 I'm sorry to hurry, members, but we've only a few minutes in hand for interventions. The next item of business is a debate on motion 1.601.3, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on justice. I can invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons down. I'll call on Daniel Johnson to speak to and move the motion. Mr Johnson, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Legitimacy of the justice system relies on people understanding how it works and having confidence in the decisions it makes. By consistency, transparency and sentencing, it is impossible for those very serious decisions to be understood both by the person being sentenced and perhaps more importantly by the victims and wider society who look to the courts to ensure that justice is served. That is why I am pleased to move the motion in my name, because I fear that our justice system still has distance to travel in both consistency and transparency. Today's debate is prompted by the Christopher Daniel case, in which an individual was found guilty of sexual assault but was granted leniency by the sheriff and was given an absolute discharge. The reasons given were that the offence was the result of, I quote, inappropriate curiosity rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification. The sheriff also referred to the future career of the accused and the fact that the complainer appeared to have suffered and again I quote, no injuries or long lasting effects. It is worth reitering those because the summary judgment has been taken down from the website. Parliament needs to take care in providing commentary on individual court cases, but I believe that this case raises some fundamental points with regard to the factors that are appropriate to be taken into consideration when sentencing an individual, both in the particular case but also more broadly for serious crime such as sexual assault. There are three important issues that I think arise from this case, the accused's circumstances and prospects, intention involved in the crime and finally the outcome of that crime. Taking the first issue, I would pose the question in this way. Is it right for an individual's career prospects or standing in the community to be grounds for leniency? Should it make a difference if an individual is a medical student rather than a modern apprentice when they are being sentenced? I personally struggle to understand how or why this should be a reason for leniency and, in particular, for the most serious of crimes. More importantly, how can it be fair or just to sentence someone on the basis of the life chances that they have had to date? It cannot be right that two individuals receive different sentences for the same crime because of whether or not they were lucky in the lottery of life. The second issue poses the following question. What is the balance between intent and outcome when considering culpability for a crime and in particular sexual offences? Intent is an important consideration when looking at responsibility or guilt for wrongdoing, but lack of intent cannot triumph that outcome. More importantly, the nature of sexual crimes is such that what was intended is largely a secondary consideration because the act itself is so serious and so heinous. Whatever the motivation, sexual assault is a serious crime. Finally, to what degree is harm to be taken into account in sentencing and how should that be judged? Clearly, the outcome is important in assessing guilt and sentencing, but this is a particularly difficult issue with regard to sexual crimes as the damage cost is often very complicated, hard to detect and often does not manifest itself for many years after the crime itself has taken place. The answers to those questions are, of course, complex, as is the consideration of them. Judgments made in a court in sentencing in particular are complex in and of themselves. No two set of circumstances are identical. Judicial discretion and independence are therefore vital in the exercise of justice, but consistency of consideration 2 is vital. Those considerations should be clear to all. It is for that precise reason that the Scottish Sentencing Council was created as Lord McFadden put it in the report that led to its creation, and I quote, it is generally accepted that there should be consistency in sentencing at every level of our courts. That is an aspect of fairness and justice. Those principles demand that similar crimes committed in similar circumstances by offenders whose circumstances are similar should attract similar sentences. Indeed, the aims of the council are to promote consistency in sentencing, assist in the development of sentencing policy and promote greater awareness and understanding of sentencing. That is a vital function in our justice system. Our quarrel is therefore not with the purpose or the scope of the council. The problem is the time that it is taking to implement. Lord McFadden's words were published in 2006, 13 years ago. A body to develop sentencing guidelines was first consulted on by the Scottish Office in 1994. The reality is that we have been discussing the need for sentencing guidelines for more than 25 years. In the three and a half years since it was created, the Scottish Sentencing Council has produced only one guideline. By comparison, the sentencing guideline council, as it was then, produced five publications relating to guidance on sentencing in its first three years. Indeed, the Scottish Sentencing Council's approach and function was modelled on its counterpart in England and Wales, so it was not starting from a blank sheet of paper. It would not be unreasonable for us to expect to have made more progress to date. Of course, guidance on sentencing must not be rushed and must be subject to careful consideration and reflection, but it is right that we ask questions as to whether its progress has been adequate. Under the 2010 Criminal Justice and Licensing Act that created the council, ministers have the power to request the council to examine particular issues and to bring forward guidance. I would ask the cabinet secretary today what engagement he has had with the council and whether he has considered using that power, and particularly has he requested that guidance be brought forward on those matters? The prosecution of sexual crime is an issue that we need to take very seriously. For too long, those crimes did not receive justice, and the system did not treat them or the crimes appropriately or effectively. We have made much progress, reflected in the significantly increased volume of such cases now reaching court. As much as 80 per cent of the workload of the High Court now relates to serious sexual crimes. For as long as we do not have a consistent approach to sentencing and for as long as the Government does not use the powers that it has to bring forward guidelines for those serious crimes, we will be continuing to let victims and their families. I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing this debate to the chamber. I listened to what he had to say. He carefully took a number of notes. If I do not come to his points in the opening speech, my closing speech and summing up, I will do my best to address as many of his and those around the chamber's points. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Daniel Johnson said. Some of it I would take perhaps a different view on, and again I will come to that, but I found myself agreeing with a lot of what we said. At the heart of this debate is fairness. Fairness is absolutely critical. Fairness for those who are victims of crimes and their families, of course, but also importantly for the cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law, fairness to those who are accused of criminal offences. All too often, those who have been victims of crimes tell me that they do not feel that the victim's voice is heard right throughout the criminal justice system, and there is a lot of work that I am doing to try to rebalance some of that. I will turn to the victim's task force perhaps later if I have time, but let me address the substance of the motion put forward by Daniel Johnson in relation to the sentencing council. Daniel Johnson is absolutely right that the sentencing council will give them responsibility for promoting consistency in sentencing practice, assisting the development of policy in relation to sentencing, but also, importantly, promoting greater awareness and understanding of sentencing policy and practice. I welcome the work of the council in progressing their work to meeting those objectives. A lot of focus already of the debate and no doubt will on the debate be around the guidance that has been produced and the work that is under way. It is really important for me to say from the outset that producing guidelines is an integral part of the work that the sentencing council does, but they do more than just producing guidance. They do research on sentencing and work on raising awareness of sentencing. They