Hello there, and good morning. I welcome everyone to the 7th meeting of the Justice Committee in 2015 and I asked everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with broadcasting even when they are switched to silent. Gilpartyrs will be delayed because it is at the public petitions committee that will come shortly. We may be joined by other MSPs because we will see other MSPs being inserted in the topic of trafficking. Jenny Marra and Christina McKelvey bobl yn ei cabwy weithio y cyd-beth a chygwp cymryddiol. Felly, ein wychion yn liv Cruaidd iawn i gael ei cweinydd ym 5 wrth gwrs ac yn organigol drwy peth yn liv Cruaidd iawn i gael. Oni yn iawn i gael, Jenny. Felly, nid yw, a'r wneud i gael. Argymau athau hynny yn cyfrifio, ymrhywg yn skyddwch panosol o Gwyl Scotland. Mae'n eu cyfrifio i gael eu cyfrifio yn cyfrifio yn cyfrifio i Gwyl Scotland, felch chi ddweud i gylwch unrhyw, yn gweithio i ddiogelio ar gyfer y fannau fontoedd. R suspicion, dywed yn dweud i ddweud i ddechrau ddweud o'ch gweithred i ddweud o'ch gyflym ddis pwyll wantoniau. I welcome each of you to the session. Can I say that really the purpose is to allow you, the witnesses, to interact and give evidence, but please interact through the chair. Just indicate to me either by a strong glint in your eye or a wave of finger or something will take a note I will let you know where you are. That is how it works.  You will see the wee red light round here at the top cuff will come on to see that you are actually called. You do not need to push anything. We are very good recording man here. He will make sure that you are heard. I am going to go round so we can all introduce each other where we come from. I will go anti-clockwise and this week I will remember what anti-clockwise means. I am Christine Grahame. I chair the Justice Committee and I am a member from Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale. I am a member of the Justice Committee and I am a member from Dumfriesia. Gordon MacDonald and I am representing Abolish in Scotland. Margaret Mitchell is a member for Central Scotland. Lisa Gamble is from Bernardus Scotland. Rodri Cammbell MSP for North East Fife. Christopher Gold from Margaret Help. Chloe Swift is representing the Scotland's Commission for Children and Young People. Jenna McSweeney from the Scottish Guardianship Service. Gershanna had MSP for North East Culland. Graham O'Neill from the Scottish Refugee Council. John Finnie MSP Highlands and Islands. Pam Cairns, Scottish Seroptimus. Alison MacKinnon is MSP North East Scotland. Brona Andrew, community safety Glasgow's Tarras Service. Jane Baxter MSP for Mid Scotland and Life. Nicola Merran from Victon Sports Scotland. The Gcola Red Lights. That was a good little rehearsal. Before us, we have the bill and the evidence today is to assist us in what is good, bad and indifferent about the bill. I will ask someone to kick off. Someone wants to start. Just indicate to me if you want to make any comments. By the way, thank you for written submissions. Lisa Gamble, please. There are some areas that we believe need some strengthening. Mainly, we would like to see a definition of a child for the purpose of the bill in the legislation as any person who is under the age of 18 years. We would like to see a clause in presumption of age. We would like clarity around the provision for traffic children on the face of the bill and, in particular, what the provision should be for 16, 17-year-olds. We would like to see the introduction of independent guardians on a statutory fitting for children who are or are suspected of having been trafficked. We would like to see provision for a statutory defence for children in addition to Lord Advocate guidelines on the presumption of non-prosecution. Finally, we would like to see an additional statutory aggravation to recognise both the vulnerability of child victims of trafficking and the seriousness of the offence of trafficking when it is against the child, and to be considered at the stage of sentencing. We would be happy to discuss any of those issues with the committees. Is there anyone else who wants to discuss it with? Is there anyone else who wants to come in on any of those issues? Gordon MacDonald, please. Yes, there are three issues that we would raise. The first is the need to look at criminalising demand for the purchase of sex, which has been done in Sweden and Norway. Northern Irish Assembly has just passed a law to do that as well. That has been shown to reduce demand for paid for sex and reduce human trafficking as well and those jurisdictions that have done it. Secondly, like Barnardo's, we would like to see a statutory basis for child trafficking guardians, put in law rather than just on a policy basis or a voluntary basis. The third point is to improve survivor services, and in particular to look at extending the period of time that is available from 45 days to 90 days and ensuring that there is adequate provision for survivors. Like Barnardo Scotland, we broadly welcome the introduction of the bill. For us, we are keen to ensure that the bill embeds a rights-based approach into policy and practice and that the bill fully recognises the particular vulnerability of children who have been trafficked. I want to highlight the article 35 and article 39 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which talks about preventing the abduction and sale of or trafficking children and promotes physical and psychological recovery and social integration of children and child victims. The way that we see this happening is by having a clear definition of a child who is under 18 years of age on the bill, consolidation of existing legislation relating to children, a clause on the best interests of the child, provision for independent guardians and clarity over provision for 16-17-year-olds, including a presumption of age and finally a consideration of a provision for a statutory offence for children who are victims of trafficking. Thank you for inviting us to speak today. We warmly welcome the bill, as we believe that this is a great opportunity for victims who have been trafficked or exploited to receive the support that they need, how and when they need it. We also have a few points that we would like to raise today, however. Firstly, we would like to raise our concerns about the vulnerability factors in the bill. We feel that they are too prescriptive and simplistic, and therefore do not take into account all the ways that a victim can be exploited and vulnerable. The second point that we would like to raise is in relation to the non-prosecution of victims. Although we are pleased that the Lord Advocate has guidance on this, on the presumption not to prosecute a victim who has committed a crime as a result of their victimisation of trafficking, we feel that other legislation, the Northern Irish legislation and the English legislation, have stronger provisions in this area. We agree that we would like to see statutory defence on the bill, as well as the Lord Advocate's guidance. However, the fundamental issue for us is to ensure that adequate and timely support is provided to victims. Although we understand that most of the work will be done through the strategy, which we warmly welcome as well, we think that there is a chance within the bill to ensure that support is provided as soon as possible and as soon as is needed. We feel strongly that support should not be dependent on the NRM process, on immigration status or on anything other than the need of the victim. That specifically relates mostly to, again, as Gordon had said, the timeframe and providing support to victims before they get the chance to decide whether they want to go on through the NRM process or report to authorities. I think that that is all for now. We welcome the introduction of the bill. We are supportive of some of the issues that our colleagues have already raised, including the presumption of age and the non-prosecution principle. However, we would like to see the means element of human trafficking reflected in the bill. We are also seeking clarification. All the international definitions of human trafficking have three key elements. There is the act, which is covered by the offence in terms of recruitment, transportation, harboring and receipt of a person. There is the means to do that through coercion, deception and, in particular, the abuse of a position of vulnerability. We would be keen to see that reflected in the bill. In terms of support for victims, we are seeking clarification around the bill and whether support for victims will be dependent on entry into the national referral mechanism. We are also seeking clarity around the period before an adult consent to enter into the NRM, if support will be available for that period. Finally, we are again supportive of the calls to criminalise demand for the purchase of sex. Our experience over 10 years has very clearly evidenced to us the strong links between the sex industry and women being trafficked to meet the demand. Dr Pamela Cairns, you want to come in. National, for those of you who do not know, is a worldwide women's organisation that seeks to improve the lives of women and girls. By far, the majority of the victims of trafficking are women and children. We would welcome the bill very much. We would like to see the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, because a large percentage of trafficking is about sexual exploitation. We would like to see the stop, because it is about supply and demand. If we cut the demand, we will cut the supply. One of our fears is that, as Northern Ireland has criminalised the purchase of sex, those who want to move on will move across to Scotland, unless we have strong, robust laws to protect our people. I am sorry, but I thank you for your goal. Am I going to help you to warmly welcome the bill? What we would like to see under the issue of repatriation is a long-term strategy and a framework around safe repatriation. If victims voluntarily choose to return home, there is currently no strategy and it is quite an ad hoc process. We would like to see that addressed in the bill, as well as the issue on data sharing with Police Scotland. We would like more information about what that could look like, but we welcome the concept of it. We just need a bit more information. Graham O'Neill, please. I represent the Scottish Refugee Council. If we warmly welcome the bill, it marks the culmination of leadership from Scotland's human rights community and a number of politicians in the department and the Government in trying to mark our journey in relation to tackling slavery. There is a lot that is good in the legislation. Some of the things that strike house the strategy is very important because what the strategy is about is about Scotland working together to take responsibility against this crime. Anybody who knows in and around how trafficking occurs is manifesting geographically in different parts of the country as well as across sectors. It is a symptom of how we live in developed western economies. The strategy is about getting all your different sectors together to take leadership and build up the knowledge and intelligence of the issue. It is commendable that the Scottish Government has put that down as a legal duty to the Parliament, a reporting duty to the Parliament and the strategy. We particularly welcome that, because we think that that will be the vehicle for the long-term approach that we need to get if we are going to tackle this particularly severe crime and human rights violation. We work in the Scottish Refugee Council and the international protection world, particularly by not only in relation to asylum