I am really grateful for their support and for their backing for most of them. That leads me to my very first set of amendments. Amendment 19 will add a provision to the bill that will allow the complainer, if he wants to, to make representations to the court during that bail hearing regarding how they will be impacted if the accused person is granted or refused bail. Note that I make extra care to ensure that the word may is used in this amendment and not the word must. I absolutely do not want complainers in those scenarios to feel forced or be forced to make representations when they are not comfortable to do so or it is not relevant to them. This amendment will not force them to do that. I also wanted to make sure that the wording of this amendment was broad in the use of its word representation. Those of you who will have been to a busy custody court will know that the judge is weighing up whether or not to remand an individual into custody in the immediacy of that environment, often with the information that is presented to them during that hearing. Much of the bill in this part goes some way to allow criminal justice social work and other relevant parties to make greater representations to the judge on the day on behalf of the accused, presumably with a view to inform them of the decisions so that they make the best decision possible. I do not have a problem with that, but I would ask that that same privilege can surely be afforded to the complainer in that instance or the complainer's representative, because both voices must be heard. Now, some victims organisations said that they have a concern that while they agree that this might be a helpful provision in most cases, they do have concerns that, for example, victims of domestic abuse could be coerced into making representations to the court which do not accurately reflect their circumstances. I do share that concern, which is why my amendment is purposely an enabling one, which simply creates a mechanism by which they can, if they want and only if they want to, ensure that the court is in full possession of all the relevant information about the case before it. I think that this is vital, but I am willing to hear what the cabinet secretary says in response to my well-meaning amendment. If amendment 19 is problematic, I ask the chamber to look at amendment 20. This amends the 1995 act by including a clause that states that, in a submission by the Crown, it must include, I quote, information in relation to the complainer's safety or the safety of other persons. It also states that information could be obtained from a wide range of sources, including a victims' advocacy or support organisation. Essentially, to me, the consideration of the safety of the complainer should be the utmost priority in those deliberations, and I am such delighted that both Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and ASIST have ours members in the chamber to support amendment 20. Just finally, on the other amendments in this group, which members have already spoken to, I am very happy to support amendment 67, in the name of Pauline McNeill. Similarly, we will support amendment 68, in the name of Katie Clark. I am also happy to support Maggie Chapman's amendments 15 and 21, which will allow the court to request information from the Crown on the risk of harm to the victim. I did have, albeit that she described as a technical amendment, a problem with amendment 16, which, in my interpretation of it, would at least allow both the prosecution and the defence to give an opinion to the court on the risk of something occurring, as I mentioned in the bill test. This amendment neither has the backing of VSS and other victims' organisations, much to my surprise, but I will trust their judgment on that. I will close my comments on that group. Thank you, Mr Greene. I now call Cabinet Secretary Angela Constance. I will speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 67 from Pauline McNeill seeks to remove the mandatory requirement for the court to provide an opportunity for justice social work to provide information relevant to the question of bail and instead make this discretionary. An identical amendment was lodged by Ms McNeill at stage 2 and fully debated by the Criminal Justice Committee. The purpose of section 1 is to ensure that justice social work is always given an opportunity to provide information to the court, so amendment 67 would completely cut across this policy as it would be left to the court to decide. As was discussed at stage 2, there have been suggestions that decisions on whether to admit an accused to bail could be delayed as a result of changes proposed by section 1 of the bill. That will not, however, happen, as acknowledged by Ms McNeill in her remarks. Section 1 does no more than require the court to give justice social work an opportunity to provide it with information relevant to the question of bail. It does not mean that justice social work has to provide information in every case, nor does it mean that the court cannot make the bail decision if information from justice social work is not provided. If a person appears, for example, on a Monday, the bail decision must be made by the end of Tuesday—in other words, the next day. This is the legal timescale and will remain the legal timescale. The court will continue to make bail decisions on the basis of information put before it whether or not justice social work has provided information. There is no risk that bail will be refused because the court is awaiting information from justice social work. The court cannot refuse bail because it is waiting for information from any party. The effect of amendment 67 is that it would leave it to the discretion of the court whether to offer an opportunity to justice social work to provide information. There is a risk that this could mean that valuable information is not provided in individual cases, as the court may not always be aware of whether criminal justice social work holds relevant information because it has not asked justice social work. I ask Pauline McNeill not to press amendment 67, and if she does, I ask members to vote against it. The Scottish Government supports amendments 15, 16 and 21 from Maggie Chapman. Those amendments respond to some of the issues raised at stage 2 by Scottish Liberal Democrats. As Ms Chapman has set out under existing bail law at any time, the question of bail is being considered. The court has general power to seek further information that is relevant to bail decisions from the prosecutor or the accused's legal representative. The bill seeks to extend this power to include justice social work. Sitting alongside this general power, amendment 15 expressly enables the court to ask the prosecutor for additional information in relation to victim safety to help inform the bail decision. That highlights to the court both the importance of the victim safety aspect of the new bail test and that it is primarily the role of the prosecutor who acts in the public interest to provide the court with information about any perceived risk of harms which the accused poses to the complainer that would be relevant to the court's decision on whether to grant the accused bail. I am aware that, throughout scrutiny of the bill, ensuring the court has the best information to help inform its bail decisions has been a key issue. Amendment 15 acknowledges the important position of the prosecutor in this regard and is a sensible and helpful provision that will aid the operation of the new bail test, including consideration of victim safety, which is at its heart. There are also two consequential amendments 16 and 21. Katie Clark's amendment 68 would require the Scottish ministers to report to Parliament on the operation of section 1 during its first year in force. That amendment is identical to the one that Ms Clark lodged at stage 2, which was fully debated by the criminal justice committee. I very much recognise that the enhanced role of justice social work through section 