have fantastic online materials that they have sent to schools around sentencing and the complexity of sentencing, as well as with victims of crime, as well. A lot withstanding that, I understand, and the Parliament will make its voice known around the progress that it wishes to see on particular guidelines. I heard him when he said that the victim's voice should be heard throughout the justice system. Can he explain how the victim's voice is heard in the sentencing council? I have read all three annual reports, but it is not referenced anywhere. One of the reasons why guidelines can take a bit of time to come to fruition is because public consultation is a key part of that. In fact, in the first meeting of the sentencing council, it was determined that every single guideline that they produce will then go to public consultation, so there is a public consultation for the guidelines, in the same way that there would be for legislation, hopefully, people could potentially include victims of crime into that. I also want to focus on the point about the independent judiciary. That is really important that Daniel Johnson touched on. I want to emphasise that. It is, of course, for the courts to make decisions on sentencing. One case has already been referenced, and the other cases may well be referenced. During the debate, it is important to say that it is absolutely right that politicians and, in particular, Government do not interfere in those decisions that are made. I absolutely agree with what the cabinet secretary just said, that politicians should not interfere with judicial independence. Does he agree that we have a duty to question when a sentence handed down is so out of kilter with public expectation? Yes, accountability is different to independence. Independence is a fundamental cornerstone of the judiciary and rule of law, but that does not mean that a judiciary is not accountable. The Parliament has every right to this debate as an example of that accountability. It is important that this debate takes place. I am conscious of the lack of time that I have. I just wanted to read a quote directly from Lady Dorian, because I think that the issue of guidelines taking time is important, particularly when it comes to sexual offences. All of us have a shared endeavour to improve the experience of victims of sexual offences, in particular because of the trauma that they face. It is also important that we get those guidelines right and not rushed. I quote directly from Lady Dorian, from her news release in response to the debate and the motion that she released yesterday. With regard to the timing of the council's work programme, we recognise the desire to have sentences and guidelines in place as quickly as possible. However, the potential impact of guidelines that have not been properly considered and tested is considerable, both for the individual cases and for the justice system as a whole. That is why we took an early decision that our work should be evidence-based, involving appropriate levels of research and consultation, including public consultation on all guidelines. We have committed to taking the necessary time to understand current practice, to look at what works and why, and to listen to those involved in and affected by sentencing decisions, including victims. I am aware that I am running out of time, and I will have to perhaps listen to the debate carefully and respond to members from across the chamber. I cannot support most of the amendments from Liam Kerr, and I will come to that, but I think that the reference to unduly lenient and removing that would have considerable effects. Perhaps I can come to that in the closing of my remarks, but I look forward to what I think will be a good debate, and I will listen carefully and respond to my closing. I think that only if you have moved your amendment, cabinet secretary. Oh yes, I have moved the amendment in my amendment. Thank you very much. Before I call Liam Kerr, I think that there are a couple of members who want to speak, but do not want to press the request to speak button. It is a good idea to do both. I call Liam Kerr to speak to move amendment 16013.2. Mr Kerr, four minutes strictly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me start by saying that we will support the Labour motion at decision time. Transparency and consistency are fundamental, but they are not there right now. Given that sentences are routinely and sometimes automatically shortened, people simply do not understand how long an offender will spend in prison, and the president of the society of solicitors recently suggested that the Scottish court system could be more open than it is. As Daniel Johnson rightly says, the Christopher Daniel judgment appears to make clear that leniency may be a function not of the crime, but whether or not the sentencer believes that the criminal is respectable and has a bright future. I have read the Scottish Sentencing Council's response to this debate yesterday, and I agree that using individual cases as the rationale for changing sentencing policy would be unlikely to promote consistency, predictability or transparency, but I respectfully suggest that that is the job of the Scottish Sentencing Council, and people may feel that, after four years of existence, running on a 16-year-old English model that released four such guidelines within its first three years, the time for results is now. Turning to our amendment, which I hear by move, I was horrified and baffled by the sentence in the Christopher Daniel case. I and many members of the public found it difficult to comprehend how a legal adult could be found guilty of repeatedly sexually assaulting a six-year-old yet receive an absolute discharge, which, for the record, basically means that there is no punishment and no criminal record. The Law Society's briefing helpfully says that the reasons for an absolute discharge vary but could include the circumstances of the crime, the offender's previous good character, the crime was very minor, the accused was very young. Surely none of those, even if applicable here, override the established facts in this case. Crucially, the Crown lodged an appeal against the sentence and then withdrew it, all of which led to a significant and justified public outcry grounded in the feeling that a young victim and her family have been let down by our justice system. I wrote to the Lord Advocate and asked for clarity on the disposal, a review of the decision and process and reconsideration of the decision not to appeal. I am very grateful to the Lord Advocate for his detailed reply. His view on the Crown's ability to appeal a sentence that is of most interest to my amendment because the ability to appeal is limited to two grounds on a point of law or that the sentence is unduly lenient. That unduly lenient test is the real crux and the key lies in the word unduly. The test is based on a 1995 case that mandates that a sentence is only unduly lenient if, to paraphrase, it falls out with the range of reasonable sentences in the circumstances. If a disposal is not unduly lenient, the Crown's hands are tied. That leads me to conclude, as I have set down in the amendment, that the Crown's ability to appeal sentences may be hampered by an overly restrictive test of unduly leniency. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to ask the Scottish Law Commission, whose remit, remember, is to recommend reforms to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland to investigate and to consider whether the test of unduly leniency requires reform because it is vital that prosecutors have the tools to appeal sentences that do not deliver justice. The Lord Advocate rightly states that a sentence is entirely a matter for judge or sheriff. We all agree that politicians should not interfere with the independence of the judiciary, but politicians do set out the parameters for sentencing. Indeed, the SNP will shortly seek to implement a presumption against sentences of less than 12 months, and thus it does accept that politicians have a role in how sentencing and therefore appeals operate. There is a role for politicians in ensuring that our justice system meets the needs of victims and society, and it is crucial that victims understand and have faith in our system. We would be failing, surely, in our duty if, when a perpetrator has walked free, having been found guilty of sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl, we do not empower the Scottish Law Commission to review whether the unduly leniency test is overly restrictive. Parliament should vote for the amendment in my name to require it to do so. The Scottish Green Party put forward an amendment in my name in that amendment, primarily concentrated on the issue of judicial training. It included elements that the other parties have included, such as transparency and consistency, fundamental and a noting of recent cases. However, I have to be honest with you and say that I have some discomfort