seekers. We know that the part of the experience for people in the asylum process, who are often people who are deeply resilient but in very vulnerable circumstances, is that they are taken advantage of and subject to exploitation. For over 10 years, at least now, we have worked with a number of key partners, notably Tara, who is the pioneer in the organisation in relation to this area in Scotland, working with survivors, helping people who have suffered traffic to exploitation. One of the deep frustrations for us, as for many others, has been the conflation between trafficking and immigration. I think that that is to be welcome, and thankfully that is now happening at the UK level. We are decoupling those two processes, because trafficking is essentially crime and human rights violation and only secondary and sometimes issues around immigration. We welcome that the fact that we are taking dedicated legislation in relation to crime and human rights violation. We think that there is a logic in relation to the bill, particularly in terms of survivors, in relation to the very welcome step that the Scottish ministers have taken in placing themselves under a duty to provide support and assistance to survivors. That is a very concrete step of Scotland taking control of what happens to survivors. When I say logic, I think that there is a real logic about developing a Scotland-based identification process, which gets away from the current process, which is too legalistic and is confined to decision making for organisations that are set up for different purposes, such as border control or combat and series and organised crime. We very much welcome the provisions within the bill around survivors. We would like to see them developed as the parliamentary process has gone through to have more of a Scotland-based identification process. At the other end, survivors would like to see more control being taken in Scotland in relation to enabling the fullest possible recovery of survivors due to their personal circumstances and or after assisting with relevant legal proceedings, criminal proceedings or proceedings related to them, for example compensation. I suppose that what we are trying to say is that the bill is a really important step in terms of Scotland developing a holistic approach to survivors from identification, assistance and recovery. We very much welcome that step and we hope that that can be worked through as the parliamentary process develops. In relation to non-prosecution and penalisation of survivors, it is a key principle in relation to international law and trafficking. Indeed, it is a key principle in relation to criminal responsibility and preserving that. We see that from first principles, that provision is about survivor rights fundamentally, nothing to do with immunity and I do not think anybody is considering it in relation to immunity from prosecution, but it is a key survivor rights. Secondly, it is integral to criminal procedure in law because it is integral to the principle of criminal responsibility, so we see that as a real important way to conceptualise that particular principle. Fugly, it is a prerequisite to get at the people we want to get at in terms of particularly organised criminals because survivors are potential witnesses, they are the ones that will give you your lines of inquiry, etc. We think that the statutory guidelines are a welcome first step in relation to this crime, but we think that they need to be strengthened on the face of the bill not to get at the independence of the law advocate because that is a key tenet of the Scottish system. You are in favour of statutory defence as well? We are in favour of statutory defence as well. We do not see this as an either or we do not think that you do not have statutory guidelines that are about prevention and those in a statutory defence that provide additional safeguard for individuals in the system for whatever reason breaks down so that we do not see it as mutually exclusive. We see that as part of a holistic approach. The law society and the faculty also, I think, submit that they agree with the statutory defence, but to pick up on one thing, which was the conflating it with immigration, I know when Alison McInnes, myself and John Finno at Burnard was drawn to our attention about domestic trafficking, which somehow is not the major part but slips off the agenda. Is that part of what you are saying as well, that we focus too much on it being an immigration issue instead of it being… That has been one of the problems, that has been one of the symptoms of this inappropriate conflation of what is a human rights abuse with immigration. Immigration is a secondary consideration. What matters is has this question that people need to direct their minds to, has this person suffered a human rights violation, that we are calling traffic to exploitation and what should be done to assist that individual from the recovery, that is at the moment what we've got is organisations who are having, who are conflicted, particularly the UK border agency. Right, I'm going to, I'm seeing no other witnesses at the moment, so I beg your pardon, Katrina McSween. I just want to reiterate some of the points that's already been raised, so I'm here representing Abalor in the Scottish guardianship service and I'm responsible for delivering the day-to-day operations for working with child victims of trafficking, and I'm also a guardian to some child victims of trafficking. I think it's important to just raise some of the operational issues, some of the points that have been raised in terms of being more explicit about… John Scott, I think that from out with you. Out with you, yes. Yes, that's right. So all of the children that we work with have got an immigration element to their case, so it's really important that a clear definition is, it's more explicit about what is a child, because it is an issue that comes up time and time again, particularly for 16 and 17-year-olds. I think there needs to be a duty to refer to the service to give guardians a more statutory footing, because at the moment in practice we're still very much an invited party to meetings and information sharing, and it really impedes us being able to do our job in supporting victims of trafficking, so I think it would be really important to have that duty to refer to have a guardian for trafficked children. I also agree with some of the points about creation of statutory defence as an additional safeguard, because I have seen many children being put through the criminal justice process, having been criminalised for activities that have been forced to undertake. I also think that support needs to be more explicit in the bill about what trafficked children should be provided with within the Children of Scotland Act. I think that there's been a lot of disparity across Scotland, because of the whole of Scotland, and children get treated very differently in different local authorities, so I think that it needs to be more explicit within the bill. Up until recently, it's took a lot of advocacy on our part and other agencies, but a lot of children, when they arrive at 16 and 17, quite often will be accommodated under section 22 of the Children of Scotland Act 1995, opposed to section 25, which would treat them as a looked-after and accommodated child. That means that they do not receive the same kind of level of care in terms of access to section 29 leaving care services and support, and quite often we've seen children being discharged of care at 18. It does cause a lot of problems in terms of there's lack of pathways planning for children, as well, when they've been treated under section 22 of the Children of Scotland Act, so I think that it needs to be more explicit, because, as I said, it all depends on what local authority happened to present in, because they do interpret the law very differently. It's been a point of advocacy for the guardians for a number of years now. By the way, I've got Alison and Christian. I have noticed you, but I'll take Lisa Gamble first. I'll echo what the Scottish Guardianship Service is calling for. We would really like to see the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds in provision for them clarified within the legislation by bringing the relevant provisions of the Children of Scotland Act into the face of the bill. We'd like to see a provision within the bill that may read something like this, which would ensure that a child where there's a suspicion that they are a victim of trafficking and who is 16 but is under 18 and appears to require accommodation, has no one with parental responsibility for them, is lost or abandoned or there is no one who can provide suitable care for the child and the child wishes to be accommodated, then the local authority must provide such accommodation under section 25 of the Children of Scotland 1995 act. I just wanted to reiterate that the Children's Commission is fully supportive of that clarity over provision for 16 and 17-year-olds. It's something that we've been aware of. It's been brought to the commission's attention and we're certainly very supportive of ensuring that section 25 of the Children's Act 1995 is used. It's something that we know has been highlighted by Police Scotland, by the legal services agency and by others in their evidence as well. Thank you Gil Paterson for coming back from petitions. If that's all witnesses, for the time being I'll take Alison. Obviously, and quite rightly, there's been a strong focus this morning from the outset on children and the lack in the bill at the moment. Of course, determining age can be very difficult without proper documentation. Both Lisa and Chloe talked about presumption of age. I was just wondering if they could perhaps elaborate a little bit more on what they're looking for there. So really a definition of a child has been under 18, it would naturally follow on because the circumstance is that a child with victim of trafficking is often not clear when they come into the country what their age is. We think that there does need to be a clause in presumption of age, which would state that we're a person who is suspected of being a victim of trafficking and there's reason to believe that they may be under 18 that they should be treated as a child. So the bill should specify that until an age assessment of that person's age has been carried out by a local authority, a public authority must assume that a person is younger than 18, as in a child. That is in the modern slavery bill and also in the Northern Ireland act. I was going to say, does this operate somewhere else, even in common law, apart from in statutes? I'm not sure about common law, but certainly the England, Wales and Northern Ireland legislation in trafficking. We are certainly very supportive of reference to presumption of age. We've been very clear in our evidence about needing a definition of a child as under 18. We note in the child impact assessment produced by the Scottish Government that there's some concern about that there's a specific line around individuals of an unknown age receiving services. We think that it's particularly important that systems are in place to ensure that child victims can be provided with services when they're defined as under 18 years of age, until an age assessment has concluded. In particular, we consider that to be important in cases where there may be a lengthy wait for an age assessment and is in line with, as Lisa said, the requirements in the EU directive on trafficking and with part 5 of the modern slavery bill. Supporting children, we're saying. I understand that there is an obligation under the Council of Europe convention in