Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. Thank you. Oh, please. Thank you all very much, and welcome to the White House complex. White House complex. That's what they call these buildings. It makes you wonder, can't anything in Washington ever be simple? Seeing all of you here today is a particular pleasure for me because, together, you speak for some of the causes that are closest to my heart. Some of the most important reasons for our administration came to Washington in the first place. Some of you are law enforcement officers. Some are civilians who work for victims' rights. Some are fighting obscenity and the unspeakable evil of child pornography. Others are working to prevent drug abuse. In the past four or five months, I've heard a lot of talk, much of it, to put it most kindly and accurate about our social agenda, particularly as it applies to the courts. Well, if anyone wants to know our true agenda, there's no need to go any farther than this room because your agenda is our agenda. I don't need to tell anyone here the sad, often tragic story of years of judicial solicitation for every conceivable right of criminals and neglect for the victims of crime, playing fast and loose with First Amendment rights in a way that gave too many pornographers free reign, of fanciful constitutional arguments used to throw out long and hard police work and that the price our nation has paid for all of this. One way, for example, that we've paid, that price has been in the wider and wider availability of pornography. The sale of pornography was once said to be victimless. A common sense should have told us all along that pornography has many victims, among them children. I read a statistic recently that in a single day, one dial-up porn company has received 800,000 calls. I'm told that the great proportion of those calls are thought to have been made by children. There's nothing victimless about those children. The time has come for this to stop. Let me mention here, and I've recently sent Congress a bill that will make it easier for law enforcement officials to fight obscenity in child pornography. But incredible as it may seem, there are well-meaning people who will oppose it. The most extreme say that the First Amendment protects child pornographers as they publish and distribute their products. However well-intended, that kind of extremism should not be allowed to prevail. It's not what the Constitution requires. I hope I can count on your support in getting this bill enacted into law. I should not feel that way. By the way, we could also use a boost with our criminal justice reform legislation. I hope I can count on your support on something else as well, and it's the principal reason that we're here today. I have nominated a judge to the Supreme Court who is realistic about pornography and crime in general, Judge Anthony M. Kennedy. Judge Kennedy's been on my short list from the very start. A graduate of Stanford University in the Harvard Law School, he has served 12 years on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There, he won the respect of his fellow jurists and the lawyers who practiced before that court. He participated in over 1,400 decisions and wrote more than 400 opinions. He earned the reputation for being a balanced and fair judge, and one who is tough on crime and concerned about the victims of crime. As he said earlier this year, victims' dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system represents a failure of the system to achieve its goals. And then he added, the significant criminal law decisions of the Warren Court focused on the relation of the accused to the state and the police as an instrument of the state. Little or no thought was given to the position of the victims. Well, that's a note of compassion and realism that is too often missing in courts. Realism runs through all the work on the bench. He argued in one dissent, for example, for a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and saw his position ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court. That was in a drug case, by the way. And for realism about police work, the opinion he wrote in that case sets a high standard. He said, and I'll quote again, you don't have to read many cases involving illegal drug traffic before it becomes clear exactly what was going on at the residences described by the officers affidavit. And he concluded, whatever the merits of the exclusionary rule, its rigidities become compounded unacceptably when courts presume innocent conduct when the only common sense explanation for it is ongoing criminal activity. Another example of his realism, last year Judge Kennedy upheld a lower court when it imposed the maximum sentence allowed by law against a child pornographer. His opinion focused on the severe psychological harm victims of child pornography endure, and the great likelihood the child pornographers will, when released, commit the same crimes again. We need more realism like that on the nation's highest court. We need Judge Kennedy on our highest court. But let me add another thought here. Being tough on crime doesn't require tortured constitutional reason. The Constitution itself is tough on crime. It was intended to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. It provides a system for discovering the truth, releasing the innocent, and punishing the guilty, not for subjecting the police to an endless guessing game about the rules. Not long ago I heard about a case that involved a particularly horrible murder and that illustrates just what's too often wrong in our courts.  He was arrested, tried, and convicted, but the conviction was thrown out on appeal. Citing heavily from U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the State Appeals Court decided that the man had been denied equal justice under the law because he was not taken before a court commissioner within 24 hours of arrest. No, he was taken 24 hours and 12 minutes after arrest. So he's out walking the streets now. We've had enough decisions like that. The Supreme Court sets the tone for all courts in our land, as well as establishing precedence in the federal judiciary. I hope we'll have your active support as the Senate deliberates on confirming Judge Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. And now I know you've heard a number of people and you've heard enough from me, so thank you, and God bless you all.


The next item of business could remind guests leaving the gallery that this Parliament is still in session and ask that you leave the gallery as quietly as possible, please. The next item of business is the member's business debate on motion number 15486, in the name of Graham Pearson, on support for families affected by murder and culpable homicide. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put I would be grateful if members who would like to contribute to the debate could please press the request to speak buttons now. I call in Graham Pearson to open the debate seven minutes or so, Mr Pearson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Parliament for giving me the opportunity to propose a motion in support for families affected by murder and culpable homicide. I start by thanking my colleagues from all parties here in the Parliament who signed in support of the motion. It gives us the worthwhile opportunity to vent some of the issues that affect a surprising number of people who are affected by homicide across Scotland over the period. I checked the statistics this morning before coming to the chamber. In the last 10 years, 887 separate victims were affected by murder and homicide across Scotland from 2005 to the current date. We have many families in Scotland who unfortunately have to face the trauma and upset of receiving police officers at their homes to tell them that they have lost a family member. Hither, too, many public agencies were involved in supporting those families. Obviously, the police family liaison victims support Scotland, many of the public agencies social work and local authorities, victim information and advice centre et al. A great deal of work has been done on all our behalf by charity groups, particularly Pettle, who have existed based at Hamilton for well over two decades now, and more recently the Moira fund, who have done a great deal of work recently in supporting those families who face such difficulties. Much has been said over the past years that there are too many agencies who pass clients between them necessarily as the system works currently. First, they are being involved with the police, then passed on to the procurator fiscal system, then victim information and advice being involved in it and victim support Scotland on many occasions alongside police family liaison means that the trauma, the emotional demands and the demands from officials for necessary responses in terms of registering a death, dealing with insurance companies and so forth are all being met by families who are ill served at that time to deal with such demands. In England and Wales, a victim support homicide service was created. I have to admit that, even having had more than three decades of experience in this kind of work, it had passed me by that for some families who are affected by homicide and to our entire economic circumstances, how did they deal with funeral expenses in the heart of the trauma that they face? The truth is that very often they deal with it very badly. In some communities, they are looking enough that communities will gather together funds and pass it on to families in order that they can bury their loved ones with some dignity. In other circumstances, extended family members collect together and support. However, in England and Wales, families who are in dire economic circumstances can approach the Moira fund and other voluntary agencies who, although they are not in receipt of huge public support in terms of finance from Governments, find the means to gather money together to assist families as and when they require it. It dawned on me that it should not be left to charities to try and find the money when members of our communities face such dire circumstances. It is not beyond the width of us all to come together to find the means to help with arranging funerals and financing funerals in the short term. Covering travel expenses in the short term, too, when they are required to attend various necessary outcomes and they have to find the money to get there. Providing the financial support that allows burial to be done with some dignity. In many circumstances, families may well find that insurance companies come forward in the long term. In some circumstances, after some months, they might even be able to save the money themselves in order to pay many of the expenses that we are talking about. However, what I offer to Parliament is to consider that, when you face the trauma of knowing that you have lost a loved one, worry about the economic impacts should be the furthest from your mind and we should find a way of taking the necessary burden that those families face. I have spoken to those within victim support in the last year over the notion of extending their services to cover. Although, by no means do I say, it has been appropriately audited, they estimated that, in a year, in order to offer the whole range of services that might be required, in the last year it would have been 59 families that might have been considered for support, but many of the families, thankfully, would be financially secure and would not need the support. We are talking fewer than 59 families to begin with. The whole range of support would not demand more than £1 million a year in terms of provision. That would offer not only the things that I have spoken about but the counselling that some of those families require during the process and after the court process is completed, offering support during appeals processes, because, very often, the families are overlooked and forgotten. In the longer term, when it comes to parole, after many years, families receive a letter through the post to tell them that people convicted of homicide or murder are going through parole processes. To cover the whole range of services that victim support had estimated around £1 million. It would be right for us, as a Parliament, to seek to provide that support and to invite the minister to consider the implications and look to initiating a broader service. In conclusion, I would also invite the Government at this time to think about unifying the victim support services rather than having a separate victim support in Scotland and a victim information and advice service that unifying both services together without any additional allocation of budgets would allow a seamless service provision from the point of view of victims and their families. I again thank the Parliament for giving the opportunity for members to express a view. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes, please, and I call Christian Allard to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to thank the member to bring this to the debate. I did read his motion and I didn't sign it, because it was, if I can say, in his contribution. It only talked about the motion at the end, really, of what he said. So the rest of his contribution are absolutely griffin. He opened our eyes with all his experience, and I know he's got vast experience, professional experience, on the matter. He opened our eyes of what families have to endure and particularly the economical burden. I think it's quite an important one. So I do very much agree with most of what he said. I'm not so sure about, as I said, the motion. I thought, as a member of the Justice Committee, we've done a lot over the years. I think that, for example, in the Victim and Witness Act 2014 and more recently in the Victim's Rights Regulation 2015, we improved very much the support provided by the various organisations within our justice system. I do agree that, for too long, victims have been treated and met, feel maybe like bystanders in the criminal justice system. But the recent changes, you know, we all voted in this Parliament, have seen more and more consideration given to the rights and the needs of victims. They're not only victims of witnesses as well, and it's important to realise that witnesses need the support. I think the new legislation will put forward, this government has put forward, and voted in by this Parliament, really improves the experience of all those people into the system. Because, at the heart of what we do at the Justice Committee, everything that we do, you know, the right of the victims and their families is always there. You know, in every legislation, we debated it, it's always there. The Minister is here, and I'm sure he will talk about it, but the recent launch of the Victim's Code for Scotland has been great news, and it's been applauded by Victim Support Scotland. I think it's very moving the right direction. I know that Victim Support Scotland is delighted about the support for services to young victims and witnesses of crimes. The Victim Code for Scotland set out the right of victim of crimes, and who to contact to help and advise. This right has been put in place, like I said, for the Victim and Witness Act 2014 and the Victim's Right 2015. So you can find a lot of this information online, of course, and we can get all this advice there. Susan Gallagher, who was the Victim Support Scotland acting chief executive at the time, said, the new code is an important step, and let me quote what we said, presenting officer, which said, Victim Support Scotland worry well comes the introduction of the Victim's Code. Victims and witnesses now have access to information which highlights what the legal rights are in the aftermath of crime, and it's a huge step forward in the journey to ensuring victims have a role in the criminal justice system in Scotland. So we are in a journey, presenting officer, and we want to continue on that journey. There is a lot, I agree, with Victim Support Scotland, particularly when we added, at a very important point, but it's still a long way to go before victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system, but the code provides us that step closer, and it's a question of step, and I'm thinking of that first step. I could talk as well, presenting officer, about the many family needs officers of Police Scotland who are doing a fine-acting job today, and now we have to realise that. We've got multiple roles, and these multiple roles are very important. We've got these expertise and these skills to manage those roles, and we'll have to find them for that role. But that is the role, of course, of the third sector organisation as well. We provide fantastic support. We discussed, for example, in the committee justice bill, that the system is maybe a bit crowded of all those organisations, when you're talking about surrounding what the member is saying in his motion, and it's a past work of organisation. But when I hear that, I always respond that this fantastic mosaic of third sector organisations is reflecting the diversity of our communities and, you know, rural or urban communities, and it's in this case that it enriches the quality of the support given to families across Scotland. So, as we are in the victims of the witness bill, as the time can come, I must decide not to opt out, for example, for a victim commissioner. And it's what he said, what was said on the matter, is giving the excellent work by victims support Scotland. It will be an unnecessary extra level of expensive bureaucracy using resources that could be better spent. So, I'm quite happy the way we've seen just now in conclusion, Presiding Officer. Let me something a bit controversial. The lack of apathy, the lack of feeling and emotion and interest is recognised by many as the most common reason for why someone would commit such an act of ending the life for another human being. And it is right, rightly apathy that makes us stand today to speak up for the people who have experienced the death of a family member from murder and culpable homicide. We do empathise with the victims, with the family members of the victims, because it could happen to us all. My last thought is for the other family, the family that will suffer because one member of this family has committed such a crime. Society, we need to reflect on this. We don't choose what members of our family will do and we will likely to suffer the consequences of whatever happens. Thank you. I now call Patricia Ferguson. We've followed by Ann Belfordi. Can I add my thanks to Graham Pearson for securing today's debate on a very difficult but important subject. I, too, praise the work of the Moira Fund and the Petal Fund. The support that it gives to people affected by murder and culpable homicide is vitally important and should be supported. Today, I wanted to highlight just two of the several cases that I've been involved in to explain why the support from those two organisations is so important and why, in Scotland, we need a dedicated victim support homicide service that provides comprehensive support, not just in the immediate aftermath of the particular crime, but throughout the time the victims' family are engaged with the justice system. Here is why. In 2008, my constituent, Giselle Ross, waved goodbye to her two sons, six-year-old Paul and two-year-old Jay, as her former husband, Ashok Kalyangie, took the boys to visit their grandmother.  One of the boys witnessed what happened to his brother before being himself the subject of an attack. Kalyangie then telephoned Giselle and Tontota about the boys before setting fire to his car with himself and the two boys inside. He was found alive by police but his sons were dead. Kalyangie was examined by three psychiatrists and found to be sane and fit to plead. He eventually pled guilty. In delivering his verdict, Lord Brailsford apologised in court to the Ross family and for the protracted process and the requirement to obtain so many reports before a verdict could be arrived at. It had taken some eight months to get to the point of conviction. Of course, that was not the end of the matter as though there ever could be an end for Giselle Ross. Kalyangie then had his lawyers ask for a review of his conviction upon the grounds of his mental state at the time of the incident. That application was refused in early 2012, but later that year a further application for review was submitted and this time was granted. After a number of harrowing court hearings, Kalyangie's bid to have his conviction quash was rejected in May 2014. The case did not end with the conviction of Ashok Kalyangie. It continued for another five years while he used the justice system to argue his case, as he was entitled to do. However, one could be forgiven for thinking that he simply wanted to continue his vindictive campaign against his former wife Giselle. However, the question that arises is that what support was available to Giselle during all that time? The answer is very little and she is not alone. I also want to consider another but very different case where it seems to me that the system could have done more to support a family. My constituent Charles Howe took his wife and young son out for a drive one evening. Out of the blue, another driver swerved across the road and crashed head-on into Mr Howe's car. Mr Howe suffered facial injuries and a shattered knee while his nine-year-old son had a broken arm and facial cuts. Mrs Howe, who was nine months pregnant, died of her injuries as did her unborn son. The driver of the other vehicle suffered some injuries but ran away from the scene and debated arrest for some six months. Because of the illness of a witness, Goldie Plead, who was the driver of the other car, plead guilty to failing to report an accident, driving without insurance while disqualified and was admonished on a charge of dangerous driving. I do not intend to rail against those sentences or those charges here today, although there is much to rail about. However, I want to highlight an aspect of the case that has added to Mr Howe's concerns in the 20 years since the death of his wife and son. That is this, that his son, who was to be named Dylan, was recorded as having been stillborn in spite of the fact that he died at nine months gestation, possibly and probably hours away from his natural birth because of the incident that his family was involved in. This is something that I think is fair to say has tortured Mr Howe in the 20 years since that his son did not have the recognition and law that he feels he should have had, that his birth and most importantly, his death are summed up in the term stillborn. I wonder if that might be a matter that the minister could consider. In conclusion, we owe people like Giselle Ross and Charles Howe more support than they currently get. If there are systems in other places that work better than ours, we should surely be brave enough to acknowledge it and follow the example. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, am very pleased to participate in today's member's debate. I also want to thank Graham Pearson for securing parliamentary time for such an important and such a very worthwhile topic. Crime affects many thousands of families across Scotland each year from antisocial behaviour and housebreaking to the unimaginable horrors of child abuse, but with the loss of a loved one by another's hand, crime exacts a very tragic toll. In 2014-15, 59 homicides were recorded and that means 59 families suffered the trauma of bereavement with the added complexity and emotional difficulty of dealing with the criminal justice system often for the first time. The work of organisations such as Victim Support Scotland is both immeasurable and invaluable in this regard. They offer emotional support in partially helping families to understand and cope with a whole range of emotions at a fraughtened, particularly overwhelming time. That is compounded by a common but devastating trend in homicides that most victims are killed by someone they know. The most recent figures show that last year, 49 per cent of male victims were killed by an acquaintance while 43 per cent of female victims were killed by their partner. For bereave families, such a betrayal is almost impossible to understand that it is vital that they are supported in their grief. I think that we all agree that Patricia Ferguson spoke very, very movingly of a situation in which families find themselves in that awful position. Charities such as a moral fund and Victim Support are to be commended for the help that they provide. People experiencing trauma and loss, petal to which Graham Pearson referred, also carry out excellent work in harnessing the services of volunteers, sectional councillors, holistic therapists and psychotherapeutic therapists to provide free support, advice and counselling to those who need it the most. Without doubt, families affected by homicide also need practical support, guidance and navigation through the system. From the moment that a homicide has been reported to the point of conviction and beyond that, Patricia Ferguson strikingly illustrated, she will come into contact with any number of official agencies, Police Scotland, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scottish Courts, Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland and the Criminal Injures Compensation Authority. She will also have to identify the body of the deceased liaison with the Procurator Fiscal about the timing of the funeral arrangements, which may be delayed significantly if a suspect is not arrested expeditiously and potentially co-ordinate with police about the victim's personal possessions because they may be used as forensic evidence. Families may also be exposed to the media, the media may follow the circumstances of the death, they may follow any subsequent court case, media attention can mean intrusive and often unwelcome attention as the bereave tried to go about their day-to-day business. This can be very distressing, especially as family members may not be aware that anything that they say could also be prejudicial to any ensuing court case. All of this, Deputy Presiding Officer, can be intimidating and overwhelming. The Scottish Government has prepared a very helpful document for bereave families, and I think that that is to be commended. However, it is a lengthy document and I think that it is quite challenging to digest. I agree with Graham Fierce that there is a distinct risk that families are passed from one organisation to another, leading to gaps and inconsistencies and provision. I think that there is merit in replicating the victim's support's homicide service, which is already operating in England and Wales. It helps families not just to navigate the criminal justice system but to provide much-needed emotional support and practical services. When I looked at the website just a moment ago, apart from anything else, how links, if I counted correctly, to 70 other specialist organisations. I again thank Graham Pearson for bringing the Parliament's attention to this very important issue. I urge the Scottish Government to look carefully at that system in England and Wales. I think that we should seriously consider if we can adopt that scheme, if it is practicable to do so. I would also like to congratulate Graham Pearson on securing this debate and to add my support and praise to the list of organisations that he has referred to, both in his motion and in his introductory remarks. Graham Pearson has referred to 887 separate victims over a period of time. I recognise that culpable homicide and murder are terrible crimes, but I welcome the fact that Scottish Government crime and justice figures 2014-15 show that between 2013-14 and 2014-15 there has been a decrease, albeit only one, down from 60 to the 59 that Annabelle Goldie referred to. That 59, however, is the lowest number of recorded homicide cases for a single 12-month period since 1976. However, that still means 59 grieving families and loved ones, which is 59 too many, and Patricia Ferguson spoke movingly of the impact on some families. Those crimes and the effects that they have on victims are so devastating that the provision of services for families affected by those crimes ought to be a high priority. I would like to say that I appreciate fully the point that Graham Pearson has made in his motion with regard to one-to-one support for families who are coming to terms with a loss of a loved one in tragic circumstances. For anyone who has not suffered such bereavement, the thought of having to go through the process is unimaginable. The services provided by the likes of Petal and the Moira fund are truly invaluable, and we must not lose sight of the hard work that people in those organisations and in organisations such as Victim Support Scotland carry out every single day. I believe that it is fitting that this debate is taking place immediately after Victim's week 2016, at the beginning of which the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs is sitting in front of me, unveiled the Victim's Code for Scotland. When he unveiled the code, he said that, quote, anybody who has been a victim of crime should have confidence that they will receive the right support and advice through the criminal justice process. I sincerely hope that the publication of this code and those words goes some way to ensuring that this is the case. However, I recognise that this code is by no means a silver bullet. It is important that support organisations work together, where it is appropriate, to provide the levels of support that Victim's require and their families. I would certainly hope that this would not result in, as Mr Pearson described it, people being passed around the organisations. I recognise that there ought to be a significant amount of work taking place behind the scenes at third sector organisations to provide the support that those families need at that time, not least of which, of course, is the support provided by Victim Support Scotland, being the largest organisation providing support and information services to victims and witnesses of crime in Scotland through their community-based victim services and court-based witness services, supporting around 200,000 people affected by crime every year. However, I recognise their calls for the development of a national support service to provide an enhanced personal response to families and loved ones, bereaved by murder and culpable homicide. The effectiveness of the approach down south cannot be ignored, and I share the calls of others for the Government to give some consideration to the lessons that can be learned from that approach. Notwithstanding this, collaboration, communication and cohesion between existing organisations is vitally important. The Moira fund, which has been referred to, created after the tragic murder of Moira Jones, is an extremely good example of a charity that provides grants to individuals the third through official organisations such as the police. To those charities, which care for families who have lost a loved one through homicide, I pay my homage. The fact that the Moira fund is backed by patrons such as the right hon. Ailish Angelini, who was the then Lord Advocate of Scotland and led the prosecution at the trial of Moira Schiller, is an indication of its importance. Once again, I thank Grand Pearson for bringing this debate, and I hope that the minister will respond to some of the points that have been made. Many thanks. Before I invite the minister to respond to the points that have been made in the debate, I advise members that this is Graham Pearson's last debate and possibly his last speech in Parliament as he is stepping down. On that note, I invite Paul Wheelhouse to respond to the debate minister. I thank Graham Pearson for raising this important issue in the chamber. I was going to for a guest correctly as it turns out that this would be Mr Pearson's final speech. I say genuinely with sincerity that I very much enjoy debates in the past with Mr Pearson. I think that he's been a very honourable member of this chamber and indeed has done great credit to his party and to the people he served in the south of Scotland in the passage of time. Indeed, I believe that it may well be my last opportunity to engage with Ms Goldie as well. Similarly, I think that Ms Goldie, whatever her political differences, I believe that Ms Goldie has been a tremendous asset to the Parliament and is very well respected across the chamber, so I look forward to hearing all sorts of good things about both members as they leave the chamber. We recognise the needs for victims of crime to have access to the right information and support and the need to improve the experience of those passing through the criminal justice system. I think that we have heard very eloquently from members across the chamber and most especially, I think, Ms Ferguson for emotional cases that she has had to deal with in her constituency, but the need for information support and the need to improve the experience and indeed to have that through care throughout the process of the justice system is not just at the point of the original prosecution, as I think has been made eloquently by a number of members. As Christian Allard stated, we have recently passed legislation in particular victims and witnesses Scotland act 2014 and the recent victims rights regulations 2015 in our attempt to improve the support provided by the various organisations within our justice system. We do recognise that it can be very traumatic for victims to be passed between criminal justice agencies and indeed, of course, their families without receiving any information on how the justice system works. This is why we have introduced standards of service to ensure victims know what to expect from each agency, particularly Police Scotland and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, but also the courts and tribunal service. We have encouraged criminal justice agencies to work closely with victims' support organisations in the creation of these standards and to establish closer working relationships to ensure that the service that we provide is as joined up as possible. I hear very clearly from members, Mr Pearson and others, that we need to have a joined up system and to make sure that organisations work together and collaborate, as Lord Campbell just said. We have introduced new rights to information so that victims can find exactly what is happening with their case. Those new measures provide additional support for victims, putting their interests at the heart of improvements to our justice system. Those legislative changes help us to comply with the EU victims' rights directive, which helps to ensure that victims of crime can have the right kind of help, information and support wherever they are in the EU. However, we recognise that victims may not be even aware of their rights or what support is available to them. This is why we have launched, as Christiane Lard and Rodd Campbell and other members have referred to, on EU victims' day, the first victims' codes for Scotland. We appreciate that it is the first one that will evolve over time. We are looking specifically at a version for children to try to make a child-friendly version, because it is obviously in the way that it is worded, mainly aimed at adults. However, there is a clear need to work with children first in other organisations to make sure that there is a child-friendly version of that document. In simple, straightforward language, the code