about that, because we can all read newspapers and see cases and query the disposal. I can think of a case in my own area that I was involved in the periphery of supporting the individual, where I am deeply unhappy with it. However, I was not in court throughout the entire proceedings, and yes, there will always be cases on the extremity in one of them that we have been alluded to where issues are brought sharply into focus. The cabinet secretary and his short time mentioned the victims task force, and I am impressed with the seniority of people involved in that. I hope that that is indicative of a willingness to have action. Everyone wants to have regard to the wellbeing of victims, and I am no different. My party is no different. Nor am I beyond criticising the judiciary. Indeed, I did so in detail last year with wholly inappropriate comments from a High Court judge during an appeal about which perpetrated a number of stereotypes and myths about domestic violence. The motion in Daniel Johnson's name talks about concern, and indeed the Scottish Government notes that about the sentencing council. I thought that it was quite interesting that we did not only get a copy of the letter that was sent to Mr Johnson, but also a news release. That has been alluded to in part by the cabinet secretary. In the very short time, I am not going to be able to repeat many of the elements of it that I would like to. Potential impact in sentencing guidelines being introduced, which have not been properly considered and tested, would be considerable. I think that they would be considerable. I think that they would be deeply concerned. Stressing the importance of taking an evidence-based approach involving appropriate levels of research and consultation. The point is not to fast-track, but to prioritise those matters in sentencing guidelines. I just emphasised that. John Finnie. Thank you very much indeed. Also, a reference has been made to Lady Dorian. Colleagues on the Justice Committee spoke quite rightly in reverent terms about her involvement with her case notes regarding the on-going examination that we have of the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill with regard to ground rules, healings and evidence by commission. It is important, therefore, that we listen to some of the things that she says. The principles and purpose of sentence, the reasons for sentencing decisions, must be stated clearly and openly as circumstances permit, and that sentence decisions should treat similar cases in a similar way, assisting consistency and predictability. The idea that all cases are unique—we are very familiar with the scenario that all of us here will represent our constituents in the same way, equally, but it does not mean that we treat them in the same way. Obviously, we have different regard to the individual circumstances of the case. A frail older person that requires help will be treated differently from a very articulate younger person, perhaps. That applies very much in the case of judicial examination. We have seen, for instance, where there has been an over-focus on an individual case, risk aversion comes in. I talk about the focus on a particular case and how that impacted the management of offenders. The significant downturn in the number of people being granted that. I welcome for instance the domestic abuse legislation that is coming on track. The input from Scottish Women's Aid to the judiciary on that is very welcome. Our motion talked about not only judicial training but judicial training advised by external individuals. I think that that is very important. I have some concerns about the nature of some of this debate here, but of course everyone wants to see informed decision making from an evident space. I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing the debate on sentences. I am conscious that, in the limited time available, it will be difficult to get into the complexities of some of the issues that are thrown up. However, I think that it serves a useful purpose nonetheless. As Mr Johnson highlighted, the catalyst, to some extent, has been the recent case involving Christopher Daniel, granted an absolute discharge after being found guilty for sexually assaulting a six-year-old child. A case that is understandably given rise to widespread public anxiety is a case that raises serious questions. As we seek to grapple with those questions, we cannot lose sight of the fact that, at the heart of this, this is a family coming to terms with an extremely traumatic experience. They deserve transparency. They will also be questioning the consistency of a ruling that does seem, as others have said, at odds with precedent. Of course, John Finnie is right that no one in the chamber is privy to the full knowledge and details of this particular case. All of us absolutely respect the importance of preserving and defending judicial discretion and independence. Equally, however, as the McFadden report in 2006 gave rise to the Scottish Sentencing Council acknowledged—this is a reversal of the quote from Daniel Johnson—a perception of inconsistency in sentencing is likely to lead to a loss of public confidence in the justice system. It went on to argue that guidelines would promote and encourage consistency of approach and thus improve consistency in sentencing while preserving the important element of judicial discretion. That consistency is not just for the accused but crucially for victims and the wider public. I fully accept that the process of developing such guidelines does take time. Lady Dorian is absolutely correct and insistent that the guidelines need to be evidence-based and subject to the widest possible scrutiny. She is right, too, to remind us of the impact that they have, not just in individual cases but on the wider justice system as a whole. However, it does feel as if progress to date has been slow with little expectation of this changing in the near future. Without diminishing the importance of the work that the council is currently undertaking, the prospect of no guidelines on sexual offences being ready until after 2021—potentially some way after 2021—is right that Parliament raises its concerns in that regard. I make a brief mention of the issue of short sentences. I was disturbed to note that the second most frequent custodial sentence length was for three months or less in 2017-18 at the same time that community payback orders were dropping by 15 per cent and 10 per cent fall in the overall number of community sentences. I welcome the decision that the Government has announced in terms of a presumption against sentences of 12 months, but I would be interested to know the involvement of the sentencing council in ensuring that that presumption does have a meaningful impact on the ground. As everybody so far has spoken has acknowledged consistency and transparency lie at the very heart of public confidence in our justice system, at present there is much more that needs to be done with some urgency to ensure that greater consistency and transparency. On that basis, I support the motion in Daniel Johnson's name. Thank you very much. Open debate, there is no time in hand, so it is forming its speeches, Jenny Marra, to be followed by Rona Mackay. I was shocked by the sentence passed down in the Christopher Daniel case, as were many members of the public, and I would like to address my remarks to that case this afternoon. However, can I start by noting the confusion in the Scottish judiciary today over the sentencing statement prepared by Sheriff Sinclair on this case? I was told today that the statement had been removed from the website, Scottish judiciary website, at the end of last week by their communications team. When I asked why this was, the Scottish judiciary service said that it was policy to remove the sheriff's statement after a period of time in cases of absolute discharge. Today, at 12.30pm, there was a note on a case of rape where the result was absolute discharge dated March 2017, two years ago. When I inquired why this was, I was told that this probably should have been removed and that they are currently reviewing their policy on when to unpublish statements, but that they unpublished the Daniel statement late last week for certain reasons that are still being signed off. Presiding Officer, you will see my concern at the lack of transparency in the strange timing of the removal of the sentencing statement in this case. I hope that the cabinet secretary and the Lord Advocate will look into this matter and reassure Parliament about the reason for this removal and that policy is appropriate, transparent and being followed correctly. I would like to turn to the case itself. Why were the public so shocked about this case and why are the guidelines needed as soon as possible? Because a little girl was put through the process of giving evidence on the sexual abuse that she suffered, only for the sheriff to dismiss the impact that the abuse would have on her life, and I quote