Yng nghymru, ddweud. Rwy'n fawr i'n ddweud eich sefydlu y Cymru yn 2015. Felly, rwy'n ddweud eich cymdeithas bwysig o'r ffawr i'r pwysig ar gyfer eich gwaith o gyllidol o ffawr. Rwy'n ddweud eich cymdeithas bwysig o'r ffawr i'r prifysgau. Rwy'n ddweud eich cymdeithas bwysig o'r ffawr i'r prifysgau, oherwydd rydyn ni'n fawr i'r prifysgau. amser yn ieddw술u'r oedd yn fliwyr ei wneud. Rhywbeth y Ddarlun yn iawn yn fwy o'r blaen, oedd y mae rhai ddarlun oblefio'r bobl bwrw i'n chiwch ar hyn o'r blaen i wych yn ôl. Rhywbeth ei wneud yn fwy o'r bobl o'r blaen i wneud, oeddu i'r bobl o'r blaen i wych, oedd yn fwy o'r bobl o'r blaen i wych yn fwy o'r bod rhaen, oeddy, oeddu i siŵr o ffawr. Felly, fel gwirionedd y bwysig ddefnyddio'r penderfyniad a chycofaol yn ei gydaintfyniad ar gyfer gan yw, am gweithio i gyda llwyddon oescelion ar gyfer 11.40. Fel ei bod pseudodau cysylltau ei wneud, mae'n llei'r llwyddon i'u chi amladau wneud, o fe wnaeth, ac mae'n gofyn nhw'n mynd i'r Aberchlyw. Pe fyddwn i fynd i.  Beiddaeth яillion tŷ lateiol yn agmerthu ar gyfer apteit Nh tablespoon�小 Labour adnodau hynny a llotu peitni a wneud hyn o Memharent the advisory group's recommendations, and it's important to look at this group of amendments in that context. My aim is to use these amendments to make the legislative change that we need in order to implement the advisory group's recommendations in full. I asked the advisory group to consider whether consensual stop and search should end and whether any additional steps would be required to be taken, including any consequential amendment or consequential legislation or changes in practice. I also asked the group to develop a draft code of practice to underpin the use of stop and search in Scotland. The advisory group included a broad membership. That included Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority, the Crown Office, academics, representatives from Scotland's commissioner for children and young people and Ann Huston, chair of the Scottish Child Protection Chairs Forum and former chief executive of Children First. I asked the advisory group to report back in a tight timescale to match the progress of this bill, and I am grateful to the group, and in particular John Scott, who led it for delivering the report to last month's deadline. I am sure that the committee will agree that this is a comprehensive, balanced and considered report that makes clear and well-reasoned recommendations. In the summer, I indicated that I would seek an early opportunity to legislate, and that is what we are doing now. I hope that that reassures the committee that we are serious about implementing all of our recommendations swiftly and delivering on the new code of practice as soon as can be done practically. I would also like to thank Alison McInnes for her contribution to the stop and search debate over recent months, and for lodging amendments 50 to 53. As Alison McInnes knows from her recent discussions, it has not been possible to bend her amendments with the Governments. In my view, implementing the recommendations requires a co-ordinated set of amendments that are more detailed than amendments 50 to 53. We did look at this carefully, but amendments 50 to 53 simply do not lend themselves to being changed in a way that would be required. My conclusion is that the most effective way to ensure proper implementation of advisory groups recommendations is to draft a new set of co-ordinated amendments as a single package, which is what we have done. I will now move on to the amendments in my name. Amendment 223 to 233 form a set that hangs together as one. That would be a whole new part of the bill, which is divided into two chapters. The amendments insert the new part section by section. Amendment 223 will end consensual stop and search of persons who are not in police custody. The effect of that will be that police officers will only be able to search such a person where they are explicitly permitted to do so by an enactment or a warrant. That is what has become known as statutory search. Amendment 229, 232 and 233 require a code of practice to be implemented after a period of consultation. The consultation is to be both public and with specific stakeholders. That is followed by a requirement for parliamentary approval. The parliamentary approval is under the affirmative procedure with a copy of the code of practice to be laid to. Amendment 233 provides for the code thereafter to be kept under regular review. The original code will require to be reviewed within two years of it coming into effect and, thereafter, a review will be required to be held no later than every four years. Together, amendments 223, 229, 232 and 233 will implement advisory group recommendations 1 to 4 and they follow the advisory group's recommendations in relation to making, publication and consultation on the code. Amendment 231 will give the code the appropriate legal status. A court or tribunal in civil or criminal proceedings must take the code of practice into account when determining any questions arising in the proceedings to which the code is relevant. Amendment 227 ensures that consensual stop and search will end under amendment 223 at the point at which the original code of practice comes into effect. Subsection 1 in amendment 227 achieves that by stating that commencement of the provision in amendment 223 is to be on the same day as the original code of practice takes effect under the provisions in amendment 233. That will implement advisory group recommendation 8. Advisory group recommendation 6 is that the Scottish Government should hold an early consultation on whether to legislate to create a specific power for police officers to search children under the age of 18 for alcohol. I have already said that we will carry out a consultation on that. The advisory group was not able to form a concluded view on whether such a power was necessary or desirable, which is why it recommended that there should be a consultation. I will make a decision as to whether such a power is necessary after the consultation. However, if after consultation is decided that such a power is necessary, I would wish to seek the Parliament's consent to introduce that power in a timely manner. Amendment 226 therefore contains an enabling provision that would facilitate that. It would allow an affirmative SSI to be made to provide a power to stop and search children under 18 for alcohol. That amendment would also allow the SSI to provide a power to search a person who is over 18 where that person is hiding a child's alcohol in order to stop it being found. However, unlike consensual stop and search, such powers will only ever be able to be exercised where the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has alcohol in their possession. As I said, decisions on whether to make such an SSI will depend on the outcome of the consultation, but ultimately on upon that SSI being agreed by the Parliament. That provision is also subject to the sunset clause in subsection 2 in amendment 227. The result is that, if no regulations are made within two years of the original code of practice coming into effect, that provision will cease to have effect. Amendment 224 addresses potential but limited gaps in statutory powers that we have identified. There is a possible lack of clarity in current law, and there is a risk that the complete abolition of consensual stop and search under amendment 223 might mean that the police lack the powers that they need to search persons in certain circumstances. In particular, persons who have not been arrested but who are nevertheless in the hands of safekeeping of the police under some other legal authority. We have identified several circumstances where the police have statutory power to hold and or transport a person from one place to another to safeguard that person's safety and wellbeing. In order to look after that person and also protect the police officers looking after that person, the police need to be able to search that person before holding and or transporting that person. In particular, there is currently no express power of search when the police take a drunk person to a designated place under section 16 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995. There is no express power of search when detaining a person under the mental health care and treatment Scotland Act 2013, or part 6 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, or when detaining a child for their own welfare under section 56 of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011. As I am sure the committee will understand, the gaps that we have identified cannot be left unfilled. Amendment 224 addresses the gap. It contains a general provision that would allow constables to search a person in the sort of circumstances that I have mentioned, that is, when the person is to be held or transported by the police under specific authority of an enactment, warrant or court order. It should be noted that the power of search is expressly limited not just to specific circumstances but also to specific purposes, namely to ensure that the person in the hand of the police is not in possession of something that could be harmful. That power was not included in the advisory group's recommendations, no doubt because the circumstances that I have outlined were not within the group's remit. However, I believe that those powers are necessary for the narrow purposes of prevention of harm to self and others in limited circumstances in question. This amendment will create a new power of statutory search in those limited circumstances whereby the new power falls within the authority for statutory search referred to in amendment 223. The committee may wish to know that John Scott is aware that we propose to introduce this new power and he considers that this would be a sensible proposal. Amendment 225 imposes a duty on a constable when deciding whether to search a child to treat the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration. That replicates the effect of section 42 of the bill in the context of shop and search. That delivers the intention behind advisory group recommendations 7 and amendment 53, lodged by Alison McInnes. I will now come back to this point later when talking about the non-government amendments in this group. Amendment 228 provides definition of constable and place custody for the purposes of this section of the bill. In summary, amendment 223, 233, 233, if accepted as a package will deliver all the legislative changes required to implement the advisory group's recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in full. For the sake of completeness, the committee will wish to know that the recommendation of advisory group recommendations 5, 9 and 10 does not require legislative change. Recommendation 5 concerns the transfer of information from Police Scotland to the Scottish Police Authority and the publication of that information. Recommendation 9 concerns the need for a detailed implementation programme and recommendation 10 is that there should be discussions about the most appropriate way of dealing with children and vulnerable adults who come to notice during stop and search situations. I now turn to the non-government amendments. For the reasons that I have previously outlined, I consider that the intentions behind amendments 50 and 51, lodged by Alison McInnes, are more effectively delivered by the fuller package of provisions contained in amendment 223, 229, 230, 232 and 233. I therefore ask Alison McInnes not to press amendments 50 and 51. I also encourage Alison McInnes not to press amendment 52. This has been superseded by the advisory group's recommendation 5, which covers the transfer of information from Police Scotland to the Scottish Police Authority and the publication of that information. While I support the principles of publishing information on stop and search, I do not consider that it is appropriate to include this requirement in primary legislation. There are other and more appropriate ways to publish this information, as recommended by the advisory group. Amendment 53, lodged by Alison McInnes, concerned the wellbeing of the child and mirrored advisory group recommendation 7. My initial instinct was to support amendment 53. However, on closer inspection, under amendment 53, the advisory group recommendation 7 would quite achieve what they seek to achieve because of their wording and their placing in the bill. Because of its position in section 42 of the bill and the fact that it is not restricted to children who are not in police custody, amendment 53 goes too far because it targets all searches in all circumstances. That means that it would be unnecessarily and inappropriately affect the police pillars of search of people who are being dealt with by the police under the regime for arrest, custody and questioning in part 1 of the bill. Such people are already protected by section 42 of the bill. That would also go further than recommendation 7 of the advisory group, which is explicitly limited to children who are not in police custody. As I said earlier, amendment 225 imposes a duty on constables when deciding where to search a child to treat the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration. That exactly delivers the intention behind the advisory group recommendation 7, and amendment 53, lodged by Alison McInnes, therefore asks Alison McInnes not to press amendment 53. Amendment 229A, lodged by Alison McInnes, would have the effect of specifying the information that the code of practice must contain. As I said, my intention is to implement the advisory group's recommendations in full. The advisory group looked at this closely and deliberately decided not to be prescriptive about what the code should contain. They provided a draft code and recommended that we carry out a consultation on the draft. That is what I intend to do. I have asked John Scott and the advisory group to help us to develop the code of practice in light of the consultation responses. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the code before it is finalised. The process for the code of practice is designed to ensure that the code contains everything that it should. I therefore encourage Alison McInnes not to press amendment 229A. Amendment 233B, lodged by Alison McInnes, provides that regulations to bring into effect the first code of practice must be laid within one year of royal assent. I agree that this is a reasonable time period and I thank Alison McInnes for lodging the amendment, and I am content to support amendment 233B. However, we may seek to refine it at stage 3 if it appears to be necessary on looking at it again when it appears in the bill. I also undertake to work with Alison McInnes on the matter. Amendment 230A and 233A, lodged by Alison McInnes, are about reviews of the code of practice. Amendment 230A seeks to ensure that each review of the code of practice is completed within six months of the date it begins. I agree with the intention behind ensuring that reviews are carried out as quickly as possible, and I would certainly agree that any review should be carried out within six months. Therefore, I am content to support amendment 233A and thank Alison McInnes for lodging it. Again, we may seek to refine it at stage 3 if it appears to be necessary on looking at it again when it appears in the bill. Of course, we will work with Alison McInnes on considering the matter. The effect of amendment 233A would be that, after each review of the code of practice, regulations must be laid for a new code to come into effect, whether the code has been changed or not. I agree with the principle that reviews of the code should be kept under scrutiny. However, I consider that amendment 233A would create an odd result. That is because it requires a revised code of practice to be brought into effect even when the earlier version of the code has not actually been revised. In addition, amendment 233A goes beyond that, which was recommended by the advisory group. The advisory group recommends that any revision to the code should be subject to parliamentary approval. Amendment 233A, as read in conjunction with amendment 233A, will ensure that that happens. Any revised code will not take effect until Parliament has had the opportunity to debate and vote on the matter. Therefore, I encourage Alison McInnes not to press amendment 233A. Amendment 232A, lodged by John Finnie, provides that the police investigations and review commissioners should be added to the list of organisations that should be consulted when preparing the draft code of practice. Perkwood has been covered by section H, such others persons as Scottish ministers consider appropriate. However, I have no objection to Perkwood being specifically included. I am therefore content to support amendment 232A, although I would mention that we may seek to move it to a different place in the list at stage 3 for purely technical reasons. I can summarise as follows. Amendment 223233, if accepted as a package, will deliver all the legislative changes that are required to implement John Scott's advisory group recommendations. I am content to support amendments 230A, 232A and 233B. I would encourage Alison McInnes not to press amendments 50, 51, 52, 53, 229A and 233A. I hope that it is clear to the committee that I have taken great care over how to approach the issue, and I have taken into account the suggestions of Alison McInnes, John Finnie and other members on those particular amendments. I will continue to do so between now and stage 3 to build as much consensus on the issue as possible. I move amendment 223. I think that members have received some expanding notes in advance.  I am going to call Alison McInnes just to speak to amendment 229A and other amendments in the group to be followed by John Finnie to speak to amendment 232A and the other amendments in the group. Alison, first. Thank you very much, convener. I want to speak to most of the amendments in this group, so if you would bear with me. For 18 months, I was repeatedly told by the Scottish Government that stop and search was an operational matter, and ministers insisted that they were comfortable with so-called consensual stop and search, despite it occurring on an industrial scale and targeting young and vulnerable people, even children. My campaign to abolish so-called consensual stop and search and introduce a code of practice won the backing of dozens of charities, academics, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Children's Commissioner. As members will be aware, the Government has finally decided to adopt my plans after they were effectively endorsed by the independent advisory group chaired by John Scott QC. I have been pleased to work with the Government since that review was published, and I have reflected on the 11 amendments that the cabinet secretary has now tabled, which benefit from the additional evidence that has emerged since I lodged mine in February. I am willing if John Finnie will agree to either withdraw or not press amendments 50, 51 and 53. However, it is essential that the Government's amendments are strengthened in a number of respects to ensure that there is no room for ministers to backtrack. My amendment 229A, as the minister already said, would specify the information that must, as a minimum, be included in the code of practice. That is the circumstances in which searches take place, the procedure to be followed and what records must be taken and the rights of the subject to access it. Those provisions are not onerous by any means and provide ministers with a great deal of flexibility to develop the code, but they will establish what this Parliament expects. I intend to press that amendment. Amendment 232A specifies that reviews of the code should be completed in six months, again ensuring that reviews cannot just get stalled and I thank the Government for their support on that. My amendment 233A was to try and reflect my belief that every time the code is reviewed, the Parliament should have an opportunity to reaffirm its support for or if it chooses to initiate changes, even if the minister does not believe that change is necessary. However, I have listened to what the cabinet secretary has said in his presentation this morning and I will not press amendment 233A. Amendment 233B was a significant one that addresses an omission in the Government's own amendment and it requires the introduction of the code of practice and the associated abolition of so-called consensual stop and search to occur within one year of royal assent. With Police Scotland still conducting hundreds of thousands of unregulated searches, we should not permit the code of practice to slip. I am very grateful that the minister has agreed to support that amendment. I am minded to continue to press my amendment 52A, which requires the SPA to provide an account of the use of stop and search in its annual report to Parliament. That would encourage transparency and improved data collection methods. The committee will remember the difficulties around the figures that were being bandied around. Amendment 226 Scotland's commissioner for children and young people warn us that amendment 226 is premature. That is in relation to the powers to search for alcohol. Children first indicate that we are concerned about the possibility that such a power could lead to unintended consequences for children, for example criminalisation and a higher rate of statutory stopping in searching of young people. I will note that John Scott's review reported that we have not been able to form a concluded view on whether a gap in the power exists that could not be dealt with by existing powers and whether a power to search children for alcohol would be desirable. We therefore recommend that there should be a public consultation that involves children and young people. The review group went on to conclude that we therefore recommend that this should be considered separately, subject to wider consultation, and I agree that there is no need to have this provision in this bill. In closing, I say that Dr Kath Murray's groundbreaking research into the prevalence of unregulated stop and search and the effects of those encounters in Scotland shone a bright light on something that needed to be challenged. For a long time, I was alone voice here in Parliament raising that challenge, but I am delighted that the evidence has vindicated that approach and that the committee is now on the verge of ensuring that every stop and search conducted by the police has a robust legal basis. We are on the verge of ensuring that every search is justified, regulated and accountable. Those changes to the criminal justice bill will be the start of rebuilding community relations among those groups disproportionately targeted by this thoroughly discredited tactic, but there is one more hurdle, and I hope that members will join me in ensuring that there is no room for delay or for future Governments to slide back, and I hope that the committee will go back my amendments. Thank you. John, please, to speak to amendment 232A. Thank you, convener. Stop and search did not use to be a problem. There was a lot of statutory guidance about it or the statutes about which stop and search could be invoked. There was a lot of case law about it. It became a problem. I am certainly very grateful to the cabinet secretary for setting up the review committee under John Scott. I think that it sent a very clear signal that the issues had been responded to. I think that we have heard a lot to suggest that that continues to be the case. I will not repeat much of what my colleague Alison MacKinnon has said. I am certainly grateful for the movement that has taken place, and I am happy to be with Roddy's. Thank you very much. That is Elaine McKinnon, then Margaret McKinnon, then Roddy's, please. To say that the Labour members also welcome the progress on stop search and the move to putting it on a statutory basis. I wanted to invite the cabinet secretary's views on 226 and the concern that Tam Bailey, the Scottish Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People, had about the affirmative procedure, which he thinks is unlikely to allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of a matter that is likely to have wide-reaching effects on children and young people across Scotland. I appreciate that 227 also has a fall-back position, if nothing comes forward, that there is a sunset clause in there. However, whether the Government would be prepared to consider whether or not to make it a superaffirmative procedure to allow additional scrutiny by the Parliament? I am happy to support the amendment in the cabinet secretary's name and stop and search, which reflects the review committee recommendations by John Scott. I would also like to pay tribute to Alison McKinnon. She has been relentless on the scrutiny and on campaigning to address the undoubted abuses of the so-called consensual stop and search, so I think that it is a victory for her today, too. Turning to amendment 229A, which I have supported in her name, I note that the cabinet is not minded to support this, because he does not want to be too prescriptive, but the amendment just said that it should include. It is not saying that it is a definitive content that should be included. It seems to me that it is eminently sensible that the circumstances of a search should be looked at and that, crucially, there should be a record. How else are we to determine how many are taking place if we do not have that record? I am happy that Alison McKinnon has withdrawn 233A, and I am also a supporter of that motion, so I am happy that it is withdrawn or not moved. Section 52 seems to me to be sensible and adds to tightening up the provisions and making sure that they are as effectible as possible by ensuring that a record of the stop and search is included in the CPA annual report, so I would be minded to support amendment 52 also. Again, John Finnie's amendment makes sense, too. Briefly, convener, just in relation to amendment 229A, I have heard what is said about the prescriptive point, but I think that the important point for me is that the Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the code of practice before it is finalised, so it is not something that will not come back to Parliament. As far as 226A is concerned, I recognise that that is likely to be a controversial area. As far as I am concerned, so long as there is a proper opportunity for this Parliament in some shade or form to consider the outcome of that consultation, then I do not have a particular problem with the proposal of the Government. Cabinet Secretary, please wind up. Thank you, convener, and I am grateful to the comments that were made by various committee members. First, I turn to amendment 226. The intention behind that is not to pre-empt anything, but to create the enabling power so that, following the consultation that is recommended by the advisory group, that if that power is necessary in order to create the statutory provision for the searching of those under 18 for alcohol, that following that consultation, Parliament will have an opportunity to address that. I do think that there is an inherent danger that should you conduct a consultation, then find that the recommendation is that we should have something that is a gap identified, that we have no wish to vehicle to then pursue that issue if we do not take forward that particular provision. That is the risk that is associated with the approach with not taking that particular amendment forward. I am open to, between now and stage 3, exploring Wales a way in which it could be further reinforced. For example, Elaine Murray's suggestion that there should be a superaffirmative procedure, and the committee would be more minded for it to be a superaffirmative procedure and more than content to explore that further between now and stage 3, which would give the Parliament additional oversight before any such power could be introduced. However, I have very serious concerns about the possibility of conducting a consultation recommended by the advisory group. If it identifies that there is a legislative gap, that we have no legislative vehicle in which to address that deficit that has been identified within the law, if there is nothing identified during the course of that consultation that would justify having such a statutory provision, then we also have the amendments that create a sunset clause to remove that from the bill in going forward. In relation to the issue around amendment 229A, which Alison McInnes made reference to, the primary purpose for our decision not to accept this was because of the recommendations of the advisory group. The advisory group considered this issue very closely as part of their consideration of this matter, and they deliberately decided not to be prescriptive about what the code should contain in itself. They provided a DAF code with the recommendation that we should then have a consultation on that particular code, and that is what we intend to do. In order to assist with that process, the advisory group is remaining in place, with John Scott heading it up, and the other members in supporting the consultation exercise and the drafting of the code that will eventually be brought before Parliament for consideration. The key point that Ron Campbell made is that the code of practice has to be laid before Parliament, and Parliament will have the ultimate say on whether its content is correct or not on that particular matter. The final point is in relation to amendment 52, which Alison McInnes made reference to. The reason that we have rejected that amendment is because of the findings of the advisory group on the matter and recommendation 5, where the approach that Police Scotland takes just now around data has improved, but the process should be taken forward as a practical measure through a regular basis with the SPA in Police Scotland to ensure that there is adequate openness and transparency, and that will be fully implemented with all the other recommendations in the report. Therefore, there is no need to put anything on the face of the bill in order to achieve that particular recommendation. I move through the amendments. The question is that amendment 223 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendments 224, 225, 226, 227 and 228, all and then the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move those amendments on block. It is all right. I am not preempting anything. Bear with me. Here we go. Alison, does any member object to a single question that we put on amendments 224 to 228? Yes. I will go through them, each amendment individually. I call amendment 224. Cabinet secretary to move. The question is that amendment 224 be agreed to. We are agreed. I call amendment 225. Cabinet secretary to move. The question is that amendment 225 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 226. Cabinet secretary to move. The question is that amendment 226 be agreed to. It is not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of 226, please show. Those against, please show. Eight for one against that amendment is agreed to. Call amendment 227 in the name of cabinet secretary to move. The question is that amendment 227 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 228 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary to move. The question is that amendment 228 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. I call amendment 229 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 223. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Call amendment 229A in the name of Alison McKinnis. Already debated with amendment 223. Alison, move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 229A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That is five for four against that amendment is agreed to. The question is that amendment 229 as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 213 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 223. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Call amendment 238 in the name of Alison McKinnis. Already debated with amendment 223. Alison, move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 238 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 230 as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 231 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 223. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 231 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? 2.2. glandio wrth sefydlinghe ac ymlaen gen — ホト seems Start 4.9. 1.2.3. 2.3.2 Members'冤 marks gollabilaeth a ni'n fod wedi gylywsoch chi i ddigwlad traceu cyfledd Often ondnewch sy'n chlas 나도 WallAKE Ymlife阿梁 lef ilo medicine aged Samsung fy lle i'r wych arall i gael. Sydd yn yr aelis enw i'r amddag Eeliseon. Mae Cynus oedd yma i'r wych o Gymraeg, yn 223. Alasyn yw yn ei f ACY? Mae. Mae gwaith eich cwestiynau yn yr amdgol 52 i gael ac yn ymgyrch. No. Dw i'n rhaid i ddifusio têf yn fwrdd ond ac oedd o'n rhaid i'r m caliberau i chi. Unwch, 5,4,4—yna'r amdgol yn y ddweud o'r amdgol 111 yn yr ysgolwch cymdeithasol ond, ond, ond, ond, ond, ond, ond, ond, ond, ond, and speak to the other amendments in the group. I will deal with amendment 111 and amendment 112, both of which are relatively minor before turning to amendment 37 and the proposed definition of arrest. Amendment 111 is simply aimed at improving readability. Amendment 112 clarifies the meaning of offence that is not punishable by imprisonment. Section 112 of the bill sets down an extra test that has to be met before a constable can arrest someone without a warrant if the offence that the person is suspected of committing is not punishable by imprisonment. What this phrase is meant to capture is minor offences for which nobody will ever be sent to prison, but on its own the phrase could be taken to mean that the particular suspect, the constable and tense arrest, would not be liable for imprisonment. Children, for example, are never liable for imprisonment or to be imprisoned. Amendment 112 makes clear that, in deciding whether section 112 applies, it is the nature of the offence that is to be considered, not the identity of the particular suspect. I turn to amendment 37 lodged by John Pentland. This amendment would add a new section to the bill to provide a definition of arrest for the purposes of part 1 of the bill. I am not persuaded that this amendment would do any good and could, in fact, have the opposite effect. Definitions are there to clarify the meaning of the words and expressions when used in the legislation. This proposed definition of arrest would not make the meaning of part 1 of the bill more certain. The proposed definition is in two parts. The first part refers to depriving a person of liberty of movement. The phrase is open to interpretation and challenge. Would it, for example, cover those who were released on investigative liberation or on undertaking or bail with conditions as to the place where they were permitted to go? The second part of the proposed definition is that arrest means taking a person to a police station in accordance with section 4, which might imply that nobody can be arrested at a police station. The proposed definition of arrest is circular. A person is under arrest within the meaning of the proposed definition if he or she is to be taken to a police station in accordance with section 4. Who is to be taken to a police station in accordance with section 4? Section 4 applies in relation to a person who has been arrested. Effectively, the definition states that a person is arrested if the person has been arrested. Part 1 of the bill is, in a sense, an extended definition of arrest. It sets out who can exercise the power of arrest, the grounds for doing so, the rights of the person arrested and what is to happen following arrest. Picking out one element of that extended definition and saying that that is what arrest means for the pubs of the bill does not add anything. There are also many other statutes that use the word arrest without a definition and work well without one. As Police Scotland indicated in their evidence, the bill as drafted would allow them to work in the current legal understanding and definition of arrest, which is well understood by police officers and others in the justice system. While the practitioners understand the legal meaning, I acknowledge that there may be some misunderstanding among the general public of what arrest means. By defining the word in legislation is not going to help that. When I said at the outset that the purpose of defining words and expressions in legislation is to inform the interpretation of the legislation in question, I think that there is an onus on everyone who works in the criminal justice system to find ways to make the system more understandable and accessible. I move amendment 111. I would urge Elaine Murray not to press amendment 37 for the reasons outlined. Thank you very much. I will call amendment 37, the name of John Pentland and Elaine Murray, to speak to that amendment. No, I was not leaving it alone. Never mind, I can do with help sometimes, and you are all doing that. Elaine Murray, please to speak. To say a few words regarding the amendment in the name of my colleague John Pentland, I should point out that, despite the hilarity about the wording of the amendment, it was drafted by the legislation team, not by Mr Pentland himself. As the cabinet secretary implied in his speech on the amendment, it was the reason that John Pentland put it forward was to address the very issue that the meaning of arrest will change in Scotland. In Scotland, we have a particular view of what arrest means. We think that people are arrested once they have been charged with an offence and not when they have been helping the police with inquiries and so on. John Pentland put forward the amendment in an attempt to see if there is a method by which we can clarify that in the public mind and, in particular, in the mind of the media, because we were advised during taking evidence on this bill many moons ago, it was probably about two years ago. In England and Wales, there have been quite high profile incidences where somebody has been arrested for a very serious crime, i.e. if they are being questioned. The media has then treated that person as if they were a suspect and, in fact, the person was never charged. It is important that, if the bill has passed and the meaning of arrest in Scotland changes, efforts are made to ensure that people who are, what would have been termed, helping police with inquiries are not considered to necessarily be having been charged. I will come back to that later, because I have other amendments much later on probably next week, which look at some of those issues. That was, sorry, John's meaning, but I know that John is quite content for that amendment not to be pressed. Rodi. Thank you, convener. I heard what Elaine McLean said. I am not sure that the reference to helping police with inquiries is actually helping us in our discussions this morning, but I just wanted to remind the committee of what Professor Jarmus said two years ago, when he said that the distinguished Professor Jarmus in Glasgow University said that the general term arrest has been used successfully for quite some time, despite the fact that nobody can state exactly what the law in that area is. I think that the main thing is to remove an artificial distinction between detention and arrest, and if at some later stage somebody wants to attempt to define arrest, then so be it, but not in this bill. I am no clearer what has been said there. I think that it has been me more confused Cabinet Secretary to wind up, please. Thanks, convener. Largo, for the reasons that I outlined in my earlier comments, particularly around the circular nature of this particular amendment that was proposed by John Pentland, it effectively would not deliver what it is intended to do. I should quickly add that the legislative team that assisted in its drafting was a Parliament's legislative team. Could he shot unhorror on the faces of your colleagues there, Cabinet Secretary? I do not doubt that Elaine Murray will wish to consider those matters further before stage 3. For the very reasons that I think that Rod Campbell has outlined in the previous evidence that the committee received, the approach to trying to define the word arrest creates a lot of unintended consequences, which I think has the danger of creating further confusion and difficulty in interpreting the provisions within the bill, which, in part 1, sets out what is almost an extended definition of arrest in itself. Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 112 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 111. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Now, I think that I will go to the bottom of this and then we will have a little break if that is okay. I will take us down to, I will call Margaret next, I think, and then we will have that. Call amendment 234 in the name of Margaret Mitchell group with amendments 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 256, 257 and 259. Margaret, please, to move amendment 234 and speak to the other amendments in the group. It has now been two years since the justice committee took evidence on the criminal justice bill and part 1 arrest and custody. This is a very important part of the bill, which includes the proposals for changing the current powers that the police have for detention, arrest and charge. In addition to this, two years ago, the debate and scrutiny of the bill was focused on one particular contentious proposal, namely the provision to abolish corroboration. So, there is a very real concern and issue here about the committee, which has in itself changed in composition in the last two years. We also have a new cabinet secretary, having the opportunity to properly scrutinise what, by any standards, is a very substantial and significant change in the traditional method by which the police carry out one of their basic functions to protect the public, namely the power to detain, to arrest and to charge. Those are terms that are understood at present. The general public knows that, when someone is detained for questioning, they will either be released without charge or arrested and charged. Furthermore, the committee pointed out in its stage 1 report that there is not the same stigma attached to someone being detained for questioning and helping police with inquiries, as there is to being told that someone has been arrested. When we took evidence, the convener stated that the public knows that detention is different from arrest. They may not know the technical things that lawyers know, but they know that it is different from being arrested. Also, as one of the then justice committee members, Sandra White, noted, public perception is that if someone is arrested as opposed to being detained, they are suspected of being guilty of a crime. Elaine Murray stated that the problem is that, although the words may mean the same thing, the public thinks that when someone has been arrested, the police have sufficient evidence that they may have committed a crime. However, the concerns about the proposed change do not stop there. Crucially, if the proposed changes are agreed, as the Scottish Police Federation pointed out, that will result in police officers having to be retrained. That, in turn, will have the following adverse consequences. It will take up precious police hours at a time when Police Scotland and its loyal and hard-working rank-and-file officers are already operating under immense pressure. It will have adverse financial implications in Police Scotland's already strained budget. As the Law Society of Scotland pointed out, the current system is working well, and there is no requirement to move to a system of arrest on the basis that a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed or is committing an offence. As Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation also said, he was not entirely convinced that the need for change had been demonstrated or that the proposed wording would be more easily understood. Those are probing amendments, which I fully accept have technical flaws, but I propose retention of the status quo in an effort to have a much needy discussion about why the proposals for the new terminology are necessary and can be justified, given the implications for Police Scotland, both in practical terms and financially. To allow the discussion to take place, I move amendment 234 in my name. Thank you very much. Any other members wishing to speak? John Finnie, please. Thank you, convener. I listen intently to what Margaret MacDonald said there. I would hope to layer concerns about police training, for instance, because we unanimously agreed a package of issues earlier in our discussions that would have implications for training. That is part and parcel of how the police respond to the democratic process. Laws are passed here, they pick up on that. I would not be concerned about that at all. I understand the traditional view about arrest and detention. In my 30 years, I saw changes in that. I have to say, for the individual, if you have been weak and put away in a police van, it does not matter what you call it, it has the same effect. It is the protections that afford the individuals that are important to me, and I am sure that we can get it right and that the police service will respond appropriately to whatever we decide in this committee. I am looking forward to being weak to being on the official report. I accept that it was two years ago, when we were having a lot of evident sessions about that. The committee did seem to formulate, or some members of the committee had a view that, in some way, detention was different from arrest. I am also mindful that Lord Carlaway was fairly clear that we needed to do away with that distinction, which was increasingly blurred. That was the view of Professor Chalmers. Professor Chalmers was fairly clear that the public knew that there was a difference between detained and being charged. I am not sure that Margaret's amendment is really helpful, and I urge the committee to reject it. I think that she is probing, but we will get to that. I think that Margaret Pavan has put forward his amendments that are helpful, even if we do not necessarily agree with the amendments. Margaret referred in her speech about her amendments to the fact that the public do not have a different view of arrest, and that is what I was trying to get at when we were talking about John Pentland's amendment. I think that that is an issue. However, I do not have a recollection from two years ago, particularly of many people saying that we should not be doing this at all or that this part of the bill should be thrown out. Although I agree that we have to be careful about the way in which the issues around arrest are transmitted to the public and that people become aware of the fact that they are different, I do not think that those sections need to be taken out. I fail to see why we are such a burden on the police to have a slight difference in terminology