provides victims with information about their rights, who can help them, where to go for more information. The code can be easily accessed online, as it is available from criminal justice agencies. Since 22 February, it has been available online in a variety of languages, including Polish, Mandarin and Urdu, just to name a few. I am also pleased to say that we are currently developing easy read and child-friendly versions of the code. The code will be made available to victims of crime when they come into contact with the police or other criminal justice agencies, and it is intended to help to signpost victims to the help and support that they need. We developed the code in discussion with agencies such as the police, courts, the Crown Office and victims groups such as Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. We will continue to consult with those organisations as the code is made available more widely to ensure that it is providing the information that victims require. We recognise the considerable support that is currently available from the police through family liaison officers. Graham Pearson referred to them first. Obviously, we will have direct experience of working with family liaison officers from victim information and advice, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and from victim support organisations. I recognise the points that have been made by Graham Pearson and other members that there appears to be a lot of organisations. There is obviously a risk of people being passed from pillar to post or feel that way, and that is clearly something that we have to manage carefully. At present, Police Scotland points family liaison officers in cases where a serious crime has been committed and the police determined that it would be beneficial to the family, and that is an important point. FLOs make contact with victims or bereaved relatives during the early stages of the police investigation or very soon after a death. FLOs are there to provide a link between the family and the senior investigating officer and inquiry team, and we will identify additional support for the family as well, providing practical assistance such as managing any media interest in the case, which can sometimes be very intense, as I am sure that members are aware. They are also responsible for offering guidance on the investigation process to the family, providing advice and guidance to the police investigation. FLOs lay as closely with the victim information and advice service at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from very early in the investigation before handing the liaison rollover to VIA if the investigation moves to prosecution. VIA, in turn, provides victims of crime with information about the criminal justice system itself. They provide assistance in a case where a victim appears to be vulnerable and help victims to get in touch with organisations that can offer the practical help and support that people were referring to earlier on. We recognise the importance of supporting victims of crime, which is why the Scottish Government provides funding of just over £4 million per year to victim support organisations. In relation to those bereaved by murder specifically, which is why we are here today, we agree that providing support is vital, and that is why we provide grant funding to PETL, who offer a specialist support counselling services practical advice relating to the criminal justice system and other matters. The 2014 act is part of a larger piece of work to further improve the experience and increase support to victims of crime in the justice system. I encourage individuals and agencies to continually seek new means of supporting victims of crime and continually be aware of identifying areas where improvements can be made to existing provisions. That is certainly my view, and I assure you that that will continue to be the case beyond implementation of the legislation. As members have referred to, Victim Support Scotland in their 2015-2019 manifesto has called for the development of a national support service to provide an enhanced personal response to families and loved ones bereaved by murder. I certainly hear the sentiment across the chamber that this is something that members, regardless of party, are seeking to see happen. I very much welcome Victim Support Scotland's commitment to improving support in this area, but we feel that it is vital that we avoid potential duplication of services and ensure that resources are focused on helping those in need. PETL, for example, already provides specialist support for bereaved families and more general support is extensively available across Scotland, particularly through Victim Support Scotland and other organisations that should be mentioned this afternoon. As for this reason, we have encouraged Victim Support Scotland and PETL to consider how they might work more closely together to support families in those cases. I hear that the very good work that is going on in England and I want to acknowledge that, and it certainly has some attraction to it, but what we need to do is design a system that will work within the landscape that we have and try to avoid duplication, so not necessarily a straight copy across. We are open to further discussion on this topic and recognise that we need to be fully aware of the needs of those who have suffered bereavement by murder or suicide and support them appropriately. The concerns raised by Graham Pearson today over potential issues such as the example given of victims feeling that they have to explain things again and again as they pass on one justice agency to the next are ones that I recognise that are ones that point to need to better understand the requirements of victims and we need justice and victim support organisations to work together and to deliver a joined-up service. Of course legislation is not the end of the process, it is just the beginning. It is obviously a constant process of improvement and it is just something that we will need to do in terms of implementation to continue and we will work in collaboration with our partners in the criminal justice system and the third sector to ensure that provisions are implemented effectively. We will also continue to work to identify improvements that can be made on a non-letters of basis and for too long victims have been treated and made to feel like bystanders in the criminal justice system. Our recent changes will see more consideration given to rights and needs of victims and witnesses of crime and it is my hope and I am sure that it is shared across the chamber that the recent initiatives will improve the experience of the system, a system that obviously victims turn to in order to see justice serve. I want to again thank Graeme Pearson. I mean with all sincerity the points that I made earlier on, he has been an excellent member of the chamber and indeed Annabelle Goldie. I wish them great success in their future endeavours but I hope that Mr Pearson can take some comfort with the fact that we are looking at issues that he has raised importantly today and hopefully he will take some satisfaction from any progress that is made hereafter. I also add my best wishes to Graeme Pearson and Annabelle Goldie standing down from parliament and that concludes Graeme Pearson's debate support for families affected by murder and culpable homicide. I suspend this meeting until 2.30pm.


So thanks for joining us, I appreciate it. What we're going to do, spend a little time with you and today is going through what I think are three bills. I'm not sure there's more than that, but there are three in my radar screen, H51, H175, and H214, I believe, are bills that have been introduced. The deal is fossil fuel infrastructure. That's like magic, those are the three bills. And since there's been a lot of discussion in the hallway of this building about this, before we dig through deeper into the session, I wanted Luke to take us through these bills. The committee had an opportunity to ask questions about the direction that each of these bills takes. I guess that's it, my way of introduction. And thank you for joining us. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. For the record, Luke Marland from Leicester Council. And as the chair indicated, the purpose of our discussion today is to go over these bills and committee. But what I thought I would do is begin with a little background on some of the issues you've heard so far from other witnesses, just to refresh your recollection, and then talk about some issues that you may want to consider as you go through the bills and then walk through those bills. And as always, if you have questions, please ask. If anything I say is not clear, please ask. So there's two existing pipelines in Vermont, the Vermont natural gas pipeline that you heard testimony about a few weeks ago in the Western part of the state from Canada down to the middle part of the state. And then there's also a Portland Hype Line Corporation pipeline in the Northeast Kingdom that goes from Portland Main up to Montreal that transports, I think, a crude oil from Portland up to Montreal. So those are the two existing pipelines in Vermont at this point. What I'd like to do today is, as I said, give you a background on the existing. We'll also understand the existing regulatory framework that pertains to fossil fuel pipelines and facilities. And then briefly summarize some decision points and then walk through those bills. So a couple things keep in mind. First of all, when you're talking about the existing regulatory framework, it's important to distinguish between the federal and the state. And you heard testimony about this a few weeks ago about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. FERC regulates interstate, in other words, between the states, wholesale, sale and transportation of electricity and natural gas. And FERC also has jurisdiction over the construction of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities. This is the federal area that you cannot pass legislation that impacts you to be preemptive from doing so. As to within the state, it's important to distinguish between natural gas and other types of fossil fuels. As we'll go through in a moment, the Public Utilities Commission through the Certificate of Public Good Process regulates some natural gas pipelines. Act 250 could apply to other fossil fuel pipelines or facilities. So it's important to keep separate in your mind federal, interstate, state, natural gas and other forms of fossil fuels. Now, as far as the regulatory framework for natural gas, this is set forth in 30VSA 203, which states that the Public Utility Commission and the Department of Public Service have jurisdiction and that it lists those areas they have jurisdiction over. And it includes a company engaged in the manufacture, transmission, distribution, or sale of gas or electricity to the public. Or under two, that part of the business of a company, which consists of the manufacture, transmission, distribution, or sale of gas or electricity to customers. In addition, under 30VSA 248, and this is a long statute, I'm just going to summarize two parts of it, it states that no company may, in any way, begin site preparation for or commence construction of any natural gas facility except for the replacement of existing facilities with equivalent facilities in the usual course of business, unless the Public Utility Commission first finds that the same promote the general good of the state and issues a certificate to that effect. In other words, a certificate of public good. It's important to see the definition under A, which is paraphrased above, which states that a natural gas facility means Henry natural gas transmission line, transmission line, not necessarily distribution line, transmission line, storage facility, manufactured gas facility, or other