him, it was fortunate that the complainer appeared to have suffered no injury or long-lasting effects. As her mother said, how can the sheriff know that? Survivors of childhood sexual abuse have said in the past that the effects of abuse can take years to manifest themselves. I think that there is general recognition of that, so why would a sheriff make such a remark? The parents of this little girl put their trust in our justice system and took the very difficult decision for any parent for their child to provide evidence, but the sentence from the sheriff's own statement seems completely based on the accused's own motivation and career prospects. I quote again, the sheriff considered that the offence to be the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification. Also, on his career prospects, any recorded conviction for this offence would have serious consequences in terms of the accused's future career. I quote again, it was a relevant factor in deciding how to deal with the case, because any sentence would mean that he would probably be unable to continue his university course. That is quite astonishing. Is justice blind today? As many commentators have said, including Scottish rape crisis, would similar consideration have been given to an accused whose career was not mapped out in this way? For an unemployed 18-year-old, for a young man without a caring and supportive family to use the sheriff's words, would he have escaped the sexual offences register too? For is that not the purpose of our justice system and the sexual offences register that people who sexually abuse are registered and restricted appropriately? Further confusion arises on the appeal. I understand that the Crown would drop the appeal on reading the sheriff's sentencing statement. For me, the statement raises more questions than it answers. I heard from Liam Kerr's contribution that a case review is not possible because of strict reading of undue leniency. I think that it is appropriate for the Parliament to ask the Lord Advocate for clarity to Parliament on why the case cannot be reviewed. I think that this is a wholly unsatisfactory situation. I think that the Parliament should demand clarity from the Lord Advocate to give public confidence for this family but also across Scotland in cases of childhood sexual abuse. The final point that I would like to make is that it is appropriate for any sheriff—not just Sheriff Sinclair in this case—to be chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? Is there not an inherent conflict of interest in that general role? I have been a little more lenient, but I cannot keep that up. Rona Mackay, followed by Maurice Corry. I agree with the sentiment of Daniel Johnson's motion. Transparency and consistency are fundamental to ensuring that victims and wider society's interests are served by our justice system. I also acknowledge the point that it has taken three and a half years for the Scottish Sentencing Council to produce a set of sentencing guidelines and that the definitive guidelines on sexual assaults will not be available until after 2021. However, guidelines on a subject of such importance is a complicated and intense process. Those guidelines must be evidence-based, involving appropriate levels of research and consultation, including public consultation, but there are valid points that have been made about the length of time that it has taken. However, the consequences of rushing through new guidelines could have a wide-reaching impact on the justice system in Scotland. As Lady Dorian, chair of the Sentencing Council, says, each case is unique and one size does not fit all, so variations in sentencing will happen, depending on the particular circumstances of the case. We cannot use decisions in individual cases as the rationale for sentencing policy. That said, the public must have confidence in our justice system. I would like to associate myself with everything that Jenny Marrages said. The Christopher Daniels case was shocking and inexplicable, and we need some answers from that decision. However, the Sentencing Council is holding two consultation exercises this year, seeking public views on their draft guidelines on the sentencing process. The consultation will set out the various steps that are taken by judges and factors that might be taken into account in making sentences and decisions, and in the sentencing of young people. The focus for guidelines and sexual offences, which are absolutely crucial, given the rise in crimes of this type, will also be available shortly, although, naturally, that is a very sensitive and complex area. Work has begun on this consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including victim support organisations, and it is likely that the council will develop multiple guidelines on sexual offending. Presiding Officer, we know that the independence of the judiciary is paramount, and everyone agrees that we do not want ministerial control over decisions being made. However, how sentenced decisions are reached by individual judges, in particular cases where children are involved and are perceived not to be in the child's best interests, should and must come under scrutiny. I, furlain, agree with John Finnie and the green motion that specialist training. I believe that it should be mandatory for judges dealing with sexual crimes and crimes involving children, and I would appreciate the minister's comments on that in his closing speech. I believe that the sentencing council is aware of the public feeling and the emphasis that has been put on this issue across party in the chamber today, and I really do hope that they are listening. The bottom line is that transparency and consistency in sentencing are vitally important, but getting it right has to be paramount. Thank you very much. I call Maurice Corry to follow our full to me Gregor. Mr Corry, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the justice debate today. Now, Justice Systems Scotland is something that we, as members of this society, need to have the utmost confidence in. We need to continuously ensure that we have a credible and reliable system. Within that, how sentencing works is crucial to fueling this public confidence. Right now, this confidence is in danger of eroding. The case at the forefront of my mind, as I know of my colleagues here, is that of the Christopher Daniel case in sentencing. This conviction for sexual assault of six-year-old of two years saw the bizarre decision made by the sentencing judge that the perpetrator need not face any punishment nor have his name added to the sex offenders register, as has already been stated. Immaturity, education attainment and future prospects of the perpetrator were placed before a six-year-old victim's right to justice. Of course, each case is unique and needs to be considered as such, but surely the question is what kind of precedent does this set for future offenders? We need to get the sentencing right. Of course, it needs to be fair to the perpetrators, but equally it needs to be fair to the victims. This case has raised serious questions and concerns, and, more often than not, it is the victim who risks being damaged by the court's process. Surely it is in the interests of the victim, first and foremost, as well as the public, that cases such as this can go to appeal. Of course, it is important to remember that judges hold the authority to sentence as they fit, and I do not question their experience, nor are they having the advantage to listen to all the evidence in court in forming their decision making. Yet, despite that, the cases that we have seen have raised the question of how possible it is to appeal under the law on undue leniency. If anything, incidents such as the Daniel's case suggest that perhaps the criteria of undue leniency should be improved, as my colleague Liam Kerr has mentioned already, and surely a serious assault conviction that results in an absolute discharge is reason enough for exploring the reform of our system that seems to present too many restrictions. It would be the door to fairer outcomes that give just punishment to perpetrators while emphasising the considerable and considerate care for victims. Connected with that, the importance of published sentencing guidelines would help to make our justice system be somewhat more dependable than has been under the current SNP Government. The establishment of the Scottish Sentencing Council in 2015 was most welcome, but it has been over three years since its arrival, and there has not yet been any extensive guidelines published. I understand that the research behind that needs to take many complexities into account, and, of course, that must be done with care and robustness. Nevertheless, a delay in publishing them is concerning, and it is the fact that those guidelines may not be finalised until 2021. Delays such as those are only part of the reason why sentencing in the justice system often lacks transparency and openness. Warringly, it has become common practice for offenders to be granted early release into the community. Indeed, for those who are sentenced to under four years in prison, they are released automatically halfway through that time. In many cases, those offenders can live in the community without supervision, and the frequency of those early releases fosters confusion as to how effective our sentencing system truly is. Moreover, the community sentencing pathway, which often breaches of order does no favours to restoring justice and the belief of our communities in our justice process. I will try not to get too political on this debate, but Maurice Corry will recognise that automatic early release for long-term prisoners was introduced by the Conservative Government. I understand that, but, remember, things move on and things change in different cases, and the severity of the cases will dictate how they should be dealt with. I do not think that one rule fits all, and things do change. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, sentencing within our justice system is clearly far from perfect, and without a tougher approach, perpetrators can escape a just answer to their crime. I support the argument for greater transparency and more established consistency. To achieve that, we need more effective sentencing guidelines supported by reformed criteria to target lenient sentences. Surely, that is how public confidence in the justice system in Scotland can be restored. I want to start by saying that I understand that many cases are controversial or that the circumstances are difficult, especially in terms of how cases are viewed by the wider public. I can completely sympathise and understand the concerns that many have about individual sentencing cases. I think that Jenny Marra in particular has summed up the circumstances of the recent case, which has been talked about in here. I think that it is fair to say that the outcome in that case has shocked many of us. I was at the cross-party group as a deputy convener on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse just last week and the consequences for some of the agencies involved in the work of that decision were talked about. I think that it is only fair that I take that opportunity as a member of the cross-party group to put on record agencies such as the Moira Anderson Foundation, for example, in their feelings about that particular sentencing. One of the decisions of the group is to write to the minister and to visit the group at some point and perhaps have a discussion about some of those issues. I also support the principle that sentencing decisions in any criminal case are matter solely for the judge to decide something that the minister said earlier. Such decisions are definitely not for politicians. They are for judges and the judiciary in the court Scotland Act ensures that this is the case. As MSPs in this Parliament, we must not obstruct the continued independence of the judiciary while I think that it is fine to express opinions as we have done and I think that everybody is united on that. It is important that we recognise that it was indeed a system of accountability in place where the Crown Office has the ability to appeal against undulating sentences. There are also sentences and guidelines in place and if a judge does not follow this, they must take their reasons for doing so in the interest of transparency. In Scotland, sentences and guidelines come into force on October last year and were decided by an independent advisory body. The guidelines were approved by the High Court and members of the public were consulted as to their feelings and the appropriateness of sentences has been passed. I thank the member for giving me, but I recognise that there are no guidelines in place for them to comment against and that is part of the problem. Fulton MacGregor? I thank the minister, hopefully never. I thank the member for that intervention. The guidelines themselves were scrutinised and put through several different processes before being approved. Obviously, as has been said already, Scottish Sentencing Council is working towards producing sentences and guidelines at the coming time at an early stage. I do not think that we can rush haphazardly. I come back to the point from the previous speaker, Maurice Corry. There is no point in rushing haphazardly into those decisions. I trust that Sentencing Council will do a thorough job to ensure that the guidelines cover a wide range of areas appropriately and ensure that extensive consultation and engagement is a key part of producing those guidelines. I do not think that I need to give any reassurance in this chamber, particularly for members of the Justice Committee, like Daniel Johnson, that the SNP Scottish Government is fully committed to putting victims at the centre of the justice system. The bill that we are taking through just now in terms of the vulnerable witnesses bill and absolutely fantastic piece of legislation, hopefully that will continue to progress through all the various stages. We will continue to help victims and witnesses to feel supported, safe and informed at every stage of the process. I am pleased that the justice secretary and the Lord Advocate co-chair are the new victims task force to improve victims' experiences of our justice system. I am coming to the end of my input, so I want to conclude by saying that I agree with the law society that there is perhaps somewhat to do involving both the public and victims in the overall process. I will be supporting the Government. In preparation for this afternoon's debate, I went back to stage 1 of the criminal justice and licensing Scotland bill in 23 June 2009, which created the sentencing council. I refer and quote from Kenny MacAskill's remarks that day. He said, "...we believe that inconsistency in sentencing is a difficulty that must be dealt with. Equally we believe that not only those who are given the privilege of sitting on the bench but people who represent interest groups, such as victims organisations, should be able to have some say. There is something manifestly wrong in our society if the views of a representative of a victim's organisation cannot be heard. That is why we believe that there should be a sentencing council." If the cabinet secretary will forgive me, I was disappointed in his response to my intervention because to say that a public consultation is enough to satisfy hearing the voices of victims in the process. I think that that falls very far short of victims' expectations of the process. In the time that I have, which is limited, the cabinet secretary will not be surprised to know that I intend to focus the rest of my remarks on the Woodburn family. For the benefit of the rest of the chamber, this is the instance of Sean Woodburn, who was killed outside a pub in Leith on the 1 January 2017. I have been working with the family for over a year now, trying to examine different aspects of how the justice system failed them and their family and, indeed, Sean's memory. I am very grateful to the First Minister, to the cabinet secretary's predecessor and, indeed, to Humza Yousaf, for meeting with the family on several occasions and moving quickly on some subjects such as the law with regard to postmortems. It is hugely appreciative of the Lord Advocate's work in that regard. The cabinet secretary knows that I have a strong and passionate interest in delivering a victims commissioner. That is an issue for another day. He will also know that I have concerns about the degree to which the victims code of practice is shared with victims of crime. It is very hard to access, it is very hard to get a hold of, but it is the guide to the fundamental rights that victims of crimes have. What I would like to comment on now is the issue of sentencing statements and the sentencing commission itself. Thirteen charges were brought against three people for what happened that day on 1 January 2017. As the cabinet secretary knows, it resulted in just three convictions against one person, including a charge of culpable homicide murder was dropped. The overall sentence for that crime was four years. It was an incumulow sentence, which means that the family to this day do not know what Sean's life was worth. There is not one single sum, a number of years, that count for what the charge of culpable homicide actually meant in the event of Sean's death. That is something that the family have found really difficult to digest. I was really taken with the comments from Liam Kerr about the issue of undue leniency. How can you even consider undue leniency when you do not understand what the particular charge equals in a case in which you have an incumulow sentence? There is a huge amount of work to be done there. I raised this case directly with the Lord President and I got a very interesting reply from Lord Carlyw, which detailed the rights that the Woodburn family had under the victims and witnesses Scotland Act 2014 to a sentencing statement. They