the EU directive. It impacts somebody who manages the service for adult victims. Over the years, we have had women referred to us who have been assessed as being older than they state. That creates additional complexities for us to ensure that we're meeting our duty of care to young people who we would agree that they were under 18, but until there's a formal age assessment and further agreement, have to access adult services. In many places, we don't want to register birth certificates and so on, so it's not documentation. I'd just like to reiterate that we support the presumption of age clause added to the bill and also the definition of a child. We are concerned that there would be some discrepancies or ambiguities around support provision for 16 and 17-year-olds. For any reason, we wouldn't want any gaps in service provision, so yes, we would reiterate what has been said. I just wanted to challenge a little bit the round table on three points. We heard a lot this morning about being more explicit and trying to be more detailed regarding this bill. I particularly read on the submission that people talk about this bill being genderblind, for example, and there were an issue about nationality, of course, people being trafficked from abroad. I wonder if it'll be helpful to know your views on how specific the bill should be, because if we are too specific, knowing—and we visited Tara last week, knowing how the child traffickers particularly and traffickers of Ireland as well are very clever at finding loopholes, would it be helpful, maybe, not to be so specific, and especially on the saddening part and making sure that two genders can be, genders, for example, on prostitution, we've got to make sure that male are protected as well. On age, we've got to make sure that there is statutory defence for adults as well, if it's your will. On nationality, we've got a big problem of, yes, we can protect, but how much can we protect EU citizens or even UK nationals who've been trafficked at one point or another? If you could address that point. Under that umbrella, if we're too specific, we could get it wrong by excluding people. To pick up on the point about gender services, what we know globally and across Europe is that it's predominantly women and children who are exploited for all forms of human trafficking. We have obligations under the Council of Europe Convention and the EU directive. It recognises the gendered nature of the crime and recognises that gender-specific services should be provided.  It's really just to echo what Brona had said in response. I think that one of the real virtues of the legislation that's been proposed is its inclusivity and its bringing into being in Scotland an inclusive definition of traffic which hones in on exploitation and then works back from that in terms of saying, right, well, who is the person that's been exploited and what are their characteristics? As Brona very rightly said, the international law has recognised that women, children including particularly girls are particularly vulnerable to being taken advantage of and exploited, so the next level up from that inclusive definition is recognising that vulnerability in terms of key points around identification of indicators of trafficking, which may be there right through to the criminal justice system, rightly, to have in particular low opinion of individuals that exploit children, for example, through issues like aggravating factors and sentences being applied in the relevant regional European Union human trafficking director and council Europe convention, recognise that explicitly and rightly so. So I think it's, I can completely understand the rationale in terms of the question, in terms of wanting to make sure that we don't have an unintended consequence of limiting protections, but I think what matters is we have an inclusive definition of the crime and then we recognise particular vulnerabilities for particular groups of people through, as I say, trafficking indicators being honned in to that, and that would be an interesting issue to look at in terms of trafficking indicators, as does the bill deal adequately with trafficking indicators in terms of vulnerability for gender and age particularly, and then also through to how the criminal justice system deals with it. I'm sorry, I'm trying to get this trafficking indicator thing at me, does that not dealt with under section 1 of the definition? Trafficking indicators is very much, you know, what are the kind of characteristics age could be apart being a child, it could be gender, it could be the control methods that have been applied to individuals such as debt bondage or threats to one's family and loved ones. Trafficking indicators, I suppose it's more accurate, it's more of a policy term that's used. It's not made more useful for the police and Lord Advocate rather than the face of a bill. That's a legitimate debate to have about do we want to present trafficking indicators in the face of the bill or do we want to have it in guidance? Certainly we want to have it in guidance, so it's a legitimate question, but the reason I was raising it as an example to answer your legitimate point, Christian, about, that unintended consequence of being too specific in terms of the face of the legislation, and I don't think that's a problem so long as we have a very inclusive definition of the crime. The being too specific, I have Nicola Merran, Lisa Gamble, Chloe Swift and Gordon MacDonald. Now, if you're agreeing, just so we can get through absolutely everything, because this is your one shot, just say, I support that view, that would be helpful. I know it's curtailing a little bit, but there's other issues I think we want to pick at in this bill that we want to get absolutely right from the point of view of people who are abused and who have to use services whom you meet. Nicola Merran, Lisa Gamble, Chloe Swift and Gordon MacDonald. Just to clarify, is this to make the vulnerabilities more vague? Yes, we would support that. We would support Tara in the position abuse or a position of vulnerability. We would support that. Thank you, Lisa Gamble. Specific, can children and currently the bill doesn't recognise the vulnerability or needs of children at all in the face of the bill, so we just want to make that clear. So we've got that bit, Chloe Swift. Yes, it's the same point really, just to clarify that obviously the vulnerabilities of children are unaddressed on the bill and that children have particular vulnerabilities that's grim identified. I just wanted to state that that's where the position of abuse of vulnerability comes into its own right. The EU directive defines that as a position of vulnerability means a situation in which the person concerned has no real or acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved. I think that that recognises that vulnerability is multifaceted, that there are a whole lot of different issues that impact to make an individual vulnerable to this crime. It's just to draw attention to something that was in our written evidence, which is that the European Parliament last year passed a resolution in which they noted that 96 per cent of identified and presumed victims are either women or underage girls and 62 per cent of people are traffic for reasons of sexual exploitation, so that does show the gender nature of the crime. Margaret, to elaborate a little bit on the provision in section 1, in particular the use of the word travel, to see if there was some concern around that or any other of the aspects in section 1. I know that I think that we share your concern about the use of the word travel because it ties in with its immigration idea and so on from the evidence that we had at Barnardo. Can somebody assist us in that? Thank you, Brona Andrew. I think that for us we were concerned at the use of the word travel. Travel implies international movement, so we were concerned by focusing overtly on that one word. Would that mean that British cases for children and adults of sexual exploitation, if they were moved from one part of a city to another, would that constitute travel? Part of our concern about the offence as to find is that it does not reflect the means element and that the word travel focuses very much on that movement, if you like, which skews her understanding. Jenny Marra, in her submission around the private member's bill, recognised the call for a definition of human trafficking within Scots law. My understanding is that the offence, as it stands, would act as the definition and that such a definition does not capture that important means element of the act of human trafficking. I am rattling around looking for that EU directive. Can anybody help us out with that, because there was a better definition than I felt. It is in one of the submissions. I will let you look for it and save me looking for it. I will take in the meantime Nicola Merran. I have listed the means element here. Although the means element is within part of the bill on exploitation, it is not within the full definition. There is no element of giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person. My understanding is that that is just not there at all. We would reiterate Tara's point on the definition. It is a bit about travel that I am looking for. Jane Bax has handed me the directives, but it is the one that deals with your point, which takes that emphasis away from travel. It is still important, but it is not the be all and end all. That is our concern. Again, it is about that definition of travel. Arguably, you could be a woman who has exploited all the tests that are in Glasgow and is moved from Pollock Shaws to Postal Park. Would the offences at Sands capture that? Would she meet that test for travel? Potentially, what we know about trafficking is that it can be a process in several stages. My concern is that some perpetrators might not be caught by the offence. Somebody is responsible for recruitment, somebody is responsible for transportation, once in the country of origin, somebody else is responsible for the means element, the coercion and the abuse that the individuals then sold on to somebody who is exploiting. It is fair that the offence will capture all of those perpetrators involved in that journey of somebody being trafficked and exploited. What about travel in that section? You look at section 1, section B, arranges or facilitates that travel with a view, and then again in section 1, 2, is irrelevant whether the other person consents any part of the arrangement or facilitation of the travel. There is a huge emphasis on that. We understand that it is important, but I think that there may be another way of perhaps who can help us of doing it. You had mentioned the relevance of consent, and I think that that point has been made by others that it is only in relation to the travel element, whereas I think that it should relate to all elements of the definition, the means and the exploitation as well. We will get the directive quoted at us at some point as you rummage around there for it. Lisa Gamble, please. I want to pick up on Brona's point about the importance to make sure that this bill adequately covers internal trafficking.   