1 carries resource implications, as set out in the financial memorandum. It is important to remember, though, that the bill simply requires the court to give justice social work an opportunity to provide information relevant to the question of bail in each case before the court. It does not place any duty on justice social work to provide such information. Ultimately, it will be for justice social work to identify those cases where they can best help inform the court's decision making by providing additional information. I have made clear throughout the passage of the bill that the Scottish Government will continue to work with justice agencies during implementation planning to review the resourcing requirements and the timescales for commencements. Members, as we all are, are well aware of the real challenges in relation to budgets across Government and across the country, and that those are likely to continue. However, I remain very close to the issue, and I would contend that the ring-fencing of criminal justice social work has certainly given it a stability, notwithstanding pressures. The Parliament, of course, has the power to carry out post-legislative scrutiny of any act of Parliament. It may choose to scrutinise particular provisions of an act. Parliament also requires to pass the Government's annual budget bill, so elements of the justice budget, including justice social work, can be looked at through that process. Accordingly, the Parliament would be able to consider the impact of the bail reforms on justice social work through those scrutiny processes without having to add a further reporting requirement to the bill to allow for that. I ask members to vote against amendment 68. Amendment 19 from Jamie Greene would give the complainer the right to make representations to the court when it is determining whether to grant or refuse bail. The subject of how the court is best informed about the potential risks to complainer safety is a key issue, rightly so, discussed in some detail at stage 2. With the new bail test explicitly embedding public and complainer safety within its operation, it is clearly important that the court has appropriate information to assess that. Amendment 15 being considered in this group emphasises to the court the route by which information on complainer safety should be obtained. That is from the prosecutor. As was discussed at stage 2, I would have concerns about placing any sort of requirement or expectation that a complainer should appear in front of the court, and I know that that is not Mr Greene's intention. It is clearly important in many cases, such as domestic abuse, that information on potential harm is made known to the court, but that should be via the prosecutor, and amendment 15 helps to strengthen the law in this regard. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for explaining the Government's position, but I want to pose a scenario that I do not understand will be best addressed, and that is that of a busy custody court. The scenario being that the current advocate on the day is likely presenting a large number of cases to the judge on the day. Amendment 15 says that the court may request a prosecutor to provide it with information relevant to the risk of harm. How is that practically achievable in the scenario where neither the complainant nor the representative is in the court on the day? The advocate has no access to information, particularly if the arrest has been made over the course of the weekend, which is often the case with domestic abuse cases. Why is it such a problem to allow the complainant to provide that information to the court in advance, potentially, so that it can be heard by the judge on the day? The scenario outlined in amendment 15 alone would not suffice in every scenario and certainly would not give every complainant the opportunity to make representation to the court. The whole purpose of section 1 of the bill is to ensure that the court has the very best possible information available to that. However, it is also important, notwithstanding that prosecutors are very busy, but as are judges, as are criminal justice social workers, as are victim support organisations and I think that we are well within our rights to be crystal clear on what the role of the prosecutor is in providing vital victim information where that exists. I would like to put another scenario to Mr Dean, because, although I am sure that it is not his intention, my worry is that there may be unintended consequences from his amendment and an increased risk of harm if a complainer personally makes representations at court. It may increase risk to their safety or increase the risk of the complainer being coerced into making representations to help to secure an accused person's release on bail. So, while I accept that amendment 19 is very well intentioned, it is not an amendment that the Government can support. Amendment 20 from Mr Greene would place a mandatory requirement on the prosecutor to always include information on the safety of the complainer or other persons in their bail submission. Where such information is relevant to the question of bail, the prosecutor will, of course, provide such information, but to require it in every case, even when, for example, there is no complainer or where there is no question of complainer safety being an issue, such as the case in short lifting would be a step too far. In addition, amendment 20 would require the prosecutor to include information on complainer safety obtained from a victim advocacy or a victim support group. Again, I understand the intent, but if there is no complainer or if the complainer has no wish to engage with such a group, the prosecutor would still require to include such information, even where clearly it is not relevant or where it is not available from the victim group. It is for the independent prosecutor, Presiding Officer, who acts in the public interest to ensure that relevant information is presented to the court in relation to complainer safety. Amendment 15 strengthens the law appropriately in this regard. There are also some technical issues with amendments 19 and 20. For example, there is no definition of victim support or advocacy group referred to in amendment 20. Given this amendment imposes a new duty on the crown in connection with court decisions on bail, it is important that there is legal certainty. On that basis, I would ask members to oppose amendments 19 and 20. I call Pauline McNeill to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 67. In summing up my amendments in this group, I agree with the cabinet secretary that the principle of providing the maximum amount of information to the court is, of course, very important. However, I do not think that the Government did address the question of the inequality of resources across the country. In fact, I would argue that it is a meaningless mandatory requirement to provide an opportunity if, in some courts, that is really just not possible. Although the cabinet secretary said that resources can be looked at in answer to Katie Clark in her amendment, it just needs to be leaving that question totally unanswered. If there is no social work available in some courts, then that opportunity will simply not be taken up. I think that inequality there has become a bit meaningless. It has made more sense to me just to change that the must requirement to me would make more sense in legislative terms. With that, I will support amendment 20 in the name of Jamie Greene, not amendment 19, generally because there was not enough technical information. There is quite a lot to be considered about how we were done before the court. We will support amendment 15 in the name of Maggie Chapman, but not 16 or 21, but we will support amendment 20 with that. I move and press my amendment. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and there will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage three, I will suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.