structure incident to any such line. In other words, any such transmission line. The definition continues, for purposes of this section, natural gas transmission line shall include any feed or main or any pipeline facility constructed to deliver natural gas in Vermont directly from a natural gas pipeline that could be between the states. So this is an important definition. It's important to keep in mind that as to natural gas facilities and transmission lines, the PUC has jurisdiction before any of those could be built. But there is the exception that the replacement of an existing facilities with equivalent facilities in the usual course of business. So is that long that definition here, everybody? Yeah. So the definition of national gas transmission line, including any feed or main or any pipeline facility constructed to deliver natural gas in Vermont directly from or to, because a feeder line applies to me that it's speeding into a transmission, any speeding into a pipeline. The full sense, I cut it off at the bottom of the frame here, but says feed or main or any pipeline facility constructed to deliver natural gas in Vermont directly from a natural gas pipeline facility that has been certified, pursuant to then their citation to federal law. Oh, OK. So we're talking about from a natural gas pipeline facility, which is either a generation or? Well, think of it as a natural gas supply line from outside of Vermont. OK. Coming into Vermont. And then there's the connection to Vermont and ultimately to the customers. OK. Is there any confusion about whether a pipeline that is bringing gas from out of state is in state line or interstate line? So no, I don't believe so. So it's bringing gas from out of Vermont, let's say from another state. That's within the jurisdiction. And the construction is under the jurisdiction of her. So that would be interstate, it's a natural gas line. If the line physically crosses the state boundary, then that's interstate. It is coming from another state. Yes. It is coming from somewhere else coming into Vermont. Gas inside the pipeline in Vermont is from another state. That makes sense, eh? Right, so the Public Utility Commission would regulate the construction of a natural gas facility inside Vermont, which is defined to include a pipeline inside Vermont. Right. So I guess maybe there's a facility or some sort of distribution structure or something once the pipeline crosses the border into Vermont. What I'm asking is whether there's just major. So there's any confusion about whether a pipeline that is constructed in Vermont, but it's actually carrying interstate gas? I think it is an interstate pipeline or an interstate pipeline. I don't think so, because I think it's and I might be mistaken about this. I think it's dependent on the pipeline, not the gas inside the pipeline. So yes, could gas come from outside Vermont? Sure. But when you're talking about a certificate of public good for construction of a pipeline, if you're talking about the physical pipeline, that's what the terms where the PEC would have on charge six or nine. If the FERC has not tried to assert. Well, they would assert it between the states, and they also control the wholesale market. But once the cost is into Vermont, the PEC would have charge six or nine if you're constructing the pipeline. Right. Thank you. Sorry. I think that the distinction in a previous slide is I forget the wording, but that the pipeline is bringing gas to customers in Vermont as opposed to the pipeline that crosses the corner of the Northeast Kingdom, which is just not serving any retail customers. If the wholesale, I think was the, I forget the wording, but that's the distinction. That's a good point. Thank you. Would methane be considered natural gas? I don't believe it is. I don't know if there's some technical definition of what the definition. I don't. I should say I'm not sure. I can check to get back to you. Any other questions? So this is the regulatory framework as to natural gas, pipelines, and facilities. Now as to other fossil fuels, and the pipeline you mentioned in the reference earlier is actually not natural gas. That's the boil from Portland up to Montreal. So remember that to fall within Act 250. So Act 250 separate from the public utilities commission. To fall within Act 250, a project must involve either more than 10 acres of land or more than one acre of land within a municipality that doesn't have zoning and subdivision bylaws. That's the general standard for Act 250. Now a pipeline could fall within this definition. An example is a pipeline in the Northeast Kingdom from Portland made up to Montreal. There wasn't actually Act 250 case concerning that. And the Natural Resources Board ruled that the pipeline could satisfy this requirement because the whole length of the pipeline was more than 10 acres in parts of it or more than an acre within various municipalities that didn't have the zoning and subdivision bylaws. So the pipeline could have been subject to Act 250. In that case, the Natural Resources Board held it ultimately wasn't because it had been constructed prior to the passage of Act 250. We're back to the 40s and 50s and then updated I think the early 60s. So in that case, that pipeline was not within Act 250, but a new pipeline to carry fossil fuels could perhaps fall within the Act 250 structure. And could therefore be subject to Act 250 review. So on that particular pipeline, there was some controversy a few years ago about whether to reverse the flow from laundry all down to Portland in order to carry the tar sands. And would a change like that trigger Act 250 review? Well, that's exactly what I'm referring to. The decision said no because the decision held that it was a type of fuel, I forget the word, that was used. But it was also whether needed to be upgrade the pipes or the valves and the Natural Resources Board held that those were not as efficient to quote with an Act 250. So you're right, that was a claim. It was rejected by the Natural Resources Board. But a different claim, maybe the facts would be different. Now there is an exception under Act 250 that cars out natural gas facilities that fall within the jurisdiction of the PUC. So your natural gas under PUC, another fossil fuel pipeline might be under Act 250, you probably wouldn't fall within both to be either one. So with that background, any questions about that before I proceed? Here's some issues or decision points you should be aware of when we go through the various bills because each of them approaches issue in a different way. So very high level. You have an option to do nothing, maintain a status quo. What I call the absolutes, which could be arguably to ban all fossil fuel pipelines in the state or for that matter, perhaps remove all restrictions or modify the existing criteria, for example under the Public Utilities Commission to either encourage or discourage construction of fossil fuel facilities and pipelines. If you're taking this third option, which is looking at the criteria, there is various things to be aware of when we go through the bills. First of all, the distinction between facilities and pipelines, we've been talking about pipeline so I think that's how most people envision this issue, but what kinds of other facilities potentially could be impacted? What I made clear about natural gas and other fossil fuels, addressing one, the other, both. And various car valves. That could be a grandfather clause for existing facilities, maybe they need to be covered by the bill or maintenance. So you get various car valves that if you're modifying criteria would pull out certain types of pipelines or facilities from those changed to the criteria. So I'd now like to begin to go through the bill, but before I do that, I think I should clarify a question about, could you describe natural gas facilities versus pipelines? What would be a facility? Well, go back to the definition that we went to earlier and I am not an engineer, so I don't know if I can give you on the ground definition. But if you remember from, so from 30VSA 248, that the definition of natural gas facility, it says any natural gas transmission line, storage facility, manufactured gas facility or other structure incident to any such line of facility. And then it goes on to land which we talked about with the theater from an interesting point. So it's not just the pipeline, but storage and other structures or facilities that are incident to that pipeline. Are there natural gas storage facilities? I don't know the answer to that one, so. You mean inside Vermont, I still don't know the answer to that. A manufactured gas facility, I guess would be a methane digester or a landfill. I'm not sure if it's a facility, is anybody in there? Are there any friends here? Are there any other? Yes. I believe that's reference to the legacy, like the bar's count on Tom Murray from Vermont Gas, by the way, that's a reference to the legacy manufactured gas, which was a Rufflin had one and Barry had one, basically manufacturing gas from coal, coal sludge, basically that's where that was referenced to. And on the note around facilities, we have gate stations along the way that decreases the transmission pressure down to distribution pressure. So that would be ancillary to the transmission line, so that allows us to serve the community at the lower pressure. All right, thank you. Are there any facilities where a pipeline crosses into Vermont? Really the only facilities, so what I'm getting from your answer is the only facilities are the pressure facilities to decrease the pressure from transmission to distribution. Yeah, I mean we have a couple of mainline valves, which is similar, but it's a small station for release pressure, something like that. But in general, the gate station is really the big one that we see on the transmission line related to that. We do have a propane air plant, which is a way to make propane and to make natural gas. That's a peaking unit. That would probably be considered ancillary because that is used during cold days to inject into the system. That's the only one that's even close to a storage facility in Vermont. I will say OMEA has an LNG facility, which is a, you know, the mind down in Florence, they have an LNG facility that, I don't know, it's traditionally classified as storage, but it definitely has the look and feel of storage, not associated with a transmission facility, but I do believe they got 248 for it when they got that permit. Great, thank you. So before we go into this, I want to actually come back up to a question that Scott had asked earlier, that I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on, which is at what juncture the jurisdiction of the PUC kicks in relative to the jurisdiction of FERC? So if we have a pipeline that crosses a state border and an expansion on that pipeline is looking to be completed, is that an expansion of an interstate facility and therefore is under FERC jurisdiction? So your pipeline that comes to the border of Vermont and stops or continues into Vermont? It continues into Vermont. Okay. If there is a pipeline crossing a border of Vermont or going the other way too, but coming into Vermont and an expansion of that pipeline is anticipated or is looking to be supported construction that would be supported. Is it FERC jurisdiction or is it PUC? If it's in, well, actually let's back up and make it simpler. So you have a pipeline, some company builds a pipeline in New Hampshire, the other then turn to Vermont. Vermont Gas wants to tap into that and have a pipeline into Vermont to serve Vermont customers. Sure. PUC. Okay. Okay, PUC jurisdiction. Even though it crosses the border? Well, it was within Vermont. Vermont regulates what's inside Vermont, FERC regulates outside Vermont between the states. So right, so wherever the pipeline comes from is in New Hampshire, stops at