Within that service in the last year, we have had two cases that we have dealt with that have been international trafficking from outwith the UK, where children had come via northeast of England. Ten of those cases had been internal trafficking, so children have been trafficked throughout Scotland, whether it is from Glasgow to Aberdeen or to Fife. It is really important that we are mindful of that as the bill proceeds. I think that the world travel is limiting us here. I have now got Elaine, Jenny, John Finnie and Roderick. Several of the written submissions refer to the need to decriminalise the sale of sex and to criminalise the purchase of sex and the suggestion that that could be part of this bill. I was wondering whether that is better dealt with this bill as a separate piece of legislation, as Rhoda Grant originally suggested, or whether it would be covered in the long title under provision to reduce activity-related offences? Yes, Gordon MacDonald. It is included in the Northern Irish human trafficking bill, so I am sure that it could be covered in this bill if there was the political will to do so. I think that the issue is whether the political will is there to consider it as part of this bill. We would certainly encourage the committee to consider supporting an amendment at stage 2 in relation to that area. Clearly, if there was a feeling that more information was needed, then it could be looked at as a separate piece of legislation, but certainly it has been around the houses a little bit that issue. We have had a proposal for a bill before, and there is no reason why it cannot be included in the legislation. It would not mean at stage 2, however, if it did proceed with an amendment, it would have to be, I think, substantial evidence, because it would be expanding the scope, would it not, to catch all purchase of sex, taking it beyond a human trafficking bill, to beyond it. Would you agree or not that we would require to take further evidence? It would cover all purchase of sex, yes, but the reason for doing it would be primarily to deal with the problem of human trafficking. I am perfectly satable, but I am just saying that we would require, because it would be all-encompassing. I suspect that it might be the case and it would have to be substantial evidence taken on it. I am not saying ruling it out, just making a point that it might be the case. Would you concur? Yes. The committee could, of course, consider appointing a rapporteur to go away and look at the issue and come back with some information. We will leave the committee to think about that, I think, but I think that we might not want to do that on such a substantial matter. Who has got the definition that I have been looking for? Excellent. This is more on control, so it is taken from article 2 of the EU Trafficking Directive, which provides the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or reception of persons, including the exchange or transfer of control over those persons by means of the threats or use of force or other forms of coercion, abduction and fraud. I cannot quite that definition better myself if I could have found it when I saw it last night, but I think that the control element would take in your domestic trafficking as well across parts of the UK. I have got now Brona. What do you want to come in, Brona Andrew? I was just coming in under the point that Gordon raised. The Council of Europe Convention and the EU directive provide for member states to take actions against the prevention of human trafficking. If we are applying a supply and demand model, I think that the links between the sex industry and women being trafficked to meet the demands are clear, but within articles under both the directive and the convention, member states can consider the criminalisation of the use of a victim of trafficking. I think that it is something that we need to consider. I am just looking at the point of view of the evidence that is required from it. You made reference to the Northern Ireland human trafficking bill in the first draft of the bill. Was that there from the beginning? There was obviously some debate in Northern Ireland, but when it came down to the vast bulk of the parties supported it in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Fein. Thank you for that. I am going to move now to Jenny. Jenny followed by John Finnie followed by Roderick. Jenny Marra. Convener, I have three batters. Long time ago you joined us and forgot to mention it, so there you are. I have three specific questions, if you will allow me. The first is to go back to the definition of a child. I wanted to ask a legal question on that. We have been told this morning that we do not have the presumption. Can any of the witnesses tell me that if the bill was to proceed without that presumption, are we in breach in any way of Council of Europe or the EU directive recommendations? Just put your three questions and then we can let them discuss what other two. Okay, the second question is the same question, but on the non-prosecution element of the bill. If we are to proceed, as the bill states, just with the Lord Advocate's guidelines, are we then falling short of the EU directive on this or Council of Europe recommendations for the protection of victims, the non-prosecution element? My third question is on the definition. Do witnesses around the table think that we would be better with a rewritten definition of the crime of trafficking that is more robust and all-encompassing and that, therefore, would include the means as well? Fine. I think that some have been sort of glanced and glancingly touched at, but happy to. You can address all three if you wish or not, as the case may be. Who wants to come? Sorry. I know that they have been touched on, but I am just looking for full legal clarification on that. We are going back to them, Jenny, and it is Chloe Swift. I am not sure that I can give you the legal counsel, but certainly article 13 of the EU directive states clearly that members state should ensure that where the age of a person subject to trafficking in human beings is uncertain and there are reasons to believe that a person is a child, that person is presumed to be a child in order to receive immediate access to assistance, support and protection. Similarly, article 8 talks about non-prosecution or non-application of penalties to the victim. I know that the EU directive is legally binding, so it would be down to the lawyers to interpret exactly what that means, but from our perspective, certainly the presumption of age should be included in the bill. Right. Anyone else want to come in on that? Yes. Graham, please. Graham O'Neill. To echo what Chloe was saying in relation to presumption of age, particularly in relation to the EU human trafficking directive, as a directive, it is a direct effect. I actually don't know if it is a terrible omission to have within the legislation, given that it is a clear requirement within the EU human trafficking directive, as well as the Council of Europe Convention. I am sure that many others would hope that that would be resolved within the legislation. I clarify that. Graham O'Neill, are you saying that the lack of presumption here is that the bill falls short of the EU directive? If it is the case that there is not any other statutory provision within Scotland for that, then I think that that is certainly a legitimate question. I am stopping short of absolutely clarifying that, but what I am saying is that if there is no other statutory provision for survivors of trafficking that is children under 18 for presumption of age, then yes. The same question applies to prosecution statutory defence. If it is not there, is this a breach of the EU directive that we want to have a badge? The language is quite careful in that membership states can consider, or should be entitled to consider. I do not know that it is a breach of the European obligations, but I think that it is something that we need to legislate for. I do not want to pre-empt the committee, but I suspect that, in terms of statutory defence, the committee will be quite sympathetic around the table to it. Bearing in mind, the faculty in law society have also come out in favour of it, so I think that that is something that we are already pushing an open door for us. I would like to say that the international law, as Brian Hadd said, has something to do with allow or they should put in place provisions for that that can happen. The law of advocate guidance would do that, but our position is that that is already in place. There are stronger provisions in that other legislation, and we would like to see that, and we would like to see both. Back to the definition that we have written, which we have glanced at a little Gordon MacDonald. Just one other point about the definition. The definition in the bill does not include forced begging or criminal activities, which are included in the EU directive. There may well be a catch-all, but it talks about provision of services and acquisition of benefits, but not forced begging and criminal activities, which is specifically mentioned in the EU directive. I am just wondering if there is a catch-all, so that there is not a way around it, as it usually is, and other connected activities or something. Is there anywhere in the... No, please. In section 3, subsection 7, Gordon MacDonald said about the person that is subjected to forced sex or deception is designed to induce the person to provide services, provide someone else with benefits. I think that that would cover my background, but I think that the point is that we would like to have specified begging, forced marriage and criminal activity. On the definition, I just wanted to be really clear that, if we are looking at article 2, there is a particular clarification around children, where the means are referred to in the second limb of the directive's definition, reflects children's particular vulnerabilities and the fact that where a child is a victim of trafficking, no possible consent to exploitation should be ever considered legally valid. So, just a point of clarification on that, if we are moving away from the emphasis on travel. Okay. John, come back in, Jenny. John, to know. Now, I've got John Finnie, please, John. Convener, we've heard panel about almost the hierarchy of interests that there are the immigration authorities, the criminal justice authorities and certainly the approach high favour is the one that Chloe articulated, a rights-based approach for the individuals. I wonder in relation to that, it's specifically for Graham and Christopher of our question, it's about the Scottish Refugee Council submission there where you talk about some of the powers that may come with the Smith commission significantly, the right to grant traffic and survivors temporary leave to remain for specific purposes. Can you comment whether, please, the bill as proposed would remove some of those tensions between the different layers of interests that there are and whether the extent to which the additional powers for Scottish ministers would help? I think everyone acknowledges that it is an international issue that requires co-operation, but that specific proposal, if you could, please. Who's picking that one up? Thanks, John. It's a very good question. One of the frustrations that we've had is the conflation of immigration with trafficking and we welcome, as I was saying at the outset, the Scotland's taking responsibility in legislation for survivor assistance and care. We think that a precondition for that is survivor identification also and we also think that a logical conclusion of that taking realistic approach in Scotland for what happens to survivor is what the powers being available to Scottish ministers precisely because they are taking the responsibility and identification and assistance and support also to be available to enable the full as possible recovery of the survivors because they and Scottish institutions and Scottish First sector organisations are the ones that are closest to the survivor, know what the survivor needs, know how to have the trust and the confidence and it would be a