had no idea that they could request from Lady Stacey details of why the sentence was what it was. When we got that information, it was to a degree hugely comforting. They still do not think that four years is enough for their son's killer, but at least now they have a better understanding of why the judge took the decision that they did. The Woodburn family believed that sentencing statements should be mandatory in all cases. I agree with them. However, they are also outraged that, after six years and £1.4 million of money, the sentencing commission still has no plans whatsoever to produce new guidelines on either murder or culpable homicide. When the family were told that the sentence was within the guidelines and no guidelines existed, they remain extremely angry about what they experienced. I have seconds left, but if I can just say to the cabinet secretary that he has the power under section 7 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland act to direct the sentencing council to consider guidelines in any particular crime. I also know from other PQ answers that Michael Matheson, when he was the cabinet secretary for justice, ruled out asking him to do any sentencing guidelines for murder or culpable homicide, but I have a letter from this cabinet secretary saying that his mind is still open to that prospect. Can I ask him again today, please? Will he use the power that he has to instruct the sentencing council to move quickly to produce guidelines for the crimes of murder and culpable homicide so that families do not have to experience what the wood burns have? Thank you. Deputy Presiding Officer, today's debate has attracted widespread interest and is perhaps most keenly of interest to victims of crime and their families who will be following what we say today. Unfortunately, as we have been hearing during today's debate, there has been a loss of confidence in the justice system. Now, suffering at the hands of an offender is a traumatic enough experience for many and can lead to lifelong physical and mental scars, but clearly the justice system should not unnecessarily add to that trauma. Victims and their families should have the assurance that justice has been delivered in their case, but also that justice is delivered consistently across the board, else the faith that they have placed in the justice system, as well as the faith of others, will be undermined. Apparently inconsistent sentences for offenders can foster an initial sense of disbelief that can sometimes lead to anger, to upset, to distrust. That can indeed worsen if there is a lack of transparency in the system and it is perceived to place too heavy a reliance on judicial discretion. That discretion could be strengthened rather than weakened by clear and appropriate sentencing guidelines. Such guidelines can assist in providing consistency but also act, as we have heard, as a basis for public understanding as to how decisions and sentences, at least in general terms, are reached. Throughout this afternoon, we have been hearing about cases that have led us to this debate today. Some have involved sexual offences, but other crimes have also been the subject of intense public scrutiny following the handing down of a sentence that is perceived to be too lenient. The Scottish Sentencing Council was set up more than three years ago, but is yet to issue any substantive guidelines. While those guidelines should of course be properly considered and tested, what is to happen in the interim? There is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Although the same motto may not apply strictly speaking to sentencing guidelines, if it is agreed by everyone that those can provide a useful framework, it would be more than helpful perhaps for them to be provided without further undue delay. That would be in the interests of consistency, predictability and transparency to use the Scottish Sentencing Council's words in its offering of views on the debate. For lack of transparency and consistency in sentencing, it can perpetuate the grief and the upset faced by people who have had to have dealings with the judicial system through absolutely no fault of their own. As the Scottish Conservative amendment highlights today, more work may also need to be done when it comes to the test of undue leniency. What may appear to a member of the public as an exceptionally soft sentence is not necessarily better understood by being simply categorised as not being unduly lenient. Deputy Presiding Officer, sentencing is far from an easy task. We all recognise that, and no two cases are ever exactly the same. Nevertheless, we must have a justice system that holds and maintains the public confidence, and it is clear from today's debate that someway needs to be travelled to reach that goal. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. No one in the chamber would disagree that transparency and consistency are vital to ensure that victims and wider society's interests are served by the justice system. I fully understand and appreciate the frustration at the time that is being taken in issuing guidance on specific crimes. The Sentencing Council's work programme is progressing without meeting to be held, as I understand this Friday, and hopefully it will have gathered from the comments across the chamber that there is scrutiny now upon them to make some pace. However, the reality, as others have said, is that the process in developing guidelines takes time. The council states that, while recognising that the public's desire to have guidelines in place quickly, the potential impact of not carrying out the necessary due diligence could be considerable for individual cases and the justice system as a whole—a point well-made by John Finnie. Those can be difficult things to reconcile. The Sentencing Council in England Wales produces around three guidelines a year. Are they rushing their guidelines? I would not want to say that they were rushing their guidelines, but I think that it would be wrong of us to ignore the due diligence that is required in developing, and the complexity that I know that the member understands in developing those guidelines. However, where I agree with him is that the fact that we are having this debate and the fact that there has been a consensus across the chamber that pace needs to be made will not be recognised by the council. There needs to be wide engagement with criminal justice and victim support organisations, third sector groups and academia, as well as the judiciary throughout the process. It is fundamental that the research is evidence-based, properly consulted upon and every area thoroughly scrutinised prior to issuing any finalised sentencing guidance. After Lady Dorian, Lord Justice Clark and the chair of the Scottish Sentencing Council has stated that those first guidelines will see the transparency in sentencing increase, which would also form a strong foundation for future work in the development of further sentencing guidelines, particularly specific offences such as sexual offences. Law is, of course, a complex area, which is why it is right and proper to get this right. Late last year, I met Sheriff Norman McFadden and Graham Ackerman from the Scottish Sentencing Council to discuss the council's plans to develop sentencing guidelines for sexual offences, including offences against children. That meeting coincided with the Dundee Evening Telegraph's Our Kids Need Justice campaign, which arose out of some particularly concerning local cases. It is a campaign that struck a chord across the city, and I think that it shows the public's interest in that matter. I have raised those issues directly with the Lord Advocate and the Justice Secretary. I was encouraged that the council is beginning to think about holding wider public consultation events, and I have encouraged them to hold one in Dundee to give not just local people in framing of the guidance but also to lay out a little bit more about the complexity of those matters and being able to discuss directly with the public those issues. They have confirmed that they will be holding consultation events during the year, and I hope that that is part of their acknowledgement about the need for more transparency around those matters. Sentencing and decisions taken by the judiciary individual cases can often be seen as confusing by the public and victims, and we have heard some of those very difficult cases raised this afternoon. I welcome the setting up by the Justice Secretary of the Victims Task Force, the aims of which are to improve the experience of victims and witnesses through the justice system to help them to understand and have their voices heard. I think that that is very important. I am very sympathetic to the arguments that have been made this afternoon. It has been a good debate with a strong level of consensus. I believe that the best way forward would be to establish a guideline that helps to deliver consistency of sentencing and delivers justice, better protects victims while also ensuring that we protect the independence of the judiciary. I move to closing speeches. I call Donald Cameron to close the Conservatives. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to close this debate for the Scottish Conservatives, not least because in my admittedly rare sorties into the criminal courts I did gain some professional experience of seeing sentencing a practice and its application in real life. I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing forward not only a very important issue but a pertinent one given recent cases that have appeared in the media. I do not want to dwell on the specific case of Christopher Daniel, which has been covered at length today. As my colleague Liam Kerr and others across the chamber have stated, I certainly do not seek to criticise the judiciary or their independence. We all accept that, ultimately, it is the role of the judiciary acting at their discretion to determine sentences in the circumstances of any given specific case that is paramount and indisputable. However, as Liam Kerr said, that does not mean that we cannot question or develop sentencing policy in general, just as the Scottish Government is in short sentences. The role of the Scottish Sentencing Council does deserve scrutiny. It was established in October 2015 to prepare guidelines for the courts and provide information to the public regarding sentencing. It is independent of government and has yet to issue any substantial guidelines beyond a general statement on the principles and purposes of sentencing. Everyone understands that thought and care is required when developing guidelines, but a time lag of six years from 2015 to 2021, from establishment to publication, is in my view too long. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary said about the amount of work that they do, but it is a question of priorities. Sentencing guidelines are the most important thing that they do, given the fact that, day in, day out, courts in Scotland are sentencing. As Kezia Dugdale and Liam McArthur said, we are right to register concern. No one is asking for rushed guidelines, but equally, there are plenty of needs to be a faster process. It is worth saying that there are guidelines that are currently being worked on by the council, such as, for example, the sentencing process, which is causing death by driving sentences of young people. The member will accept that, if they have to re-prioritise or de-prioritise, that will mean that some of the work that they are currently doing will have to be delayed even further. Donald Cameron, I accept that they would have to decide on what to prioritise, but in any event, in general terms, they must act faster. The only point that I would like to make about the Christopher Daniel case is the one on undue leniency. The prosecutors felt that they were unable to challenge the ruling on the basis of undue leniency, because the case did not meet the high test required. That reinforces, in our view, on those benches the need to revisit that test, because of the troubling fact that even the exceptionally soft sanction of an absolute discharge for sexual assault of a child was determined by the Crown not to count as undue lenient. That made it not worthy of a Crown appeal. We suggest that that test is overly restrictive and requires reconsideration. It is a test that is acknowledged as being difficult to meet. Frank Crowe, writing in the journal of the Law Society, said that Crown appeals against sentence are infrequent since the test is a high one. Given its role in law reform, the Scottish Law Commission may be the appropriate body to investigate that and make recommendations. What is clear is that, in this case and others, there are real issues with trust in our sentencing system. Issues that hamper public confidence as evidenced by figures last year that show that just over a third of Scots were confident that the system gives punishments that fit the crime. Issues that further increase supply to victims of serious offences as evidenced by remarks from a representative of victim support last May to the justice committee that communities have no faith in community sentencing. The justice system should work for victims, not against them, and in sentencing it should be more transparent. In closing, I urge colleagues to support our amendment in Liam Kerr's name, because it is clear that, in a multitude of cases, the high legal test of undue leniency requires to be revisited. I thank you very much, and I call Hamza Yousaf to close the Government, Cabinet Secretary for Minutes, please. How many minutes? Sorry, six? No, I'm afraid not four. I need to be on your toes. I want to then address the motions. We cannot support the Conservative motion. I do hear what the Conservative members have said. On reflection, I will also have a discussion with the Scottish Law Commission on this issue of undue leniency, but the reason why I can't support it. I should say that it is the same legal test in England and Wales as well, but the reason why I can't support it is because of the particular facts in the case that are known by the sheriff and the judge there. In some cases, they will have to exercise leniency, for example, if there is a minor first offence, etc. The question here is about undue leniency, and an undue leniency is a sentence that is lenient to an unwarranted degree, and so it's appropriate for the ability for the appeal to be based on this legal test. However, I have heard what members here have said, and they have every right, of course, to ask the Scottish Law Commission to examine this and to look at this, but I do think that there has to be a nuance between leniency and an undue leniency. I think that we have to somewhat recognise that. I will give way to Liam Kerr. I am simply asking the cabinet secretary to note the ability to appeal maybe hamper. Surely he can vote for that. I will reflect. I won't vote for it, but I will certainly reflect carefully on what he has to say in relation to the good points that he and other members have made on that. The green motion was not accepted, but I do really recognise the points that John Finnie made in his contribution, and his motion around judicial training is so important. At the moment, I am sure that sheriffs and judges are receiving that training in relation to domestic abuse, the offence that is coming into play on 1 April. I also wanted to make reference to some of the contributions that were made here and some of the questions that were asked. I thought that Jenny Marra's speech was well made and the points that she made were well made also. I would say to Jenny Marra that she referenced Lord Advocate and much of her contribution. She has every right, of course, if she hasn't done so already, to write to Lord Advocate, to request a meeting from Lord Advocate, to demand an explanation, to request an explanation, because Lord Advocate is a member of this Government, and as I keep saying, while we all respect the independence of the judiciary and we do that, there is a difference between independence and accountability, and there should be that accountability from the judiciary. Yes, very briefly. Jenny Marra? Would the cabinet secretary agree with me that there is sufficient public interest in the Daniel case that the Lord Advocate should provide clarity to the Parliament, either by letter or by a statement? She will forgive me. I will not go into the detail of a specific case, but I know that Liam Kerr said that he received the response on the Daniel's case from the Lord Advocate. Again, Jenny Marra could write the Lord Advocate to ask for that same explanation. For Kezia Dugdale's very considered speech as well, I was just giving one example. There are other examples of victim input into the sentencing council. One member of the council, I should have said, is specifically there to represent victims as a victim representative. In terms of her request to me, I cannot demand the council to take forward a particular piece of work. I cannot ask and I can request. Of course, I cannot request and I cannot ask and I will reflect very carefully on what members have said here to take things forward. In terms of the specifics on murder and homicide, I mentioned to her in the meeting that we had that the Scottish Law Commission—different to the council, of course—is looking at the law around the murder and homicide. I think that it would make sense to wait for that, in case any change is in law, then for them to be an exploration of the guidelines. I am happy to take that offline and discuss that in further detail. I am vastly running out of time, but it is worth saying that the council is working on a number of guidelines on the sentencing process that is caused by death by driving and the sentencing of young people. If members would want the council to look to expedite the work on sexual offences, something else would have to then be prioritised. I will end on that point and I hope that