Vermont border, Vermont Gas wants to now build a pipeline from Vermont border into Vermont, serve customers in Middlebury, PUC, okay? So say you already have that pipeline inside Vermont, serving the customers in Middlebury. And they want to somehow extend it further. That might depend on whether it's a transmission line, how it's defined, how far it goes. I don't know if I can give you an exact answer. PUC could definitely be involved depending on the nature of that expansion. Yeah, what's not clear to me is does FERC have any jurisdiction over construction? Inside Vermont? Well, I'm looking at your very first slide. Actually, that's in page three. FERC regulates interstate wholesale sale and transportation of electricity and natural gas. Jurisdiction over construction of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities. So in your example of the pipeline that goes to Lebanon, New Hampshire. Okay. And stops there. But then there's an interest in Vermont connecting up, at the end of the year, Vermont connecting up with that pipeline and bringing that pipeline into the state. That would seem like FERC would have a lot to say about whether that construction goes forward or not. Within Vermont? Okay. I don't believe so. I believe FERC is concerned with a wholesale market of electricity and natural gas, concerned with the construction of interstate natural gas pipelines. But Vermont gas applies to build the pipeline from Lebanon into Vermont to serve Vermont customers. I believe that is just PUC. I do not believe FERC has a role in that. There might be some scenario that I don't know would be involved. I can't think of it. I don't know if anyone else- I did. It goes back to you, but when we talked about going to the international paper plan, we got a 248 permit to, or we worked to get a 248 permit, I think the final permit was never issued because the project died, but essentially we were going down the path of the 248 really from Middlebury to the lake, if you will. FERC was permitting, I think the lake crossing is that's when it tripped into the interstate, essentially. So I think that's kind of the distinction there. I do believe though that FERC often defaults to the state's environmental regulation to a large extent, so I think the long and the short of it is any pipeline, if somebody tried to use the FERC, Trump character, really Trump, that's probably a bad analogy, but maybe it's appropriate actually. They'd do something like that in Vermont. I think Vermont would have a pretty extensive say. You've seen that in New York, that the governor of New York effectively jammed the pipeline project from Bington to Albany, and even though it was the FERC project, they've essentially stopped that project. So FERC could not force through a pipeline that the PUC did not issue a certificate if I would put it forward? Not an attorney, but I believe the states can make life very difficult for a Florida A.S. that pipeline. That's what you're trying to get to. Well, the reason I'm asking that is we're about to go into these bills, and I want to be clear what kind of jurisdiction and playing field the legislature has on some of these issues, because these are interesting. Well, I think the bills are all legal. I think that they all are focused on Vermont. You see there's language to make sure and carve out for FERC, I think in this bill. So we cover ourselves double, but I think they're all okay. I don't think we're going to raise those issues. So this is now H-51. So I talked to you earlier about some decision points or things to be aware of. H-51 is a bill that would fall in the category of what I call the absolutes. In essence, it would ban any new fossil fuel pipelines in the state. And so let's walk through it and please if there's any questions, I don't plan to read a word for work, but if there's any questions, please stop me and let me know. So you have section one is purpose and as you know, that's in session law. It doesn't really have a direct legal impact, but it sets forth the goal of the General Assembly for the reason why you'd be considering this bill. And it has a general language about the reason for what section two does. So section two is adding a new sub-chapter. And it's actually in title 29, which chapter 14 deals with natural gas and oil conservation. And that title actually has intent language of its own, which states that Vermont should encourage natural gas and oil exploration and development. So this would add a new sub-chapter nine. And it states that in line four under A, a person shall not construct or reconstruct fossil fuel infrastructure in the state. So it's a prohibition on the construction or reconstruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. In other words, it's an absolute ban. One is a carve-out in essence for FERC to make sure that there's no conflict. Two says that the prohibition does not include the repair or maintenance or both of fossil fuel infrastructure in existence, in other words, the grandfather clause I mentioned earlier. It's a carve-out for existing pipelines or facilities. Under B, it has definitions. So it gives it definition of fossil fuel. And interestingly, there's only one other definition of fossil fuel I'm aware of in the Vermont statutes, which sort of lists all the types of fossil fuels. So this would be a new definition and it's a definition that we reuse in many of our bills. I'm presuming methane would not be included. Uh, no, it was methane from potato, potato, again, it doesn't matter, but I guess it's not in there, it's crust, so good point. B is using the section two, fossil fuel infrastructure, means a structure and ancillary facilities used to move fossil fuel from one location to another, such as a natural gas or oil pipeline. The phrase includes natural gas facilities defined in Title 30, which is the definition I gave you earlier. So it covers, oh, I'm sorry. So it covers, my apologies, covers natural gas and other fossil fuels. Now, under the second sentence, it states that the phrase does not include an endless motor vehicles, underground tanks, or pipes located in the site of a service station, or pipes leading to a residence or commercial building. So this is another kind of car map. Doesn't include your cars, doesn't include gas station, doesn't include a residential, commercial building and a fuel tank. Is that clear? So in layman's terms, I'll ask you, what does it include? It includes, anything that's- And is it really just Vermont gas, basically? No, I think it would be, I mean, yes, it would include Vermont gas, a new pipeline, not an existing one, remember there's that car valve. It is structure and ancillary facilities move to use fossil fuel from one location another. So it would be very similar to the current definition that we talked about, the pipeline and the gates or whatever word you use that's necessary to move the oil or gas, that's what it would include. I don't know what you're thinking of. I'm, frankly, I'm thinking of, I'm thinking of Borns in Morseville. I'm sorry, what? They're moving, Borns Company, you know, they're moving over fuel oil company, you know, the home delivery and delivery. Yeah, I don't think it would include that. I don't think so. I don't know where, if they would want to build a new pipeline to serve as some storage facility, then it might involve a pipeline from the existing facilities, no, have your grandfathered out from their trucks with the transporting fuel to the storage tank for the local residents, no, I don't think it would include that. Look, what about a pipeline going into Addison County that currently doesn't serve a particular town or neighborhood that wants to hook into that for residential use? So it'd be an extension, like to get to a new house? Well, I guess, yeah, essentially, but I'm trying to distinguish between what this bill would allow, and maybe we're not at that section yet, but between, I guess what I'll call, transmission and distribution. And by transmission, I mean, maybe the larger diameter pipe that is supplying a particular area as a pressure, under high pressure, maybe that's the way to distinguish it, as opposed to distribution where a neighborhood or an individual home is being. Well, the way it's defined, I think it will include both. And if you're taking up the bill, that might be an issue that you deal with, but the definition, remember, means structure to move fossil fuel from one location to another. It doesn't distinguish between transmission, distribution, or pressure or diameter. So it seems to include all types of lines. Yeah. Do trains count as motor vehicles? Or is that simply, that's a good question. Or is it simply got more semi-trails? Good question. That's the kind of thing you need to take up the bill, and you can clarify. Any other questions about the definitions? So in section three, and if I forget to page down, please remind me. So basically what section three, section four, and section five, and for that matter, section six, two, is each of them has a prohibition on the construction or approval of any new pipeline. So section three states that the Secretary of A&R cannot approve, I'm sorry, it cannot issue a permit or other approval pertaining to the construction or reconstruction of a fossil fuel infrastructure. Section four basically deals with Act 250. Section five states that municipal land use permit cannot be issued for the construction or reconstruction of a fossil fuel infrastructure. So each of these are prohibitions on anybody or person approving the construction or reconstruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. Section six is now in Title 30. So this is dealing with the Public Utilities Commission. I won't move it in a second. Yeah, can you wanna go down, I assume? Section six, yep, okay. So what this does is I'm gonna switch pages here, but it's Title 30, and this is the same law that we looked at earlier, 248. And the new language, so it keeps existing law, but you see the new language on lines five through sevens, basically states that commencing with the effective date, the commission, the Public Utility Commission, cannot issue a certificate of public good as to a natural gas facility. So on paper, they would have that continued authority where they can never issue a CPG as to a natural gas facility.  