real shame and it would be quite perverse if after this bill gets implemented that you have the home office coming in and removing somebody from the country and that's what we want to avoid because that's not a survivor-centred approach and what that does is immigration and practice concretely in the lives of an individual intrudes upon an individual being able to survive and we don't think that that would be in the interest of anybody including UK authorities either so what is a logical conclusion of taking a fully survivor-centred approach to this crime and this human rights violation that as we've said in the Smith commission proposal and into the parties very much to their credit they agreed that the UK and Scottish Governments should give additional consideration to the question should Scottish ministers have through a process of executive devolution the power as opposed to a policy arrangement but the actual power to grant temporary leave to remain for specified purposes for trafficking survivors that is compliant with international obligations around enabling the full as possible recovery of those individuals as well as if applicable in certain cases to enable them to to beat witnesses for example in criminal proceedings so we as you would hope and expect are taking a close interest in working with Scottish and UK Governments to encourage that process and we think that given that we have the human trafficking exploitation bill going through the Scottish Parliament now as we said in the submission we would really invite the committee to take an interest in that and we'd be very happy to work with you on that on developing that further. Yes thank you wait a minute I've got somebody before you I've Nicola Merran um Barona Andrew and then I've got you so there's a list it's commenting on this it was in response to that I imagine Christopher's wish into sorry if did you name Christopher Gill I'm sorry I missed that right um yeah and I agree with them Graham and Scottish Refugee Council and I think the impact on on ongoing investigations for the police is severely hampered when home office involvement will remove someone from the country which it ties in with um you know our comments on the fact that there needs to be if if the survivor chooses to go home and there are some instances where they are just desperate to go home as quickly as possible it needs to be at their own volition and it needs to be because they you know what they wish to do so and that there needs to be a support and a framework there for ongoing support regardless of whether they're in this country or not and then that will also act as a bridge for the police investigations should they wish to still remain in contact with with someone who's returned home as well and that the lack of framework in general for this is is quite startling we've we've counted at least 10 different mechanisms for someone to return home by different projects or programmes or and things like that and that's that's not helpful that's not helpful to them and it's not helpful to us and it's not helpful to police scotland thank you is the problem then I'm asking this national referral mechanism is that the problem you know it I think it's under some kind of review but it's a UK wide and you know that could we do with something that draws together everything in Scotland um we're not being in some kind of silo obviously sharing because people move about and and so on but is that part of the problem that the national referral mechanism Jeremy Oppenheim produced his report recently where he has proposed that there was more of a panel than it just laying with either the UK HTC or UK visas in immigration um and that that panel will be um the the focus of it as Graham said it is is very different um because they're looking at a victim-centered approach not necessarily an immigration violation um and there's uh recently the human trafficking foundation I think it was actually binados in in England and um an ECPAP produced some um worrying um correspondence from UK VNI and rejecting somebody's application to become a victim of human trafficking um and it's it's the culture that they operate within that will dictate and and it's the lens that they see through as to whether somebody is is has had their human rights violated and it is a victim but it's also as I read it to ensure they receive the appropriate protection and support and a lot of that support will be very local from councils and so on if it's in Scotland and that and I was we were hearing from yourself the different interpretations that are made of what's provided so would that not be more helpful given that the services and if you're looking for support to be very early on before one even gets into any criminal system or whatever or speaking to police that that there's something here that's better and co-ordinated and so far as possible universal in Scotland yes I agree how would you do it that's been how would you do it this is what I'm asking about this national referral mechanism that you've raised you know that it doesn't seem it seems lumpy it's a word of mind but you know what I mean by it it doesn't yes Nicola Merran you tell me oh dear I think no I will I will I think the issue and it has been raised time and time again in various reports there are some issues with the national referral mechanism and obviously that's a deserved issues a UK issue and they are reviewing that in the moment what we can do within the bill and the strategy is to ensure that support is provided before and separate to the NRM process we know that no no I think it's tied in I think that the issue just now for us is at the funding if you're a victim of trafficking you're suspected victim of trafficking and until we decide that you are a victim of trafficking we I think there's flexibility I mean Tara we'll explain that at the moment but what we're looking for is more than flexibility what we're looking for is the provision of support before that person decides that they may wish what I'm getting at is where you have you have as reasonably as possible a comprehensive note of people who are both identified or suspected of being victims of trafficking and support in place and therefore ensuring that all this talking strategies and so on actually in practical terms to get the same support throughout Scotland and you know who they are and where they are and I don't know if that's happening with just now it's what I'm asking and I'm looking at you and the national referral mechanism as it stands and as it's been reviewed and the recommendations to take it forward I think that would be an evidence session in its own right to be honest for a long time Tara have been very supportive of a Scottish national referral mechanism I think we gave evidence to the equal opportunities committee back in 2010 and we're saying that actually the system as it stands at the moment and bear in mind there have been recommendations for significant change was to focus on immigration was to focus on credibility was to wasn't didn't take a victim centered approach as such and was an interpretation of what the Office for security and cooperation in Europe have suggested a national referral mechanism would be it should be about identification and about protection but the system has become around testing credibility it's become around data collection it's become around a lot of things apart from that individual who is potentially trafficked and building a wall of support and protection around them so that they feel safe and they then feel able to support investigations and prosecutions I can provide you with further information about the national reference to the equal opportunities and we'll get spice to provide us with material on that Lisa Gamble to be followed by Graham O'Neill but Lisa just with regards to children and provisions of support if you're under 18 your provisions for support should be provided within the child protection system and the child should get access to full assessment in line with the principles of GERFIC for future support our concerns about the NRM is that those decisions are probably best made by a person that knows the child but where maybe not enough information goes into an NRM form then people are making decisions not based on the full information about the child and that will have quite a big impact on the outcomes for the child and I think maybe that's something that Katrina could pick up on on the NRM and children I'll take first of all if you want to come in first to Graham O'Neill do you want to defer thank you I mean I would agree that I mean then RM doesn't really offer children that much to bonus with you and they don't consent to enter that process you know you quite often will have you know multi agency meetings that's of professionals that know the child and they're much more experienced in doing assessments saying that we think there's enough indicators to suggest this child's been trafficked yet it can go to well for our group of children it goes to the UK VI to make that decision and sometimes it comes back saying we don't think the child's been trafficked and it actually has a detrimental effect because sometimes then local authorities then remove the kind of safeguard measures that's in place for that child because somebody the home office has said they've not been trafficked when you know you've got many professionals saying that they think the child has been trafficked so it really is just the NRM for a child is more about data collection really doesn't really offer much I don't think I've had any of the young people I work with it's actually received any kind of leave from being identified as a victim of trafficking you know it really doesn't you know I think this this decision could be better made within child protection teams and I think it's just it I'll take Graham O'Neill now NRM is set up reactively to by the UK Government in response to its obligations under the council Europe convention it wasn't set up with the needs of the individuals who were going through that in mind you know is a primary interest now I realise that's quite a shit thing to say but I think numerous reports have found that it doesn't deliver for particularly children I mean there's nothing for children in relation to the national referral mechanism and as well as as well as for adults well as well and Jeremy Oppenheimer's review for the Home Secretary was published last November made some very good points there was other bits that I think they could be worked through but there was some very good points made within it some of the good points were that you know the principle of the people who are closest to the individual and in Scotland's case that will be your professionals and statutory bodies including Tara and others should be the ones you know a multi agency approach based on a child protection assessment principles applied also to adults you know so you have a shared decision about what's best for that individual and that individuals involved in that as opposed to a form getting filled out getting put down to the to the UK human trafficking centre of the home office and then people don't really hear about it it has no discernible impact on an individual's life apart from the most serious one which is the decision about whether somebody is to be accepted as a so it's a system that's been set up in practice not with the needs of the individual at the start and that's why this bill has got a real opportunity to think about well how can we design a system which of course one wants to be consistent with UK because of international crime dimension but nonetheless one should never compromise that in