members will support our motion. I thank Fulton MacGregor for holding me in such high regard, but I also thank members more generally, because I think that this has been a very engaged debate, one that has not avoided difficult issues and one that has shed light on the topic at hand. We have talked a lot about consistency, but transparency is equally important. Kezia Dugdale's contribution was excellent, because transparency is not limited to sentencing guidelines, the sentences themselves and how they are communicated, whether or not sentences are what they state in terms of the automatic sentencing. I think that the cabinet secretary was point out to the Conservatives who introduced that, but also in terms of the decisions that are made by the parole board and decisions around remand, transparency is fundamental if we are going to ask people to have confidence in our justice system. However, to the issues at hand, fundamentally, for me, the most important issue is one of equality. For an individual to be treated differently because of his opportunities in life to date and ahead of them is simply not right. For somebody who is a medical student to be treated differently to someone out of work is not something that we can countenance. Of course, we need to look at the individual. Indeed, we must hold them responsible for the decisions that they have made, but can we hold them responsible and treat them differently because of the opportunities that they may or may not have had in life? Indeed, I would make the wider point. In his sense, treating someone more leniently because of the education that they have or are about to receive is the wrong way round. Someone with a greater degree of education should be holding a higher degree of account than someone with less. Quite simply this, there is a danger—a very real danger—that there is a sense that, if you are poor, you will be treated more harshly by our justice system, and that is something that we cannot abide, not on those benches, not on this Parliament, not on this country. The rise of potential wide-reaches is because, if you look at the criminal proceedings statistics that were recently released, there were a number of cases where homicide and sexual assault were fines and absolute discharge were given to the individuals. I think that we have to ask ourselves why. The problem is that we do not have confidence without guidelines and we have more detailed comparative statistics to be able to have confidence that those were justified. I would like to address the other amendments that have been tabled this afternoon. To the Government's amendment, I welcome the fact that they note the length of time that it has taken to produce the guidelines so far. I think that that is important. I think that it is right that we hold the sentencing council to account, but I do think that we have to reflect the disappointment and the fact that we will be letting victims down if we do not bring forward guidelines. For those reasons, I cannot support the Government's amendment this evening. To the Conservatives, I have some sympathy with the issues that they are raising. I think that we have to look at how the test of undue leniency is. However, the general characterisation of sentences being too lenient is one that we have to take great care of. The reality is that, over the last three to four decades, sentences have been going up. I am not convinced that the evidence overall for sentences being more lenient is there. In a sense, I think that it is a shame that the Green amendment was not taken. We would not have voted for it because it wiped out an important part of our motion. However, I think that the point around judicial training is one that is well made and one that, in broad terms, I would support. Indeed, I think that the points around judicial independence and the more complex and awkward issues in the debate are an important one. I would like to remind members that we do not just have a moral duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary. We have a legal responsibility to uphold it, but I think that it is important that we do not avoid issues that arise out of individual court cases. In the end of the day, individual court cases can reveal issues that need to be discussed. If the Parliament has any function at all, it is to provide a forum for discussing issues that are of public concern. In particular, there is a role for Government and Parliament to sentencing. If we did not have that, we would not be discussing whether short sentences should be presumed for, or we would not be discussing whether non-custodial sentences should be promoted such as community payback orders. I would like to end by considering Lady Dorian's comments. I hold Lady Dorian in very high regard. She is absolutely a voice of progress in our courts and I welcome very much many of the things that she has brought forward. Can we keep the noise down, please? I would agree that we need to take time and not rush, but I do not think that we are asking the Scottish Sentencing Council to rush. Last year alone, the Sentencing Council in England Wales produced seven sentencing guidelines. I make another point, which is to consider this. In this place, we take a matter of months to pass legislation that the Scottish Sentencing Council is saying that it requires them years to think about providing guidelines to sentences as to how to sentence for them. Surely that is slightly awry, so I would agree with both Liam McArthur and Shora Robison that there is something to be looked at at the time that they are taking. In particular, because of the significant increase in historic sexual crimes that are now being considered in our High Court, I think that there is a very real and pressing need to have guidelines. It is because of that big increase to make sure that we get those decisions right, that we get those sentences right and that those people are punished for the crimes that they have committed in the past. In the end, that is an argument of equality about fairness and making sure that everyone can understand and consent to the functioning of our justice system. I hope that members will support our motion this evening. The next item is consideration of business motion 16025, in the name of Graeme Day, on behalf of the bureau, setting out a business programme, and could I call on Graeme Day to move the motion? Thank you very much. No member seems to wish to speak on the motion. The question is that motion 16025 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. The next item is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions. Could I ask Graeme Day on behalf of the bureau to move motions 16026, 16027, 16028, 16029, and that is on approval of an SSI, and 16037 on a committee meeting at the same time as Parliament? We turn to decision time. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Miles Briggs will fall. The first question is that amendment 16012.3, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, which seeks to amend motion 16012, in the name of Mark Griffin, on the carers allowance supplement to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16012.3, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, is yes, 65, no, 56. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in the name of Miles Briggs is therefore preempted. The next question is that motion 16012, in the name of Mark Griffin, as amended, on the carers allowance supplement to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 16012, in the name of Mark Griffin, as amended, is yes, 93, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 16013.3, in the name of Humza Yousaf, which seeks to amend motion 16013, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on justice, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16013.3, in the name of Humza Yousaf, is yes, 61, no, 54. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 16013.2, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Daniel Johnson, on justice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16013.2, in the name of Liam Kerr, is yes, 27, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 16013, in the name of Daniel Johnson, as amended, on justice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 16013, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on justice, as amended, is yes, 94, no, 21. There were six abstentions, and the motion as amended is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on the five parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? No, that's good. The question is that motions 16026, 16027, 16028, 16029 and 16037, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the bureau, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. We are going to move on shortly to members' business, in the name of Emma Harper, on eating disorders week, eating disorders awareness week, but we are just going to take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats. A few moments.