They're not substantive. And then continuing down. You see, a certain language is removed, and I'm sorry, I'm losing my voice. Existing language is lined out, and under existing law, the PUC, candidate discretion to have a proceeding to give an opinion that might be relevant to a proceeding, but this removed the ability to do so. Later on, under I, I'm sorry, one and two under H, again, strikes out, let me go back up so you can see it. If there is a proceeding for a federal certification under existing law, the PUC, in essence, can give its input, but now the small mandate that the input would be that the facility's contrary to the general goodness state. So it's requiring the PUC to be negative as to such an application proceeding. And then you'll see that one and two would be deleted from current law. And basically what this is doing is that the PUC would not have a role in giving advice to FERC about the interstate pipeline, if it somehow impacted Vermont, and that the PUC could not approve any new fossil fuel pipelines that are facilities in the state. One other definitional thing, maybe it's about a definitional thing that is mentioned here a couple times, I want to be clear on the phrase construction or reconstruction, and back, it's on page three of the bill, line four, a person shall not construct or reconstruct fossil fuel infrastructure in the state. And then it goes on to say what the prohibition does not include. But I think of reconstruction of fossil fuel infrastructure in my mind that falls in the maintenance world. But we're also in age 51 maintenance is carved out. So I'm trying to adjust those things. Reconstruction is, this is a carryover bill. You could, I think you could use a different word than reconstruction. It's not a defining term in the bill. So if you want to, thank you very much. If you wanted to use a different word, I think that'd be fine. I think you're trying to get at building a new or is somehow substantially changing and existing. So it's not merely maintenance. I believe that's what you're trying to get at, but we could define it better. I think it's also important to note that page five. Well, thank you very much. Line eight, this section about natural gas transmission line. And natural gas transmission line is defined as I think to be distinct from a distribution line. At least that's how I took it when I read it. I think you're right. Yeah. So back on page three where the new language about fossil fuel infrastructure is talking about a structure or ancillary facilities used to move fossil fuel from one location to another. It probably needs to be clarified, but I think I took it to me that it did not include distribution lines. I took it differently. And I didn't, Ellen and I did not write this bill. It was catalyzed as I mentioned. I'm not sure what the sponsor's intent was. I mean, if you take up the bill, you can decide. If you want to live in it or have it broadly and we can clarify that language. I read it as more broadly. It's okay. I don't know if that's intentional. Yeah. Okay. So if you're worried to allow distribution, I think you should. We would have to carve out the ancillary facility that would drop down the pressure for distribution. Yeah. If that's your intent, yeah, it would suggest to be very clear and have a carve out if that's what you wish to do. I think, I think this language can be read broadly. So if you don't want that, we should clarify it. Any questions about H 51? I wanted to more quickly focus on two other bills that take a slightly different approach to some of the same issues. Each 175 is a shorter bill and hit in essence. Let me pull down. So right now, utility or company can use eminent domain under certain circumstances if they're constructed in pipeline. This bill would prevent that. And so you see the language on lines 13 and below. It says no corporation or company may condemn any property or right in order to construct or expand facilities or structures that would then under one transport fossil fuel under two bristle electricity, heat or energy using fossil fuel. And then there's a definition of fossil fuel that's similar to the one I just gave you. So in essence, this is not an absolute ban on fossil fuel infrastructure or pipelines, but it takes away one tool that is sometimes used to build pipeline or structure eminent domain. So it would make it more difficult to build a new pipeline in for months. Any questions? Yeah, I've got nothing about eminent domain. Here you go, I missed that day in law school. In fact, I missed law school. So okay, I don't have any context for none now. On all these bills, if you're taking one of them up, we can always research issues or get folks in here who can give you more information. Finally, I'd like to discuss age 214. So this is in essence modifies or adds criteria that the public utilities commission would apply in considering whether to grant a certificate of public good for a natural gas facility. So if we page down, this is once again, 30 VSA 248, the law looked at more than once. And the new language states that this is the section we talked about earlier that no company can get in site preparation or commence construction as a natural gas facility. You'll see online for, this is reorganized, but this is existing language, you need to get a CPG. But below that is a new language. Unless the public utilities commission first evaluates the percentage of greenhouse gas leakage that occurs from the extraction and transportation of the natural gas and determines that the adverse effects of that leakage on climate change are outweighed by the good to the state. So it's a new factor that the PUC must consider before granting a CPG. Then under small three also evaluates the impact of groundwater contamination caused by the extraction of the natural gas in the region where the extraction is conducted and determines that those impacts are outweighed by the good to the state. So this is strengthening or adding to the criteria that should be considered deciding whether to grant a CPG. The other new language is if you click to page three, online is 12 through 15. It states that the public utilities commission shall not allow companies to finance the construction of a pipeline through rates beyond the useful lifetime of infrastructure and shall not allow the construction costs to be securitized on other utilities beyond the pipeline itself. And as the details about securitization of pipeline costs, I'm sorry, I can't give you the information on that. That's one of the things we can research or have people come in to discuss. But the objective is that make more difficult to obtain a CPG. So I think the purpose of that particular clause is if we anticipate that we're not going to be using fossil fuels beyond 30 years, and it's gonna cost, and if in order to pay for the pipeline, it's gonna take 60 years at current rates that would be a disincentive for the public utility commission to issue a CPG. Now there are, those are the bills that are in this committee. I am not aware of another pipeline bill that would be in another committee. I don't know why it would be. There's a couple of bills in the Senate. One of them is the sister bill. I think it's an H51. And there's another bill that would in essence ban pipelines in the state that is written a little differently. That's the universe of bills out there dealing with fossil fuel pipelines. Can you describe a little bit about the precedent for state laws, state decisions barring input from out of the state? Is that a common thing? Like this one specifically says we've got to consider effects that occur elsewhere. Yeah. Is that a common thing for state law or? I don't know whether I can say it's common for state laws in general. It's legal. Could require that. It's possible. I don't know if it's common. I guess I wonder how easy it would be to evaluate the percentage of renounced gas leakage. And also whether that would be variable depending on the facilities being used at that moment or the wells being used at that moment or the pipelines being used. The same graph. Is this a limitation question? Same with groundwater contamination. Yeah. It seems like that might be difficult to establish. I don't know. Yeah. How difficult. How difficult. Can I make a general statement on a lot of these bills? I think we're naive in the thought that there's not something else out there that natural gas or other extensions could be used for. I'll give you two examples. One is the possibility, and they did look at it for a new natural gas facility at the old Vernon nuclear power plant because all the infrastructure is there. My understanding is that there was an issue with Massachusetts bringing that line up through, and that's why that kind of fell apart. But again, if something like this was in place, that could never happen. Another example is the low of the needin' asbestos mines has a proposal now to re-mine the slab piles up there. And they were initially looking to St. Albans, but they feared that the Act 250 process would not allow them to do so, so they're looking at Gorham, New Hampshire, and what they need to extract these minerals out of those slab piles is a huge amount of heat, which would be natural gas. And the products that are used, now this is just an example, is magnesium oxide and magnesium hydroxide, which is used as a fire retardant for cable insulation in high quality cars, submarines, the Airbus A380, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 2, insulation plastic roofing on the London Olympic Stadium. You know, again, I'm just using it as an example that that's just one thing in my mind and I know in my area, they could use natural gas for an unbelievable purpose for a product that's needed. I mean, the project that they're proposing in Gorham is millions and millions of dollars. There's a facility in Canada now that does it, so it's not a pipe dream. It's not like something that doesn't happen. It can happen. They have EPA approval already to move the stuff. There's just other things that would have to come down the pipe. So again, just in general terms of, those are two things that I can think of that should be thought about.  I'm just curious, just out of interest, in terms of the reclamation project involved, the, I don't know what to call it, it's really kind of reclamation, would a pipeline be necessary in order to be the... Very soon, probably. Yeah, it sounds like it would be unfeasible to get it from wherever it is now to the mines itself. That's why they're looking at that St. Albans, but Gorham, New Hampshire was more a viable prospect to get the material over there. Because there's a pipeline there. Because there is a pipeline there. And it's, they were looking at it to, once they moved it and went into this facility, there would be no airborne product or whatever, I guess. Once this is incinerated, there's virtually nothing left. Because I was thinking, geez, if you got these huge slide piles, there's still gonna be a mining operation or a slide pile still left. But I guess it burns it right down the list of nothing. Pretty interesting stuff. But anyway. Would that be good use for the extra-shea energy? Yeah. Could be. Toasters. I'm sorry? Toasters. Toasters. Just wondering about the air quality effects of actually transporting what you got there and all to wherever it needs to go. Whether it's in Gorham or whether it's closer. That actually picking up this stuff is gonna probably create a lot of airborne material. Well, there's a whole process that they worked into place of spraying it, while it's being moved onto the trucks. Supposedly we've got it now. Just again, it's a mineral- Another question is, can it be, can it be distributionally served for the purpose of actually being the plant that's supposed to be transmissible? Distributionally for the actual mineral itself. For the actual plants. Again, I think they must have considered that to some degree because that's not the direction they're headed in as far as they're thinking it's cheaper to transport this stuff. Which, again, is a concern just because it was like 17 truck loads a day from April to November, I think it was. They tried to stay out of the way. Just something to think about. Thank you, Luke, for taking us through these things. Before we adjourn for the day, I just wanted to remind people about the EV demonstration event that's going on near the Department of Labor tomorrow. It's 4 to 6. I'm going to be there because I already own one. But I can attest to my satisfaction from my election year. But if you have a chance at the end of the day tomorrow, I'll take over that. Do you want to follow up on any of the bills we discussed at this point? Not immediately, but yeah, we will definitely pull the end because we get one. Sure. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not going to talk to anybody yet or go into that EV demonstration or whatever, but we've got the Turkish Cultural Center tomorrow. That's sure to work well. If anybody wants some baklava, that's when you get it. So tomorrow we start at 9 o'clock, and we have two different topics in the morning. And I'm not sure how much time we're going to have in the afternoon. Right now, we don't have anything scheduled up to the House floor. And if it's late today, which I expected to be, I expect we'll be on the floor for two or three hours. But at this time, we don't have anything on the House floor. Thank you.