relation to making sure that we have multi agency assessment based decision making of those who know that person the survivor best being able to put in place the assistance package that will enable that person to recover as much as possible from it so there's a real opportunity I think in this bill understandably the government didn't put that in the draft introduced because the timings were coinciding with the publication of Jeremy Oppenheimer's review but that's now being published the home secretary's accepted the recommendations in principle and I know that discussions are going on between the UK and Scottish Government officials and ministers about you know how identification question can be answered through this legislation and other legislation I think the committee would want to take an interest in that particular when it speaks with the minister we are Chloe Swift then Brona Andrew and then Christopher Gull I think some of the complexities I'll let you in immediately after Christopher Gull no matter who puts their finger in the air and that's Gil Patterson so there you are right yes please yes I have to keep them happy I think some of the complexities that have just been described around the table are one of the best arguments for needing to put the guardianship service on a statutory footing to help children navigate through some of those those challenges and complexities of the nrm processes and through some of the complex child protection procedures and some in some cases the asylum and immigration issues as well one of the things that we've called for is ensuring that there's an independent guardian on the face of the bill and that can protect children's rights advocate for their best interests and get them the help they need to realise those rights and in addition to that I know Katrina might want to pick up on some of those points we've also called oh sorry Rodi has to get in before he bosses I know she agrees with me I think the other thing is around a clause that really highlights the need for public bodies to take into account the best interests of the trafficked child and the separated child which is something that we've been calling for in terms of ensuring that some of the issues around trafficking the particular vulnerabilities of children are protected and that the existing child protection system and the existing legislation is brought into line under this best interest duty. I just wanted to pick up that there were similar issues around the nrm for adults that children are experiencing as a very experienced first responder. We still are told that individuals who we have assessed have been trafficked and are not trafficked for the purposes of the nrm which is challenging and impacts on those women and impacts on their ability to recover but also to continue to engage. There's sometimes I think too much of a focus on decisions coming from the national referral mechanism and it is an effect, it's a policy, it's a process, it's not a legal status as it stands at the moment so I think I think just echoing kind of colleagues it's a very complex process. I know that Margaret Mitchell and Christian met a couple of women that we support and when asked about that national referral mechanism don't really understand what you're talking about particularly from those who also have an on-going asylum claim it's just the home office it's just another thing they've had to sign and we sometimes query about the informed consent and the capacity to consent that adults provide to enter into the nrm and how that impacts on what they understand about their rights and their information and the impact that that also has on further immigration claims. Christopher Will. Yes, I again totally agree with Tara. I think just the issue that a Scottish nrm or it would impact into other things that we've put in our submission such as the fact that the current nrm doesn't record pre-trafficking experience or social economic context of the individual prior to being trafficked. It's information that's vital if we're looking to stop it and you know you want this to be a progressive and leading bill and Scotland could really take the leader thing on this issue and again this would impact more into Police Scotland and data sharing and we would welcome data sharing mechanisms between people like ourselves and Tara who work with the victims for a substantial period of time who probably retain quite a pool of information that could be vital but that would again need to be worked out to make sure that the victims are the focus and not the information that comes from them. Roderick. Thank you, convener. I just wanted to come in because we were considering alternatives to nrm to the question of the provisions in the bill 8.4 and 8.5 due to secure support and assistance. The bill doesn't include provision for survivor service as the faculty of advocates of which I'm a member and I refer to my interest in that respect makes reference in their submission. I think that abolition Scotland also includes reference to the fact that section 8 might be strengthened by some legislative provision. The faculty suggests that minimum standards for support and assistance, whether by way of primary legislation or by a statutory code of practice, might improve matters. I wanted really to have the panel's views on that provision in the act at the moment and to what extent it would favour it being strengthened by such mechanisms. Yes. Mr Neil. The bill for England and Wales has rightly recognised the need for clarification around what support means and assistance means and has done that through the level of guidance. I think that absolutely clause 8 in the bill needs to provide either the level of statutory code of practice or the level of guidance, clarification and some key questions around what support and assistance actually means, what criteria is going to be applied in relation to access to that support and assistance. That gets to the question about needs assessment and how that's going to be worked through. Questions about, as Barona was talking about, informed consent. We know that, almost by definition, the impact of trafficking is that it traumatises individuals and therefore the impact of exploitation traumatises individuals. There's a whole question about the timeline, about when somebody gets support. That gets to the question about criteria, because if it's a case that, as a person's deciding whether or not they will want to consent or give informed consent, they still need, I would imagine in almost all cases, support before they can do that. That would be a thing that you would do if you're designing the needs of the new system around the survivor and actually the reality for a survivor. I think that there does need to be real clarification underneath the bill in terms of statutory code of practice or guidance around how this duty is going to work. It's very good that the Scottish Government have put this into primary legislation, the principle of giving as a matter of duty, support and assistance to individuals, but we really need to clarify how it's going to work through in practice. Some of the points that Graham was making, we were really pleased to see those basic fundamentals of support included within the Government bill. That goes further than the ordinary slavery bill at Westminster. We do think that it should be underpinned by statutory guidance, minimum standards for that support. We also think that all of those supporting or investigating cases of human trafficking should have to undergo accredited training. I don't know if that's for the bill or if that's better placed within the strategy. I do think, though, that there needs to be some governance around the support provided to children and adults who have been trafficked. I also just want to flag up an issue about the support provision within the bill. The duty to secure support and assistance is very much for victims of human trafficking. It doesn't cover those who have been held in slavery servitude forced to compulsory labour. I don't know if that's an oversight, but people who have been identified as trafficked can access that support, but those who have been identified as being held in slavery are servitude. It's not clear whether they would also be entitled to access that support. I think that that comes under exploitation for purposes of offence of human trafficking. I may be wrong.  I'm not sure how they all work together. Four of which also deals with it. It spreads the net pretty wide about what constitutes. In section 8, it talks about human trafficking. It doesn't talk about other forms of exploitation. We'll have to think about that. I think that section four probably secures that. I'm not going to have a look. Nicola Merran, please. Just following on from that point, we agree again section 8.1, if the adult is a victim of an offence of human trafficking. We believe that, instead of focusing on time periods—I know that's linked with the NRM—there should be support provided from the moment of identification as a possible victim of human trafficking. There's too much of an emphasis on credibility. Imagine if someone came to Victim Support Scotland and said that they were a victim of rape or anything that was a victim of theft. We would never say to them, well, can you prove it before we provide you with a service? There's also an issue there with especially with victims of human trafficking that they are so vulnerable. They need time to recognise what's happened to them, to accept what's happened to them, which can often only be done through work with support workers, et cetera, and to move on time for recovery before—exactly, exactly. Even before they get to the stage where they choose. Again, if you compare that to mainstream or other victims, we provide information on the criminal justice system for them to make an informed decision as to whether they want to report to the police. I think that it's unfair for victims of human trafficking to be dealt with at a different level and almost to be forced to go through that process. So yet, just to make sure that there's also an individual needs assessment coming back to what does the victim need, not to what do we consider that we might provide them. Lastly, within section 8.4 on the support and assistance, I'm not sure—I think it might be in the psychological services of NHS—that brought up a counselling, just quite pedantic, but counselling is a specific psychological treatment, and I think that that should be widened to psychological treatment, emotional support, or something like that. It does say, but it's not limited to the following. So it does say that at the beginning of the clause. That was a very aggressive wave. I can see you. Raise that. I'll go back to the office. We have a consultant clinical psychologist co-located with our team three days a week. They have provided their own submission, but we would recommend that there is specific inclusion around access to psychological assessment and treatment if required. Many survivors of human trafficking have post-traumatic stress disorder, other mental health issues, and I know that Sharon Docherty, who is our psychologist, has provided evidence in her submission that counselling is not always an effective treatment and can be harmful. 