because they are not going to be doing anything terribly different, it is just that it is going to be called something different. I am not convinced that that is going to be a huge burden on the police in Scotland. Can we hear Margaret Mitchell's amendments 234 to 241 and amendment 256, 257 and 259? We would remove all of chapter 1 of part 1 of the bill, together with the related amendments about arrest. That would have the effect of retaining the current detention arrangements provided for in section 14 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, together with the existing common law and statutory powers of arrest. I believe that that would be a backward step when we should be moving forward in modernising our justice system. The Criminal Justice Scotland Bill resulted from an independent review carried out by a respected senior member of the Scottish judiciary. From the responses to the Scottish Government's consultation on the thoughtful recommendations made by Lord Calaway in his report, the report recommended that section 14 detention should be abolished and that the only general power to take a suspect into custody should be the power of arrest. The bill is the legislative vehicle to implement Calaway and to take forward the next stage in reform, in reforming the Scottish criminal justice system. It will ensure that rights will be protected while ensuring effective access to justice for victims of crime. The bill achieves those policy objectives and reflects the carefully balanced suggestions by Lord Calaway in relation to police pillars. In its stage 1 report, the committee accepted that there might be benefit in simplifying the powers of arrest along the lines proposed in part 1 of the bill. That is what we should be working to achieve. The legislation will modernise and clarify the system of arrest, custody and questioning, and I believe that it will keep our communities safe while ensuring that the police continue to act with the consent of the communities that they serve. The common law power of arrest for offences will be repealed and replaced with a power of arrest on suspicion of having committed a defence. All other common law powers remain. statutory powers to arrest suspects for specific offences, which are currently scattered across the statute book, will also be replaced by the single clear power of arrest, as set out in part 1 of the bill. I also believe that the terminology used in the bill is clear and accurately describes the new regime. The term arrest does not imply guilt. Whether a person is guilty of committing the offence is a matter for our courts. The presumption of innocence remains. The term not officially accused and officially accused have been used to differentiate between two distinct categories of persons. First, people who are suspected of an offence but who have not been charged, not officially accused. Second, those who have been formally charged with an offence, which includes accused on petition, indictment or complaint, are officially accused. It is also worth keeping in mind that the Callaway review concluded that distinction between arrest and detention had been eroded to such an extent that there was little purpose in continuing with the two different states. Lord Callaway recommended that section 14 detention should be abolished and the only general power to take a suspect into custody should be the power of arrest. Chapter 1 of the bill implements that recommendation, and therefore I urge Margaret Mitchell not to press her amendments. Margaret Mitchell, please wind up. It seems that the common law just now on the power of arrest is to be abolished. There is always the possibility when something is put in statute, which was previously covered by the common law, with all the flexibility that that contains, that there are unintended consequences. I think that we have already seen some of that when we are looking at whether it includes the power for someone to be arrested for their own safety. I do not know whether that has been addressed or if it is going to be addressed. Also, the cabinet secretary has made much of Lord Callaway's recommendation on the basis that it simplifies the law. It seems to me that it does anything but to be arrested and then not arrested, not officially accused. Now officially accused, it might make more sense to academics, and those steeped in the legal profession, I do not think that it necessarily does to the ordinary man in the street, and those powers will affect the ordinary man in the street. There also seems to be a justification for the change in Lord Callaway's recommendation to bring two distinctive means of taking a person into custody under Scott's law, to bring it more clearly in tune with ECHR, but in practice, as the law society pointed out, the system, as changed in the light of cadre, seems to have bedded in well and is working well at present without all these changes. I appreciate that many of the amendments that will follow today are aimed at improving the new terminology, and on that basis, then I will look at them on their own merits. I am not convinced that the new terminology, as opposed to the status quo, is the best way to progress. I will not be pressing my amendment, but I do urge the Scottish Government to look again at this whole section, for there is most certainly a case to be made for taking the proposals for change to detention arrest and charge out of the bill to ensure that they can be given the necessary scrutiny and to ensure that they would, in fact, be an improvement to the current system. Well, you have moved it, so you are seeking to withdraw it. Margaret wishes to withdraw it, so you agreed. Thank you very much. I then put the question on section 1. The question is, does section 1 be agreed to or are we agreed? I am going to suspend for five minutes, as I promised. Thank you very much. I now move back on, I call amendment 113 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 114, 238, 239, 10 and 11. Cabinet secretary, please to move amendment 113 and speak to the other amendments in the group. The group of amendments deals with information that suspects will be given after being arrested. I am sure that we all agree that this is an important issue, because for many people, particularly those who have not previously been in trouble with the police, being placed under arrest may be a distressing and potentially confusing experience for them. I am aware that the committee very much welcomed at stage 1 the added protections that this legislation will give to people when they are arrested. Amendments 113 and 114 extend information suspects will be entitled to following an arrest. Amendment 113 will give a person arrested by a police officer who is not in uniform a right to see the officer's ID. Amendment 114 amends section 3 of the bill to add to the information that that section will require a police officer to give a person who has been arrested. Specifically, it will require the officer to inform the person that they have the right to have a lawyer told that they are in police custody and the right to have a private consultation with a lawyer at any time while in police custody. Those rights are laid out by section 35 and 36 of the bill. That will ensure that suspects are aware of those important rights from the earliest possible time after their arrest. Of course, section 5 of the bill already provides that they will be told about them when they arrive at the police station. I appreciate that Alison MacKinnon's amendment 238 and 239 and John Finnie's amendments 10 and 11 are motivated by the same desire to ensure that suspects are fully informed of their rights. However, I am afraid that I cannot support Alison MacKinnon's amendments in this group. They would amend section 5 of the bill so that the police would be required to tell a suspect on arrival at a police station about the right to have a slister present during interview under section 24 and about the right for vulnerable adults to receive support from an appropriate adult under section 33. Not all suspects who are detained at a police station are questioned, however, so those rights would not have been engaged. Section 232 already requires that suspects who are interviewed are told about their rights to have a lawyer present. Further, section 5 already ensures that every suspect who is detained in a police station is told about their rights to have intimations sent to a lawyer and to have a private consultation with a lawyer. As I have just explained, amendment 114 will now mean that suspects are told about those rights even earlier in the process at the point of arrest. Similarly, not all suspects who are detained at a police station have a right to support from an appropriate adult. The rights in section 5, which the police are required to tell suspects about, are those that, generally, the suspect has some choice about whether or not to exercise. The right to have support from an appropriate adult is not that sort of right. If the suspect is assessed as needing an appropriate adult support, one will be provided. There is no point having the police tell a suspect that they have a right to support from an appropriate adult if the appropriate adult is already there or enroute. If the suspect has been assessed as not requiring support from an appropriate adult, the suspect will have no right under section 33 to be told about that. I am afraid that, for those reasons, I cannot support Alison McInnes's amendment 238 and 239. Amendment 10 and 11, in the name of John Finnie, relates to the letters of rights. Section 5 currently states that every suspect is to be given verbally or in writing the information that is required by article 3 and 4 of the EU directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Since July 2013, it has been practised throughout Scotland to provide suspects with that information in the form of a written letter of rights. The letter of rights is available in 34 languages and, from the start of this year, a special easy-to-read version of the letter has been available to help children and suspects with learning difficulties to fully understand their rights. The Government is committed to continuing to keep the letter under review so that it continues to be fit for purpose. Amendment 10 and 11 would make it a requirement for the information required by the directive to always be given both in writing and verbally to every suspect. I understand that the committee and Lord Bonomy reference group have been sympathetic to that requirement. The Government is therefore giving careful consideration to the practical workability of the proposal. Unfortunately, it has become clear that such a change would have a significant impact on police resource, which the Government considered would be disproportionate to the benefits that suspects would get from a change in practice. Around 200,000 suspects pass through police stations each year. Police Scotland estimates that the amount of police time that it would take up each year by reading the whole letter of rights to every suspect would be approximately 16,500 hours. That assumes that every suspect has a good grasp of English. Locating an interpreter to read out the letter of rights for those suspects who cannot follow it in English will likely cause considerable delay and will only add to the time that person spends in custody deprived of their liberty. Of course, I recognise that even the easy-to-read version of the letter of rights that I mentioned earlier is not going to be suitable for every suspect. Where a suspect has difficulty reading, officers will read the letter of rights out. It is precisely to allow flexibility in the circumstances that the bill says verbally or in writing. As I mentioned in my letter to the committee in August, the police are going to include in their new custody software a prompt to ask suspects whether they would like the letter of rights to be read out to them. I hope that members and John Finnie himself will agree that a more proportionate way to meet the good intentions behind his amendments is to have the police read the letter to those suspects who need that instead of having a huge amount of police time expended reading it out to suspects who are perfectly well enabled to read it for themselves. Before leaving the subject, I would like to offer this further reassurance to members of the committee and John Finnie in particular. During my statement to Parliament on the report of Lord Bonomy's review group, John Finnie endorsed a recommendation of the group that legal aid contributions for legal advice at police stations should be waived. I appreciate that there was previously been concerns that suspects, even when they know about their rights to legal advice, may waive them, as they may be worried about the potential cost implications. The Government has previously confirmed its plan to abolish legal aid contributions in all those circumstances, and I can now confirm to the committee that we will lay regulations to do so before the end of this year. All suspects will be entitled to free legal advice while they are detained. That is a significant step, and I believe that it demonstrates the progress and commitment that has been made to safeguard the rights of suspects and detained persons. I hope that that provides further reassurance to members that steps are continuing to be taken to encourage the greater uptake of legal advice at police stations. We will monitor how those changes affect the number of suspects taking legal advice in custody, and, as always, I will keep the committee informed of the results. Therefore, I urge John Finnie not to press his amendment, which would pose significant resource problems for Police Scotland, and to give suspects no additional protection in light of the other steps that have been taken. I therefore move amendment 113. Alison Smith is pleased to speak to amendment 238, and the other amendments that were followed by John Finnie to speak to amendment 10. Section 5 requires that persons in police custody must be informed as soon as reasonably practicable of their key rights. Those currently include the right to have intimation sent on another person, the right of children to access a parent or guardian, and the right to remain silent. My amendments 238 and 239 would extend that list in two respects and ensure that those in custody are also informed of the section 24 and the section 33 rights respectively. Section 24 sets out the right to have a solicitor present while being interviewed. In response to a recent parliamentary question, the Scottish Government confirmed that approximately 75 per cent of those in police custody waived their option to consult or have a solicitor present, and I consider that a troubling statistic. The bill rightly ensures that people in custody are told of the right to have intimation sent to a solicitor and the right to a consultation at any time. However, unless people are always told that the solicitor can assist them during the police interview, they may not choose to exercise their right to a consultation. My amendment 239 would ensure that people are told of the rights listed in section 33, the support available to vulnerable adults. I have listened to what the cabinet secretary had to say about that, but the bill currently places the owners squarely on a constable to decide whether someone is unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or to communicate effectively. If we inform everyone who enters police custody of the right to support in those circumstances, we will perhaps increase the chance of any individual who needs assistance volunteering that fact, and it would provide a safeguard and increase the likelihood that needs are identified