So guys, I'm super excited to test out a new vlogging setup that I'm using right now. The iPhone 13 paired with the DJI OM5 gimbal and the wireless microphone by DJI. In the past, I've tried out different vlogging setups and as you know, I like to keep things simple because I don't want to carry around a bunch of gear. So I'm curious to see how this new setup will do and if it could improve my vlogging game. Gonna hop on this boat right here. How's it going everyone? Benek Razer here with SmartfulFilmmaking.com. The number one online school for mobile creators wanting to take their mobile video skills to the next level. Today I have a new vlogging setup that I want to test out and see if it's an improvement.  Especially when traveling, I want a small light vlogging setup that I can easily take with me. The entire video will be recorded on the iPhone 13 using the DJI OWN 5 and the DJI mic so that you can see how well this setup performs. Now I'm currently in San Diego spending time with my brother and I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to test out this new vlogging setup and bring you guys along for the ride. Hey, how's it going bro? Good. Long time no see. This is my Silverton 322 motor. Nice. All right, why don't you come on to my balcony? This is it. This is just my version of the balcony. It's a good time. I throw great parties here when it's beautiful like this. Yeah, we take her out. But let me show you the front of the ship. We call it the bow. Why don't you go down that way and I'll go down this way. This is the front of the ship. We call it the bow and here you have beautiful seating space to enjoy the view. And that's my room down there, right? Yeah, that's right. Should we go inside? Let's go inside. All right, let's step into the cabin. All right, this is the main salon here. There's only one. You guys may call it a living room but this is the saloon where we hang out. Nice. Oh, is that you by the way? This picture? Oh yeah, yeah, that is me. That was me three years ago when I used to work out a lot, lot more. This is a full-size bed. You can sleep two people here comfortably. Oh wow. Oh yeah. It feels comfortable too. I mean, my room is over there. I sleep like a baby. Let's first talk about the camera setup that I have going on here. The camera I'm using is the iPhone 13, which is actually my brother's and I'm using his phone instead of the iPhone 13 Pro Max because the DJI OM 5 can handle the weight better of both the iPhone 13 and the DJI mic. The DJI OM 5 is a great gimbal, especially for vloggers as it has a built-in extension rod to have the camera further away from you to fit more in the frame. Otherwise, without the extension rod, it would look like this. I would have the camera up way closer to me, which doesn't feel comfortable over a long period of time. Now, what's also great is that you can get unique angles with the extension rod, including low shots are usually hard to do when holding the camera in your hand. I know that in some of my videos, I use the DJI OM 4 and I still think it's an excellent gimbal but when it comes to vlogging, I actually prefer the DJI OM 5 because of its extension rod. Using a gimbal to vlog also allows me to get stable shots which is important when you're moving around. Even though most smartphones have good built-in image stabilization, sometimes it isn't enough and a gimbal can further help stabilize your shots. So let's talk about the DJI mic and some of its highlights. The main reason why I wanted to use this mic was not only for the boost in audio quality but also for the wireless connection. What's great is the dual channel allows me to record two different audio sources. Both transmitter include a built-in microphone each carrying eight gigabytes of storage with a recording time of 14 hours. And what's also great, it creates a backup of your recordings. Each battery unit lasts up to 5.5 hours which is pretty good. I love how two transmitters are included as I can mount one on my brother's shirt and the other one on myself. This way we can both be hands-free while still getting good audio quality like you seen at the beginning of this video where Brian made a tour of his boat. Now each transmitter has a built-in clip for attaching to clothes and also includes a clip magnet for placement on thin clothing. I like how the receiver has a built-in touchscreen so I can easily see the audio levels. This is really important. You can also monitor the audio levels using earphones which is a convenient way to keep track of the audio without taking your eyes off the camera. The mic also comes with a windshield which significantly reduces wind noise. Especially out here on the boat, you can hear the blowing wind but with the windshield, it's barely noticeable. What separates the DJI mic from the Rode Wireless Go 2 is that the DJI includes a charging case. I like how all the components are in one place and I can easily charge the mic on the go which is important for mobile creators. In terms of audio quality, I find that the DJI mic produces great audio quality if not a bit better than the Rode Wireless Go 2. You'll be the judge of it as throughout this video I'll be just using the DJI mic. Now something I forgot to mention is that with the receiver I can plug it to the side of the gimbal and the great thing is that it runs without any cables which makes things a lot easier and cleaner and I can also move around a lot more freely without having to worry about tangled cables. This vlogging setup works so well because I can use the gimbal to create smooth shots while producing clean audio quality without having the wireless mic blocking the gimbal. And I hadn't had any issues so far while performing different gimbal modes so this is really great. So as for the camera settings, regardless of what app I'm using, I shoot my b-roll in 4K 60 frames per second and the a-roll in 4K 25 frames per second. 4K provides a higher resolution to work with to reframe my shots in the edit without worrying about quality loss. 60 frames per second allows me to slow down the footage to create my epic b-roll shots. For the talking head part, I keep it at 25 frames per second as I don't plan on slowing down the footage. I prefer using the native camera app or Filmic Pro when it comes to vlogging as I'm familiar with both video apps. However, if I want to take advantage of the DJI on five school features, the DJI Mimo app is a great option. I talk a lot about it in this video which you can check out if you're interested. I enjoy using the smart tracking feature, especially as it's useful and helps keeps the subject centered in the frame. This way you won't have to worry about being cut out. So depending on your vlog shooting needs, you'll have to decide for yourself what works best for you. So I hope you enjoyed that little tour that my brother gave. We're about to cast off and head out to San Diego Bay. Let's head out. I have the windshield on and I have no idea how it will sound like but it should sound pretty decent, I hope. So now I'm gonna fly my drone here. Brian will drive his boat through this channel. Hope everything goes well. You ready? All right. All right guys, we're coming to an end. So far I'm really liking the new setup and I think it will definitely help me create better vlogs. Pairing the iPhone 13 with the DJI OM5 and the DJI mic makes it the ultimate mobile vlogging setup. The iPhone 13 is an excellent camera with stunning video capabilities. The DJI OM5 helps smoothen the footage, making your videos look more professional. The DJI mic allows you to capture even better and cleaner audio quality, not to mention the wireless connection. Combining all three creates a mobile vlogging setup that is fast and easy to use and produces great results. If you're someone who enjoys vlogging and wants to make vlogging a part of your content creation, then this setup is for you. Now guys, if you wanna be serious about filming with your phone and want to create stunning videos, make sure to check out the smartphone filmmaking course where you can join other students in learning how to create beautiful smartphone videos. It has over five hours of exclusive content and is growing daily and covers everything from planning and shooting your videos to editing your final product. Also make sure to download my free smartphone filmmaking guide, which includes my 10 step process to filming great videos with your smartphone. If you enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs up and subscribe to my channel for more smartphone filmmaking tutorial. Thank you so much guys for watching, keep it mobile and I'll see you in the next video.