4.8.4C, medical advice and treatment, including the specific reference, would be helpful. We would echo the points that were made about counselling and consistent standards across the country. One other area that could perhaps do with a wee bit more clarity is in relation to accommodation, particularly the need for it to be appropriate and secure accommodation. Certainly, I had a conversation recently with somebody in the police who said that there is a shortage of appropriate and secure accommodation for young people and children in particular in Scotland. Moving on from that, just in terms of those provisions, I wondered what the panels view were in terms of the overlap between those sections and what should be in the trafficking strategy and what general views people had as to what should be in the strategy. Yes, I don't mean to be contrary, but Bernardus Scotland would really like to see provision for children outlined within the bill and not in the strategy. Yes, points have been made and taken. I think that we have been really clear about what we would like to see around children on the face of the bill. In terms of the strategy, we would like to see a rights-based approach, both for children and for adults. We would like to ensure that there is some cohesion between the existing processes and ensuring that the particular vulnerabilities of children are taken into account through the existing child protection procedures on the face of the strategy and through a rights-based approach that looks at the relevant articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have got Nicola, yes? Do not worry about it, we are not. In the strategy, there would be two elements for us in particular, which would be our initialising of the public and of professionals. I think that a lot of good works have already happened on that, for example, through Police Scotland. I believe that that would help with the identification of victims and also, most importantly, how people deal with the situation in which they come across someone who has been victimised in traffic. Part of the training element for professionals, too, is that we would like to focus on lawyers and solicitors who may be in a position to identify people who have been trafficked if they are going through the prosecution system. That is really important. Most fundamentally, we would be support in making sure that all the agencies are working together. There has been talk of, for example, compensation for victims of crime, which is often forgotten about, but it is not as important as the provision of support. For example, the legal services agency would provide that help, but so do victims support Scotland. Along with the specialist agencies, I think that it is really important that everyone works together, and that a strategy would be the best place to lay that out. I would just like to say that Mr Optimus, for the last eight years or so, has been raising awareness of human trafficking. We do it throughout our communities and with various clubs throughout Scotland, and we have open meetings that are encouraged to the public to come and hear about modern-day slavery. If I can just wear my old hat as a retired GP, we often have foreign nationals coming into the surgery with a translator, and you are always a little bit suspicious because you cannot have a one-to-one conversation with the patient. I was talking to one of my younger colleagues who still practices, and she has learnt a lot about modern-day slavery from herself and from others. She has now really switched on to this whole thing about young women being brought in with translators and not really being able to communicate. It is not just about police, social workers and your healthcare workers' need to know about trafficking and how to handle it. Christopher Gull. I totally agree with Nicola on the training of front-line professionals as well, especially across local authority. All front-line professionals, including the health services especially, is the point that she rightly raised. The fire services and your environmental health are going into various buildings and businesses. Those are the people who are going to see people, and they are the ones who need to learn to look laterally, not just at the jobs that they are doing. We totally agree that the training should be a heavily focused part of the strategy. We would like to see some of the prevention work reflected within the strategy, not just prevention at a local or national level, but also some of our international obligations to prevent trafficking and to prevent people being vulnerable to it in the first place, and to pick up on the points that Chris has made about safe returns and to prevent re-victimisation on return. We would be keen to see a robust prevention aspect to the strategy. I think that there is opportunity in the strategy to go into some of the more detail in relation to support for victims, particularly economic empowerment, basic literacy etc. I would draw attention to the international justice mission guidance that we attached to our submission. The other thing that could be looked at is how statutory agencies might work with civil society, particularly possibly even not just within the boundaries of Scotland but victims who have gone back to their home country, and how the Scottish Government might support them, perhaps even in that context particularly through the overseas aid. We are also looking potentially at support for improving justice systems, because, as was quoted by Andrew Bevin who is sitting in the audience here, there are 4 billion people in the world who do not have access to proper justice systems, and that is part of the problem, which is often neglected. To echo and maybe to develop the Chloe's really important point around the rights-based approach, part of the thinking with Jenny Marra's proposal was the principle of involving survivors in the development of the strategic approach, because the strategy is this long-term vehicle for long-term change in relation to that, and it will be reporting to the national parliament every three years. I think that that needs to be something that is at the heart of. It may not be something that is in the face of the bill of course, but it certainly should be something that is one of the starting points for the development of the strategy, because it is that principle of involving the people who are affected by it, but it also has really strong practical reasons to do it as well, given the insights that, unfortunately, the individuals that have survived traffic to exploitation have. Am you, Maudric? I am hesitant about preventing you from saying that. Gil. I apologise to everyone for being late. It is a very important matter that we are discussing, but I had a constituency petition at the petitions committee. It was a local hospice, so they needed my help. I do not know if I gave them any help yet enough, but that is where it was, so I am sorry about that. You are? Yes, but particularly to Tara, because she looked after us so well when we visited you in Glasgow, so apologies particularly to yourself. My question, I hope it has been taken before I arrived, was with regards to the UK commissioner. It would seem that that is a reserved matter, and I wondered what people's opinion was on that in the context of the bill. Nobody has dealt with that, so that is the UK commissioner. The UK commissioner is very welcome that we are going to have a UK commissioner for this human rights violation. As we at the Scottish Refugee Council provided some submissions to the Justice Committee at the end of last year in the context of the legislative consent memorandum process in terms of the UK commissioner. I think that there is a serious question about whether the current provisions within the English and Welsh legislation are adequate for safeguarding Scottish interests, given that the vast majority of the competencies and powers that relate to the wellbeing of survivors and tackling this crime are devolved. At the moment, there are reasonable consultative mechanisms in place for the UK commissioner and the Home Secretary, respectively, to be consulting Scottish ministers. However, they are at the end of the day not from what I can see in the legislation getting at the formulation of policy and the formulation of priorities. It is at that point that you would want to have autonomy or some degree of discretion within a Scotland commission part of the UK commission, as opposed to at the end or nearer the end of the process when priorities have been nearly finalised. We gave submissions at the end of last year on that point, and we definitely think that it is something that needs to be at least considered by the committee going forward. As the question, particularly when the Scottish ministers are giving evidence around the provisions in the English and Welsh legislation that are adequate for safeguarding Scottish interests. I do not want people to repeat things, because we are running short of time now, but that is Brona Andrew. We would like to see explicit mention of his obligations towards Scotland within the face of the bill to ensure that the anti-slavery commissioner understands that we have a unique legal system. We have different policies and processes that apply, and that is reflected in that Scotland simply does not become an addition to his more general work, so we would be quite keen to see that made explicit on the face of the bill. Christina McKelvie, you were nodding. Is that something that I would support, convener, and thank you for allowing me to attend your committees today in that personal interest and political interest, but I would certainly support that. We have had in front of the EU committee, the EU's Trafficking Commissioner, who was very clear about the responsibility of member states and also the responsibility of regions within those member states, especially when they have different legal setups and devolved issues around care, rehabilitation and support, and health services. My nod was very affirmative. Yes, I thought that it was an affirmative nod, and now you have been patient, Jane Baxter. Can I just say how fascinating it has been this morning to hear all the expert testimony about how we can make the bill better? I went on a visit to the Scottish guardianship service and was extremely impressed with what I saw and heard that day. I wonder what will happen for traffic children if they do not develop and get into statute the sort of services that are provided there. I would like to ask Katrina to speculate about the consequences of not doing the things that you do. I think that it has been raised several times today about the particular vulnerabilities for children that has been trafficked. Having a guardianship service, a guardian working with that child, does help them to understand and participate in the processes that they find themselves in. I think that guardians can hold people accountable just because a child is being looked after by a local authority does not mean that they are getting access to all their rights and entitlements and the appropriate safeguards that are put in place. I think that a guardian is looking out at the best interests of that child and making sure that all their needs are being met. Guardian? It is. We will see children still arriving when they are 16 and getting put into their own tenancy, a trafficked child, which is clearly not suitable and it is not an appropriate safeguard. However, there is a lack of resources and because they are over 16 they will not get put into a children's unit. There is still a lot of work to be done in providing the support and assistance that is appropriate for children. Guardians of whilst they are advocates will also play a huge part in educating and helping young people to understand the processes. All the children that we have worked with so far bar one has been trafficked and is also claiming asylum. In about 45 per cent of the young people that we work with have undergone age assessment and some have been through the criminal