as early as possible. My amendments 238 and 239 are supported by Justice Scotland, which has argued that both those key rights should be on the face of the bill. Turning to the other amendments in the group, I welcome the cabinet secretary's amendment 113 and 114, providing suspects with additional information on their arrest. I am sympathetic to John Finnie's amendments 10 and 11, and we will listen to his response to the cabinet secretary's concerns. Thank you very much, Alison. John Finnie, please, to speak to amendment 10 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendments 10 and 11 relate to the information to be given at a police station, and the requests that take place both verbally and in writing. Concerns were raised by the Law Society about that, and they highlighted some of the aspects that we already know and frequently come across in this committee, namely the level of literacy that exists among people who find themselves in custody, people often in custody under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and another aspect that we touched on here, the level of brain injury around people who find themselves in custody. The amendment was intended to ensure that it was not simply in 34 lineages and a re-e-read, and I do not know if the easy reads available in 34 lineages, but that people were left in no doubt. I think that the one message that we want to give from this committee is that it is legislation that is robust but thoroughly scrutinised. I have to say that I am bemused that Police Scotland says that it has a significant impact on police resources to advise someone of their rights, and that someone has actually costed out the hours, is even misuse of police time, I have to tell you. The cabinet secretary talked about assures that every suspect has a grasp of English. Of course, we know that the background to that is that a lot of people do not have a grasp of English in communication skills and other factors. Another phrase that gave me no reassurance whatsoever was the question of the term flexibility on rights. There can be no flexibility on rights, and a prompt in police software, will I want a prompt to be in the police mindset rather than on a piece of IT? That said, I was very reassured by the finish-off that the cabinet secretary had about the provision of suspects have free legal advice. I think that that is very reassuring, and for that reason I would seek to permission to withdraw these two amendments. We have not moved them yet. Before we go to the boat, I will remind committee members of my register of interests and my membership of Justice Scotland. Anyone else wish to come in? I just wanted to speak about what John Finnie said about the misuse of police time. I just wanted to make it clear that, for people, English is not the first language, writing letter will be easier to understand that something verbally. To a certain extent, I can understand Police Scotland when they say that imposing verbally to make the letter available to everybody already, as opposed to in writing, might be a misuse of police time for a lot of people who will maybe prefer having it in writing. I am just wondering if one of the languages was French, if you never know. Gil, please. I can see what John Finnie is trying to get to here, but my experience in the motor industry, when people present with a simple thing, having an accident to their car, how excited they really are and their capacity at that particular time, that is not dealing with the police. It is just dealing with somebody at the other side of a counter that forgets so many things. It is commendable that you are looking after people who need help, who are illiterate and cannot read and such things, and I would support that idea. However, the idea that you would use that everywhere would be much better if, in fact, it was written down and people can absorb it better. They can look at what is available to them and decide what is important to them. I suspect that, when it was being read out, they are so excited, so worried about things that would just pass them by, because if they had the time to look at this and absorb it, that would be somewhat different. However, I take on both what you are saying and, if there is a way to look at people, obviously if someone cannot read and does not understand what the better paper is about, then we need to find a way to reach them. For that reason, I would support you for trying it, to be quite honest. John, do you want to just say something? Simply to say, the issue is overtaken by events anyway, because best advice is going to become from the word of mouth of a professional rather than either read out by police officer or in a bit of paper. Cabinet secretary, please to wind up. Thank you, convener. I have listened with interest to the points that have been raised by John Finnie and Alison McInnes. As I have said the reasons why we cannot support Alison McInnes's amendments at this particular stage, I understand the intention that she has behind those particular amendments, but the way in which she is presently framed, I do not believe, will deliver her intent in an effective way and also in a proportionate way and in an appropriate way. However, I would be more than happy to explore the issue further with her between now and stage 3 to see whether there is a way in which that can be achieved more effectively than would be achieved through those existing amendments. Turning now to the amendments from John Finnie, notwithstanding his decision to withdraw these particular amendments and the level of police time that would be taken in reading out the letter of rights, the letter of rights is a five-page document. It is not one side, it is five pages that officers would have to read in each individual case. It is not about having flexibility about rights. The rights are always there. It is about the flexibility of whether you require it verbally or whether you need it in writing. For example, someone like myself, if I was arrested, I would have no difficulty in being able to read this letter for myself. If you were arrested that way. I suspect more than the record. However, the point that I am making is that it is just to allow officers that flexibility that where they think that it is appropriate that it needs to be read out, that it will be read out for them. However, in terms of time, I think that once members recognise that it is actually five pages, it would take up a significant amount of police resource in having to read that out for every single individual irrespective as to whether they are required to be read out or not. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 113, be agreed to, are we all agreed? A call amendment 235 in the name of Margaret Mitchell are already debated with amendment 234. Margaret, move or not, moved? Not moved. The question is that section 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 114 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 113. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. It moved. The question is amendment 114, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 236 in the name of Margaret Mitchell are already debated with amendment 234. Margaret Mitchell, move or not, moved? Not moved. The question is that section 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 115 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendment 118. Cabinet secretary, please to move amendment 115 and speak to both amendments in the group. Amendment 115, amend section 4 to require the police to release an arrested person before reaching a police station if the person is no longer suspected of an offence. The bill has introduced where the arrest takes place out with the police station, require the police to take every arrested person to a police station even if they were no longer suspected of an offence. The amendment will ensure that people who are no longer suspects need not be held unnecessarily in custody in order to transport them to a police station. Information about all arrests must still be recorded under section 6. It will not be the case that the power of release will encourage misuse of the system and an arrest first asks questions later approached by the police. Amendment 118 is consequential on amendment 115 and requires police to record the reasons for deciding that a person is no longer a suspect and to release them before arriving at a police station. Recording such decision making gives further reassurance that arrest and subsequent release can be assessed and scrutinised. Therefore, I move amendment 115. Thank you very much. Any members wish to speak? I know that the cabinet secretary will take it that you do not want to wind up. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to or we all agreed. Amendment 237, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, is already debated with amendment 234. Margaret, move or not, move? Not moved. The question is that section 4 be agreed to or we all agreed. Amendment 238, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already debated with amendment 113. Move or not, move? As the minister indicated a willingness to work with me in advance on the intention of it, I will not move it at the moment. Amendment 239, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already debated with amendment 113. I will not move it at the moment. Amendment 10, in the name of John Finnie, is already debated with amendment 113. Move or not, move? Not moved. Amendment 11, in the name of John Finnie, is already debated with amendment 113. Move or not, move? Not moved, convener. Amendment 240, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, is already debated with amendment 234. Move or not, move? Not moved. The question is that section 5 be agreed to or we all agreed. Amendment 116, in the name of the cabinet secretary group, with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, please to move amendment 116 and speak to the other amendments in the group. This group consists of miscellaneous minor technical amendments, primarily intended to maintain consistency in the drafting of the bill. Amendment 116 is the most substantive of these minor technical amendments. It remains section 61, which specifies the information that must be recorded when a person is arrested. The amendment makes clear that the recording requirements in section 6 of the bill only relate to the arrest by the police, not for example arrest by a citizen. Amendment 117, 121, 124, 131, 133, 138, 140, 205 and 221 are technical amendments to section 6, 8, 11, 36, 50 and 54 of the bill to ensure consistency in terminology and easier reading of those provisions. Amendment 194 is a technical amendment to section 39 of the bill. Section 39 preserves a common law power of the police in relation to people who have been arrested. Those include powers to have the person taken to take part in identification parades. The amendment replaces the reference to identification parades with the reference to identification procedures. That will make it clear that the police retain common law powers in relation to all identification procedures, including identification parades and more modern video identification procedures. I move amendment 116. Do you thinky any other members wish to speak? No. Amendment 117, Почему, and 17. Aelod Llywodraeth ORDf, 10. Y cwpan eu gwsod i'r cyfryd yn Ycwm Cymru? Ydyddwch. 17. Aelod Llywodraeth Dyma? Aelod Llüwodraeth 10. Y pan b dopechugor gennymans pan'idiew amdano i'ch cyfryd yn Ym Mfeinadd 10. OellanEpolio amusterag o from conducting their own defence. That protects victims and witnesses from the potential trauma of being cross-examined by we accused. This group of amendments restates existing law, which requires that suspects either arrested under a warrant in connection with those offences or charged with sexual offences are informed that they cannot conduct their own defence and must instead engage the services of a lawyer, failing which the court will do so. The amendment do not change the law but update the approach and terminology to be consistent with part 1 of the bill. Amendment 119 requires the police to record details of their compliance with the requirements set out in amendment 148. Amendment 148 is the principal amendment that restates existing law from section 17A of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995. The other amendment 119 is consequential and auxiliary, and I move amendment 119. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to speak? Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, I take your wish to wind up. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to or we all agreed. Call of amendment 120 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary group with amendments 170, 171, 176, 180, 181 and 188. Cabinet Secretary, please to move 120 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Can we hear this group of amendments in conjunction with related amendments in the two groups on rights of under-18s, the first on consent to interview without solicitor, sending of information and access to other persons, other support and the second on minor amendments. It makes additional provision for the protection of under-18s in police custody. Those have specific regard to child protection and wellbeing issues. Amendment 120 requires the police to record the time at which intimation was sent to a local authority to establish whether or not there are likely to be any child protection issues that would prevent intimation that the person was in custody from being sent under section 30. This amendment is dependent on amendment 188. Amendment 170 and 171 allow the police to delay the sending of intimation under section 30 for a child suspect on safeguarding and wellbeing grounds, but only for as long as is necessary to consult the local authority on whether they will arrange for someone to visit the child in custody. In practice, this process is expected to be used where the police have a belief that some form of child protection consideration may exist. Amendment 180 and 181 are technical amendments designed to improve the drafting of the bill. The amendments here are also associated with amendments in group 21, rights to under-18s minor amendments. Those ensure that, where it is not practicable for the police to contact the person that they have been asked to contact, whether the person contacted refuses to attend or whether the local authority advises against contacting the person that the police do not have to contact the person or continue to try to contact the person, as may be the case. In that case, intimation must be sent by the police to an appropriate person, as defined by section 315 of the bill. When considering intimation and access arrangements as regards persons under 18 years of age held in custody, amendment 188 ensures that the police take cognisance of compulsory supervision orders sent by a children's hearing or a sheriff's court. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that, where the police believe that a person is subject to such an order, they contact the relevant local authority for advice on how to apply the intimation and access rights set out in section 30 and 32 of the bill in compliance with the terms of the order. Furthermore, the obligation to involve the local authority goes wider than compulsory supervision order cases to capture those circumstances where a supervision order may not exist but the police have concerns about the child's wellbeing. Those concerns may be either significant child protection concerns or the existence of other forms of statutory restrictions in respect of the child. For example, a court-issued child protection order or a compulsory supervision order restricting or directing no contact takes place and where the usual steps of contacting a child's parent or guardian may not be appropriate. In such cases, amendment 188 requires the police to contact the local authority for advice on who should be sent intimation under section 30 of the bill and be permitted to access the person in custody. Amendment 176 provides that where a local authority acting under the provision to insert by amendment 188 has advised again sending intimation in accordance with section 30 must be sent in accordance to an appropriate person as defined in section 314. I would ask the committee to support those amendments and I move amendment 120. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to speak? No, they don't. Cabinet secretary, I take you don't want to wind up. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 121 in the name of the cabinet secretary of ready debate with amendment 116 to move formally, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 122 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move 122 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Convener, those amendments all relate to keeping a person in custody under chapter 2 of part 1, but they address four distinct issues. Most of my amendments in this group and John Perlin's amendments 13 to 17 deal with the proposal to allow extension of the maximum detention period from 12 to 24 hours. I would propose to address those issues first before moving on to John Finnie's amendment 12, which relates to the rank in which decisions on whether to keep a person in custody should be made. I will then speak to amendment 130, which makes a minor adjustment to the test for whether a person can be kept in custody. I will finish up by covering my amendment 139 and 141, which deals with the time spent travelling from hospital to the police station. A key purpose of the custody provisions in chapter 2 of the bill is to strike an appropriate balance, ensuring that no one is held unnecessarily or disproportionately, protecting the rights of suspects and victims while giving flexibility to the police to carry out effective investigation. The bill has introduced that it allows a person to be kept in custody for a maximum of 12 hours. That represents a reduction of 12 hours from the current detention period, which allows extensions to 24 hours. The system is designed to ensure suspects are only detained for as long as is absolutely necessary. The detention limit is not a target but an absolute maximum. There are strong safeguards built into the system. The initial custody decision must be made by a police officer who has not been involved in the investigation, and a mandatory custody review must be carried out by an inspector after six hours. Keeping someone in custody can only be authorised if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence, and if keeping them in custody is necessary and proportionate. Taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence, the need to enable the offence to be investigated and the likelihood of interference with witnesses and evidence. Section 41 of the bill also places a general duty on every constable to take every precaution to ensure that a person is not unreasonably or unnecessarily held in custody. There are conflicting views expressed regarding the detention time limits during stage 1 consideration of the bill. The Scottish Government made a commitment to consider extending the detention limit to 24 hours in exceptional circumstances. I have now considered the arguments further, and I believe that it is necessary to allow the extension from 12 to 24 hours. I am satisfied that the bill contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that that power would be used properly and that such extensions would not become common place. It is possible to extend detention periods up to a maximum of 24 hours under the current legislation but not under the bill as introduced. That means that the police would have to release suspects in some serious and complex cases if the 12-hour period expired before the police had obtained sufficient evidence to charge them with an offence. That would not prevent suspects from being arrested and charged later, but releasing them could endanger public safety or interfere with the proper investigation of offences. The current power to extend detention periods to 24 hours is only used for a very small number of cases, less than 0.5 per cent. I believe that that demonstrates that the police make appropriate and proportionate use of the power and that it is only used in exceptional cases. The power to extend is necessary in those cases, many of which involve serious and complex offences. Various factors can contribute to creating the exceptional circumstances in which extension to the 12-hour period may be required. The factors that could combine to require an extension to 24 hours tend to affect the timing of when interviews can start rather than the length of the interviews required. The purpose of extension would be to ensure that interviews are conducted in circumstances fair to the suspect and to the victims and to allow the police to conclude inquiries properly and gather sufficient evidence in order to charge a suspect. Suspects and victims may be too exhausted, traumatised, drunk under the influence of drugs to be interviewed immediately after an arrest takes place, and the suspect is brought to a police station. Urgent work may be needed to interview victims, trace witnesses and conduct other investigations. It may not be an interest of public safety or the safety of the victim or suspects to release a person suspected of a serious and violent offence on investigative liberation while such investigations take place. In some cases, it is considered best practice to examine a crime scene during daylight hours, even if an initial arrest took place at night. This may apply, for example, to examination of big clothes at a rape scene. Forensic medical examination may be required before interviews can take place. In areas of rural Scotland, victims and suspects may need to travel to specialist police medical suits or for examination by a police casualty surgeon. Those examinations and the travel times involved may reduce the time remaining for conducting interviews if a 12-year detention limit is applied. Other people, for example, interpreters and appropriate adults, may be required before interviews can commence. It is in the interests of justice and human rights that such people are present at interviews, but it may take time to assess that support is required for an individual subject at a suspect and then a range for specialists to attend. The delays that are possible if a suspect's needs are not immediately identified because they were also drunk or on drugs. Those factors can reduce the time available for conducting interviews. In complex cases, extending the detention period beyond 12-year-olds may become necessary in order to conduct an effective investigation. Therefore, lodged amendments 1-2-2, 1-2-3, 1-2-5 to 1-2-9, 1-3-1, 1-3-4 and 1-3-5 to 1-3-7 to make provision for extending detention limits from 12 to 24 hours. Amendments 13-17 lodged by John Pentland would make similar provision. I propose to deal with my amendments first before moving on to considering John Pentland's. Amendment 1-3-5 is the primary amendment that allows the detention limit to be extended to 24 hours. This power to extend is limited to serious offences and will be subject to safeguards to ensure that it is only used when absolutely necessary. His safeguards include a requirement for authorisation, aninspector level and provision for the suspect to make representations. The existing safeguards in the bill also apply, including the statutory test for keeping people in custody, mandatory custody reviews at six hours, and the general duty under section 4-1, not to detain people unreasonably or unnecessarily. Those safeguards will ensure that extensions to detention periods can only be authorised in exceptional circumstances and are tempered by the safeguard of regular review, as recommended by the Callaway report. My other amendments are all intended to ensure that the new powers to authorise extension are appropriately woven into the existing provisions about providing and recording information and conducting custody reviews. That includes some reorganisation of sections and adjustments to terminology. Amendment 1-2-2 and 1-2-3 deal with recording information. Information about the authorised authorisation process and the rationale for extending the time period must be recorded. Where initial authorisation is given to keep a person in custody under section 7, amendment 1-2-5 will require them to be told that their detention may be extended. Amendment 1-2-6 and 1-2-7 amend section 9. Amendment 1-2-6 ensures that a custody review is carried out after the first six hours of an extension. Amendment 1-2-7 makes drafting adjustments. Amendment 1-2-9 amend section 10 to ensure that the test of necessity and proportionality must be met when deciding whether to keep someone in custody beyond the initial 12-hour period. Amendments 1-8 and 1-3-1 move section 9 and 10 to after section 12 of the bill. Amendment 1-3-4 amend section 11 to require the police to charge or release someone once any extension to 24 hours has expired. Amendment 1-3-6 requires a police to give a person certain information when authorisation has been given to extend the time period beyond the 12-hour point. Amendment 1-3-7 is a technical amendment to allow time spent travelling to or from hospital or at hospital to be deducted from the extension period. I now turn to amendments 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 proposed by John Pentland. I support the principle of allowing extensions to the detention period from 12 hours to 24 hours in exceptional circumstances, and I welcome the intention behind the amendments for that reason. However, I do not believe that they would offer the same protection to suspects as the amendments that I have outlined above. I therefore ask Elaine Murray not to press them. John Pentland's amendment 15 would permit an extension up to 24 hours, where both the current custody test under section 10 and the additional test of exceptional circumstances were met. Amendment 12 to 14 and 16 and 17 are consequential on amendment 15. My amendments would offer greater protection to suspects than amendment 15. In particular, my amendment would ensure that an extension could only be granted in relation to serious offences. It would ensure that suspects can make representation in relation to a proposed extension. It would require a custody review by an inspector after six hours, and it would set out much more detailed requirements for recording and providing information. I do not believe that the exceptional circumstances test is necessary. I am satisfied that the existing power to extend the detention period is only used in exceptional circumstances at present and that the safeguards that are set out in the bill will continue to ensure that that is the case. Setting out an exceptional circumstances test would further complicate the statutory test and create a risk of preventing extensions in cases where they were generally needed. Amendment 12 in John Finnie's name would set out that where a person has been arrested without a warrant and has not been charged with an offence, authorisation to keep the person in custody may be given only by an officer of the rank of sergeant or above. In many of the more rural custody stations, the duty custody officer may be accustomed. There has to be a justifiable reason for continued detention and this has to be authorised by an officer not connected with the case. That provides an independent overview of the initial arrest and continued detention. Custody officers are trained in custody procedures and prisoner welfare. The authorisation to keep a person in custody also starts the 12-hour period for someone who is not officially accused. A duty custody officer is the rank of constable of the rank of constable and is perfectly able to carry out that function and afford people their rights. The amendment proposes an unnecessary restriction to current practice that would lead to an increase in the requirement for sergeants across Scotland, even if authorisation was given remotely. The amendment would also lead to delays in the start of the 12-hour period while waiting for an officer of a suitable rank to become available. For this reason, I cannot support amendment 12 and would ask John Finnie not to press it. My amendment 130 is a small clarification to the key test in section 10 for whether a person can be kept in custody. That test applies to the initial decision to keep someone in custody following arrest. It also applies when inspectors conduct custody reviews after someone has been in custody for six hours. The police officer making the decision to keep someone in custody must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed an offence and that keeping them in custody is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of bringing them before a court or otherwise dealing with them in accordance with the law. Several factors may be taken into account in deciding what is necessary and proportionate. One of those is whether the person's presence is reasonably required to enable the offence to be investigated. Amendment 130 will clarify that when deciding whether to keep someone in custody, the police may consider whether the person's presence is required to enable the offence to be investigated fully. That has always been the intended effect of section 10. The amendments make it absolutely clear that police have the ability to undertake a full investigation of an offence while a suspect is held in custody subject to continued custody being necessary and proportionate for the purposes of bringing the suspect before a court or otherwise dealing with them in accordance with the law. It is also important to note that section 41 of the bill will still apply to ensure that the police must take every precaution to ensure that the person is not unreasonably or unnecessarily held in police custody. The amendment therefore protects the balance between the public interest in ensuring a thorough and effective investigation and the rights of suspects, as recommended by Lord Calaway, and reflected throughout part 1 of the bill. Turning finally to amendment 139 and 141, the bill already provides that the time taken to escort the person to a hospital for medical treatment and any time spent in hospital is not to be deducted from the 12-hour detention period, but it does not take account of the time taken for the return journey. In more remote areas of the country, a return journey from hospital could take a considerable period of time. Amendment 139 therefore provides that the time taken to transport an individual back from hospital will not be deducted from the 12-hour detention period. That will ensure that there is still sufficient time to interview suspects effectively once they arrive at the police station. Amendment 141 protects suspects by ensuring that, should a suspect be interviewed while travelling from hospital to a police station, the time spent interviewing will count towards the 12-hour limit. I therefore move amendment 122. John Finnie, you are pleased to speak to amendment 12 and other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I am always very keen to ensure that all our legislation is rural, proofed as you know. I am very much aware that there is a diminishing number of locations where people can be taken into custody in rural areas. The amendment that I proposed seeks to change the rank of the police officer authorising someone to be kept in custody from Constable to Sargent. Many including the Law Society welcome Lord Calaway's recommendation that the maximum time a suspect can be held without being charged or advised that he or she is to be reported to the first school should now be 12 hours. Elsewhere in legislation, the appropriate Constable is someone above a rank of inspector. I have to say the idea that authorisation could not be given remotely, the idea that there would be a rank of supervisor. I think that it is a normalist to have a Constable authorising their peers' decision-making in relation to the deprivation of liberty. In fact, that is a retrograde stack rather than an advance, so I most certainly will be pressing this. John Finnie's amendments 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were intended to address the issue that in very exceptional circumstances, the police may have to extend the period of custody from 12 up to 24 hours. His amendments specify circumstances such as when the person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and unfit to be interviewed or when access and support for the person cannot be accessed before the end of the 12-hour period or when it is essential for the person or another person's safety that the person remains in custody. A decision to extend the period of custody could only be taken by Constable of the rank of inspector or above. As the cabinet secretary has indicated, the Government's amendments in this area will fill the same policy and tension, but they are more technically competent as they apply to sections of the bill not covered in John's amendments. As we see today, the cabinet secretary is supported by an army of Government officials, whereas members who are not in the part of the Scottish Government are reliant on the very sterling efforts of the Parliament's legislation team, but there are only two or three people who are having to deal with several bills at the same time. Therefore, I am prepared to admit that the Scottish Government's amendments are possibly more technically correct. I am happy not to press John's, and we will be supporting the cabinet secretary. On John Finnie's amendment 12, I am very sympathetic to that intention. I, like John, have every interest in ensuring that people who are kept in custody in rural areas are appropriately dealt with, but, like him, I cannot see why a sergeant would not be able to be available remotely rather than having to have a sergeant available in the custody area. I am inclined to continue to support John's amendment. As we know, the cabinet secretary's amendments in this group extend the length of time anyone can be kept in custody to 24 hours in some circumstances. The evidence to committee at stage 1 was mixed on that, and I think that we should therefore be extremely cautious and departing from Lord Carlawy's view. The cabinet secretary set out a reasonable case, but I remain concerned regarding children and vulnerable young people. Without wishing to get ahead of ourselves, I think that my support for those amendments would be contingent on whether or not the Scottish Government is going to back my amendment 242 in the following group, which would limit the length of time children and vulnerable adults can be held in custody until six hours. In all conscience, I could not count on extending the limit to 24 hours without the addition of safeguards for children and vulnerable adults. You are ahead of yourself. We will come to that, Margaret. Just to speak in support of John Finnie's amendment, which I think is sensible, I see no need to reason why it could not be done remotely and does give the idea of protection to people in rural areas as well as in urban settings. I just wanted to comment briefly on the key amendment 135, which says that, in addition to the provisions under section 41 not to detain people unreasonably or unnecessarily, it provides that it has to be authorised by an inspector, and it only applies to serious or indictable offences. There is another small bit that has not been mentioned, and the inspector who is authorising it has also got to satisfy himself that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, so it is not a laggard's charter. Those should be rare occurrences. The reasons for which I have outlined not supporting John Finnie's amendment stand, notwithstanding the points that I understand Mr Finnie has made in regard to the issue. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the issue is about the quality of the decision making that is made in regard to a particular instance in deciding to retain someone in custody, and I am not always convinced that rank will always lead to better decision making in those matters. For the very reasons that I would suggest, there is a significant level of training that is provided to constables, particularly those who have custodial responsibilities. There is a growing level of specialism in making many responsibilities specific, as opposed to rank specific within policing. Constables of course of whatever rank who are fulfilling specialist roles have a greater knowledge and understanding of a specific issue than those who do not deal with those matters on a day-to-day basis, who may be of a higher rank to them. Custody division is now a specialist role due to the intensive training that is given to those officers on prisoner welfare and custody-related procedures, including the various guidance that is issued by the Lord Advocate. We remain of the view that the decision making should be held at the position of a constable. I am not absolutely certain how Custody division is configured, but by the very nature of what you have said, cabinet secretary, about rural areas, there is no aspersion that has been cast by me on the role of constable. I was one for 30 years, and I am absolutely at the front-line in pivotal role. Constables will stand and fall by the decision that they take to make to deprive someone of their liberty. My suggestion was that it would be enhanced by having independent oversight. If it is a remote location, there is not going to be custody division there anyway. The idea that you would phone somewhere and not get a sergeant anywhere in Scotland seems to me to be peculiar, to say the least. The key here is not the rank, but it is someone with the appropriate knowledge and skills. In that case, it may be a constable that they would contact remotely for the purposes of getting custody extended. It is about making sure that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to make that decision. However, of course, the committee will come to a decision on whether they think that sergeant or constable is the appropriate rank for making those decisions. I welcome the decision by Elaine Murray not to move John Pentland's amendments. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 123. In the name of the cabinet secretary, I already debate with amendment 122. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Abstentions. That is seven in favour, not against and two abstentions. That amendment is therefore agreed. Call amendment 241, in the name of the market, which I already debate with amendment 234. Move or not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed? I call amendment 12, in the name of John Finnie already debate with amendment 122. Move or not move. Move could be a. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Five, four, four against, no abstentions. That amendment is agreed. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 242, in the name of Alison McInneson, a group on its own. Alison is pleased to speak and to move amendment 242. Thank you very much, convener. The bill as currently written states that anyone can be held in custody for up to 12 hours. As I said earlier, members will recall that there were very mixed views among witnesses about whether the length of time was appropriate. As we have just discussed, some have advocated the reintroduction of the six-hour limit, while others favoured extending it to 24 in exceptional cases. Sheila McCall of the Scottish Human Rights Commission told the committee that an equal parliament should think carefully about whether it is ever appropriate to hold a child or a vulnerable adult for more than six hours. The children's commissioner, Tam Bailey, also drew attention to the need for stringent safeguards. As it stands, the bill does not include any exceptions or variations, and I think that there is a strong argument for reducing the 12-hour limit, or indeed what is as of a moment ago now a 24-hour limit, to six hours for children and vulnerable adults. That would recognise their unique vulnerability and the additional impact of being held in custody for long periods of time could have upon them. My amendment 242 would also encourage the police to deal with their cases as priorities and to help to ensure that they are in custody for the shortest possible period of time. Of course, if further investigations are required then after the six-hour period in custody has expired, there would be the option of an investigative liberation, and I move my amendment 242. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to speak? I admit that there was a difference of opinion on that, but I do not think that I can agree that the limit should be six hours, because I think that that also includes some people with fairly serious offences being under investigation. I think that if amendment 242 redrafted to say that a child of one adult could not be kept in detention for more than 12 hours, I might actually be inclined to support it, but I think that six hours is too short of time. I agree with Elaine's comments on that, but I would hope that the number of children affected is going to be a very small number indeed. Prior to external events affecting the police service, of course, six hours was adequate a number of years ago—more than adequate. I move amendment 242, which would prevent children and vulnerable adult suspects from being kept in custody for more than six hours. I strongly believe in the need to protect the rights of children and vulnerable adult suspects in the justice system, but amendment 242 would undermine one of the fundamental purposes of the bill and prevent serious crime from being properly investigated. It is vital that all offences can be properly investigated in the interests of justice. In doing so, it is also vital to protect the rights of suspects. The fundamental purpose underlying the bill is to balance those sometimes competing interests. That involves providing additional support and protections to ensure that children and vulnerable suspects are not disadvantaged in the justice process. The Callaway review considered those issues in great detail, and the bill already reflects the delicate balance between those interests that he has proposed. The bill provides strong protection to ensure that no one is held unnecessarily or disproportionately. Those include the test of necessity and proportionality under section 10, the requirement for six-hour custody reviews and the general duty on all constables to take every precaution to ensure that a person is not unreasonably or unnecessarily held in police custody under section 41. Where a child is involved, the police will have to treat the wellbeing of that child as a primary consideration in any decision to keep the child in custody. When a person has been held in custody for six hours, section 9 of the bill requires a custody review to be carried out by an inspector who has not been involved in investigation. The person must be released if it is no longer necessary and proportionate for them to be kept in custody. This is a very important process and ensures that any period spent in custody is tempered by the safeguard of regular review, as recommended by the Calaway report. In relation to vulnerable adult suspects, the bill already strengthens the protection available, placing a duty on the police to seek support to ensure that such individuals understand what is happening and able to communicate effectively and preventing vulnerable persons from consenting to be interviewed without a solicitor present. As is currently the case, the police will continue to balance the interests of justice with the particular circumstances, needs and vulnerabilities of the person being interviewed. The bill also provides additional protection for children. Those include duties to treat, the need to safeguard and promote the child's wellbeing as a primary consideration when making custody decisions. Where custody is necessary and proportionate, the child must be kept in a place of safety rather than a police station. There are also protections incorporated within the bill in respect of intimation to and attendance of parents or other persons at the custody centre. In terms of operational practice, Police Scotland attempts to ensure that children and young people are kept in custody for as short a time as possible. When very minor crimes are committed, it is common for children not to be taken to a custody centre at all but, rather, taken home and, if deemed necessary, cautioned and charged in front of their parents and carers. When children are in custody, the police standard operating procedure states that if they are to be detained in excess of four hours, a custody inspector has to review the case. Most people are currently released after six hours but six hours is not adequate in all cases. Police Scotland has provided assurances that children and vulnerable adults are only held past six hours in a small number of cases and that they will ensure robust operational guidance and monitoring is in place in relation to that particular power. Before part one of the bill is brought into force, Police Scotland will undertake a process of updating its standard operating procedure in relation to custody to ensure that those are in line with the new arrest and custody regime. That will include updating existing guidance documents in dealing with children and vulnerable adults in the custody system. Police Scotland will work with stakeholders groups to ensure that those guidance documents ensure that appropriate protection is provided to children and vulnerable adults in custody. However, there will be cases where it is necessary to hold a child or vulnerable adult for more than six hours. Children and vulnerable adults may be suspected of very serious or complex offences. The interests of justice demand that such offences should be fully investigated. It would not be an interest of justice to require certain suspects to be released after six hours, regardless of whether the offence has been properly investigated or whether it would otherwise be necessary and proportionate to hold them. Therefore, we cannot support amendment 242, and we ask Alison McInnes to consider withdrawing it. Elaine Murray said that she might have been able to support an amendment with 12 hours, but when I tabled this, the bill stated that it was 12 hours and we had not seen the minister's amendment. The minister spoke of the delicate balance that Lord Carlaway had to have regard for in relation to the rights of suspects and the responsibilities to investigate crime, but, of course, the minister's amendment 1-3-5 affects that delicate balance, and I think that it is all the more important that children's rights and vulnerable adult's rights are protected. I will press the amendment. The question is that amendment 242 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That is 247 against that amendment, which is not agreed. I call amendment 124 in the name of the cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 125 in the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to be with amendment 122. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division in those. In favour of amendment 125, please show. Those against, please show. Abstentions. 7. In favour, no one against, in two abstentions, that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 13 in the name of John Pentland, ready to be with amendment 122. Elaine Murray, move or not move. I move. The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 126 in the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to be with 122. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I move. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I move. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 126, please show. Those against, please show. I'm glad somebody else makes mistakes, Alison, and not just me, and no, any abstentions. Those in favour, 7. There will be no one against, in two abstentions, that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 127 in the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to be with amendment 122. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I move. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 128 in the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to be with the 122. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I move. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 129 in the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to be with the 122. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I move. The question is amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I'm glad somebody else makes mistakes, Alison. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 129, please show. anffredd i'w ymgyn iawn i'w gael eich lluniaidd.  Thank you, convener. My amendments in this group are designed to ensure that the issues faced by children and young people affected by their parents' involvement in the justice system are flagged up as part of early intervention and prevention procedures. As the committee will know from the session on 8 September, I wish to see more recognition of children and young people, affected by their parents' offending behavior at all stages of the justice process starting from the point of arrest. I believe that we need a more joined up approach to supporting these children and this approach should include a raft of agencies including the police. I hope to receive the assurances from the cabinet secretary if them amendments are not accepted, that the intentions behind them can be addressed in other non-legislative I believe that more needs to be done to encourage police to consider the impact of arresting a parent on their dependent children. There is undoubtedly a role for the named person to play here and I would welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on how he believes we can do this more effectively. Amendment 39 would ensure that the factors to be met as part of the test in section 10 for keeping a person in custody under section 7.4 and for reviewing continuation of custody after six hours under section 9.2 would include the impact on the person's dependent child or children. Section 10.2A provides that one of the factors that the police may consider as part of the test is whether the person's presence is reasonably required to enable the offence to be investigated. That recognises that the police can investigate an offence without necessarily requiring the person to be kept in custody. That amendment would extend that recognition to ensure that the police, in deciding whether or not to keep the person in custody, should also consider the impact of keeping the person in custody on the person's dependent child or children. That factor must be taken into account in cases in which it might not be necessary for the police to keep the person in custody in order to investigate the offence. That is particularly important where the person is the primary or sole carer for any dependent child or children. Amendment 110 outlines the procedures to be followed by the police where a person with a dependent child or children is taken into police custody. That specifically relates to the provision of information to the named person set out in the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014. At the moment, the procedures that the police will follow where a person with a dependent child or children is arrested and taken into custody are unclear. That amendment seeks to provide clarity in what the police should do in such cases and act as an early warning system. For instance, if an adult with dependent children is arrested for a very serious offence or is a repeat offender and the police consider that behaviour may have an impact on the wellbeing of any dependent children, they must share that information with the named person. The Scottish Government's own guidance on the named person states that practitioners should not wait until a situation has reached crisis point before sharing information. They should also share when there are smaller changes. That allows patterns to emerge and these can often point to more serious concerns allowing appropriate help to be offered at an early stage. That amendment is necessary because, although a child's own offending behaviour is an obvious and visible wellbeing concern, children affected by their parents' offending will not always be present or visible to police so there needs to be a trigger. That amendment would ensure that police are always thinking about any dependent children a suspected offender may have, consistently asking the question and considering at what point the behaviour of the suspected offender may start to have an effect on the wellbeing of any dependent children. Amendments 41 to 45 are fairly minor amendments that provide clarification. The amendments would extend the duty in section 42 to ensure that the best interests of any dependent children are taken into account when arresting, holding, interviewing or charging a person with responsibility for a child. In 2012, the UK, with Scottish Government support, accepted a recommendation made in the course of the UK's human rights peer review at the UN Human Rights Council, which asked the UK to ensure that the best interests of the child are taken into account when arresting, detaining, sentencing or considering early release for a soul or primary carer of a child. My amendments are consistent with that recommendation. Section 42 of the bill seeks to integrate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scottish criminal justice legislation, and that is to be welcomed. The focus on the best interests of the child and their wellbeing as paramount is a positive step forward in ensuring that children and young people are treated appropriately within the criminal justice system. However, children and young people can also be indirectly drawn into the criminal justice system through the offending behaviour of their parents or primary caregivers. My amendments would require a constable to consider the best interests of any dependent children and offender has from point of arrest through to being charged, and that will help to ensure that the needs of these often-forgotten children are met and their wellbeing is considered a priority during the often-trying period of their caregivers' time within the criminal justice system. The more opportunities there are, the more likely a suspect is to disclose this information. Only with the right information can statutory services link up and ensure that the right care and support is provided to children and young people who are affected by their parents' offending behaviour. I move amendment 39 in my name. Thank you very much, Mary. Anyone else wish to come in? Cabinet Secretary? Confer children can be seriously affected by parental arrest, custody and imprisonment. While there are already areas of good practice, I agree that we need to ensure a consistent multi-agency approach to addressing the impact on children when a parent is arrested or held in custody. That requires strong links between the justice system, statutory services and voluntary organisations, working with children and families affected by imprisonment. I have taken on board what Mary Fee has said regarding the interests and wellbeing of children during initial arrest. Mary Fee has also met the minister for children and young people on this matter, and I hope that that has gone some way to reassuring her of her commitment to work with her to ensure that the intent behind those amendments is given effect. I can reassure her that the Scottish Government will be taking steps to address these concerns through implementation of the legislation and through guidance and practice material under the Children and Young People's Scotland Act 2014 to the police and other relevant agencies to ensure that the interests of children are properly protected and that my officials are already engaged with stakeholders to ensure that that happens. I support and commend the intention behind that set of amendments, but I believe that there are more effective ways to achieve the desired outcome of keeping children safe. As drafted, amendments would alter the careful balance decision-making process for arresting, holding and charging adult suspects. The bill is designed to deliver a balance between the rights of suspects and the powers of the police in order to serve the interests of justice. That was what was envisaged in the independent Callaway review. Police will be alert to the interests of the child carrying out of their duties under the bill. The police would never act in a way that would leave a child open to danger. While the members' amendments pursue the aims of protecting children affected by parental arrest and custody, that aim can be better achieved through the implementation of the Children and Young People's Scotland Act 2014. Amendment 39 would add to the test already contained in section 10 of the bill regarding custody decisions. That is a key test under the bill. It is used at various stages to decide whether a suspect can be kept in custody. It balances the needs of the police to manage a criminal investigation and the rights of the suspect, taking into consideration the needs of the inquiry and public safety. That amendment, together with amendment 42, would require the police to treat suspects with responsibility for children differently. In such cases, the effect on the child of keeping the person in custody would have to be a primary concern in making the custody decision. We all know that children are affected by their parents being arrested, but making that a primary concern when deciding to take someone into custody or keeping them in custody would be out of balance with the already finely balanced test contained in section 10. The interests of justice and public safety must remain primary considerations when making decisions about whether it is in the interest and proportionate to the private person of their liberty. Making custody decisions on that basis does not prevent the police from working to ensure that the immediate care and support needs of affected children will also be made, and that is part of their daily business. The police maintain at duty of care over the arrested person, and that duty naturally extends to any dependent children who have been left exposed by that arrest. It must be remembered that part of their core role is to keep all people safe. If the police become aware of any child's wellbeing concerns, they would take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the child, be it tracing another parent or relative, engaging social work and bringing the child into a safe environment. That is often done through a close working relationship with partners in social work. I believe that there are a case-specific approach that is both preferable and more practical when than the catch-all approach suggested in this particular amendment. Amendment 110 seeks to ensure that when a person is arrested and they have parental responsibilities for a child that the police contact the child's named person as identified in part 4 of the Children and Young People's Act. It would never be the case that the police when, made aware of a wellbeing concern, would leave a child to fend for themselves without taking action to ensure that their welfare needs are addressed. Under the Children and Young People Act, the police will have a duty to share relevant information relating to a child's wellbeing with the name person's service when appropriate. Amendment 41 to 45 would add to the test that is already contained in section 42 for child suspects. The current test within the section requires the police to take account of the wellbeing of the child before arresting, holding or charging them. The test is there to ensure that, wherever the circumstances, children are arrested, held or charged appropriately and proportionately. The amendment would extend the test to cover all people who have responsibility for a child. In effect, before the police decide to arrest someone, hold them in custody, question or charge them, they would have to consider the wellbeing of any children they may have responsibility for. This would be a step with the test already contained within the bill, which are intended to provide a balance between the public interest in investigating crime and protecting public safety and the rights of suspects. Under amendment 260, which substitutes 46, the scope of the definition of responsibility for a child is very wide. It will cover many people who have legal responsibilities towards children but are not responsible for their care and support on a day-to-day basis. It is important to acknowledge that the police already take steps to identify any childcare issues of persons arrested and take necessary steps to ensure the wellbeing of children cared for in a partnership with social work colleagues. Police also play a significant role in their localities in protecting children. The amendment, as drafted, could make the assessment. Police currently undertake more about wellbeing than wellbeing and child protection, as it is done currently. We do not want to lower or lose current practice that is already carried out by the police. My colleague Aileen Campbell would also be happy to meet Mary Fee again ahead of stage 3 to update her on progress on the development of practice material for children affected by parental detention and how it can be better to address their needs. Therefore, I ask the member not to press her amendment. Mary Fee, please wind up. Thank you, convener, and I will be very brief. I am conscious of the time. I thank the cabinet secretary for his comments and, mostly, his supportive comments. The cabinet secretary is right that I have met the children's minister. I am glad to hear that he acknowledges the fact that there is more work that we can do on these matters. I am keen that we find a way to support this vulnerable group of children and young people. Given the comments that the cabinet secretary has made and his commitment to work with me and other stakeholders, I am happy not to, at this moment, move my amendments. You have moved it, so you wish to withdraw it. I will try to wish to withdraw it, sorry. You have made a few wishes to withdraw. Is that acceptable? Yes. Thank you very much. The question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 131 to name the cabinet secretary who has already debated with amendment 12. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I am just going to press on committee just for a little bit so that we can get just to advisers so that we get to the end of section 13, because most of the amendments have already been debated. I call amendment 132 to name the cabine