justice processes. We are talking about a child being through multiple processes and having to instruct lawyers. I think that a guardian is there to be by their side. It is a very complex process, but it is time intensive. The amount of hours and support that a guardian puts into working with that child is way above what any social worker could be able to provide. I do think that a lot of children would slip through the net if guardians weren't involved. On that note, because I am conscious that we have had quite a good whack at this, I thank you very much for your written evidence and your oral evidence. I say to you that we will probably see more evidence sessions and we will consider our draft 1 report after Easter recess when you can see the views. We have come to feel very helpful and thank you for the visits that you gave to members very useful. I will suspend for five minutes. Thank you very much. I now resume item 3, the Prisoners' Control of Lease Scotland Bill, our final day of evidence taking at stage 1 of the Prisoners' Control of Lease Scotland Bill. I have the cabinet secretary back to respond to issues that were raised in the letter 3 February and in the evidence that we heard last week in the round table. I welcome Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary for justice and Neil Wrennick, acting director of justice for the Scottish Government, and I know that we can go straight to questions from members. I start with Roddy Campbell, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. In the evidence sessions that we had, again on 24 February, we had some misgivings as to how the evidence was that the bill would improve public safety and public protection. Is there any additional evidence of supporting facts that you can give the committee in relation to those concerns? As an ending the automatic early release in that approach. There is evidence that the committee might find useful. Mr Campbell might find useful. In 2012-13 476 prisoners were subject to supervision in the community after parole release and 403 were subject to supervision in the community after non-prol release. Those would be individuals who had automatic early release. The rate at which non-prol release prisoners breached their licenced conditions was 37 per cent compared to 5.5 per cent for pro-released prisoners. That is an effect that someone who has been released automatically is seven times more likely to breach their licenced conditions than someone who has been released after a decision that has been made by the Pro Boat. That is a significant gap, which adds significant weight to the reasons why we should end automatic early release. In your view, the bill would improve public protection. Is there anything further that you can say about the use of extended sentences that perhaps we did not touch on in our most recent session? I have no doubt that ending automatic early release for long-term prisoners will help to improve public protection. There is already a significant number of prisoners who receive a long-term sentence or four years or more who will receive an extended sentence, which is imposed by the court at that particular point, when the sentence has been handed down based on the judgment that they believe that they require a period of extended community supervision after they have been released from prisons. Of course, it is entirely down to the courts to determine that, but there has obviously been an increase in the number of prisoners who have received extended sentences. I suspect that it will matter for judges and sheriffs to determine to what extent they want to continue to use them and to what level. The bill together with continued use of extended sentences in your view will improve public protection as to where it is at the present time? I believe that it will, yes. That was part of the reasons for the introduction of extended sentences previously. That was to allow the courts to be able to impose an extended period of community supervision post someone's release from prison for them to be supervised and for any further measures to be taken for once a person moves back into community for the purposes of protecting the public. The second purpose of the bill is rehabilitation of offenders. Is there anything further that you can add on programmes to assist rehabilitation in both prison and indeed in the community at large? I know that you have already had evidence from Colin McConnell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, who is undertaking a review of the way in which they deliver their rehabilitation programmes and their courses within the prison estate. There has been largely a tendency in the past that programmes have been delivered on block and that prisoners are just slotted into the programmes. I know that the Scottish Prison Service is keen to look at developing programmes that are much more aligned to the assessment of the individual prisoners' needs in order to ensure that the programme is tailored more, reflecting more what that particular prisoner may actually require. That is a significant undertaking for the Scottish Prison Service, but they want to move in that direction because they feel that that would be a more appropriate way in which to deliver some of those rehabilitation programmes. We are keen to support them in moving in that direction. I have no doubt that, as we go forward, they will start to look at how they can take a much more bespoke approach to how rehabilitation programmes are developed for prisoners in order to improve the delivery of them and to improve outcomes that can be gained from those programmes. We heard a lot of evidence at the last evidence session about what was described as option A and option B. A lack of clarity was suggested in your letter to the committee about what the proposals that you were proposing to bring forward at stage 2 actually meant. Can you kind of… Option A and option B were… I think that option A was some form of supervision at the end of an offender sentence. Option B was supervision with still forming part of the offender sentence. There seemed to be some confusion on the part of the witnesses as to what your letter meant, so I will go over to you to clarify that. It was clear from when I appeared at the committee the last time that you had some concerns about the issue of prisoners who had not qualified for early release through parole. There was the potential for them to be released at the end of their custodial sentence without any supervision in place. At that point, I made clear to the committee that I am open to exploring how that particular concern could be addressed. Having considered that, a period of guaranteed supervision would be the most appropriate way for that to be taken forward. That could be a period of guaranteed supervision, which is a three- or six-month period towards the end of their sentence. I am open to the views of the committee on that from the evidence that you have heard as to how best that timeframe should be set. However, it was a reflection on the concerns and issues that have been highlighted by the committee from my previous time before you. I believe that a period of guaranteed supervision would be an appropriate way to try to make sure that a prisoner, when they are being released, has a period of supervision within the community. Last week, the witnesses found it a bit difficult to comment, as Roddy Campbell has already suggested, because he had not been able to see precisely what it was that he was suggesting. I wonder whether you could give us any indication of when the amendments might be available so that people can actually see what the proposals are. That would be at stage 2. In order to take evidence, the problem that we have with the bill is that originally it was going to be an amendment at stage 2 to criminal justice, then it came forward as a standalone bill, and now it is going to be significantly amended again at stage 2. It makes it difficult to consult properly on what the bill is going to look like. Would you be amenable to have an extension of stage 1 or an extended stage 2 so that the committee can take evidence on the actual proposals? There are two aspects to that. The general principle of the bill has not changed, and that is the ending of automatic illegal release for long-term prisoners. The timeframe that was originally set was also that the timeframe for the different groups was four years for those six offenders and 10 years for those who were for other non-sexual crimes, but the long-term prisoners. That has been brought down to 4.4 for a consistency approach. I accept it in principle if you are going to take away automatic illegal release for long-term prisoners that it is better to do that on a consistent basis. The general principles have not changed the time line in terms of bringing it down to 4.4. That is quite a straightforward direct change to it. The issue about the second aspect is the issue around providing a period of guaranteed supervision. That is reflective of the evidence that you have received at stage 1, and the views that the committee expressed to me when I was before the committee on the issue and I said that I was open to looking at providing a period of guaranteed supervision that could take place. That is a change to the bill. I would debate whether it is a significant change, but in my view it is a change to the bill, which is appropriate for us to consider. If, at stage 1, the committee recommends a particular approach to how that guaranteed period of supervision should be taken forward, I will reflect on that and then respond to the committee's report on it. If the committee wishes further time at stage 2 to take further evidence on that, that would be a matter for the committee to put forward. I think that the problem for some of the witnesses last week was that if the compulsory post-release supervision was tagged on at the end of the sentence, there could be some sort of human rights issues around that rather than being part. The sentence is the issue about the put that they option A and option B. There has been no clarity yet about the minimum period of the compulsory post-release supervision and so on. I need to take evidence around those issues. I would argue that those are not insignificant changes from what the witnesses were saying last week. That is their view of the matter. I take a slightly different view of it from them. I am conscious that some of the witnesses do not support the idea of ending automatic elder releasing per se, but that is for their view. I am more than happy if the committee or want to consider taking further evidence at stage 2. That is a matter for the committee to pursue. My view is that the issue around creating a period of either six or three months at the end of a sentence could potentially be within the sentence period, as well as something that I am more than happy to explore with the committee. It is not for me to say to the committee that I do not think that it should take more time at stage 2. That is clearly the gift of the committee. I think that it has been appropriate for me to say that I do not think that the committee should not have sufficient time to do that. I appreciate that it is quite important to see what the Government is proposing so that we can take evidence of it. We need to have the substance of your changes. With all due respect, you have been around this place through as long as I have been, as well as your idea, and there have been amendments brought forward at stage 2 that committees have had to deal with at that particular point. Even more significant changes take place at stage 2 in bills without any extra period of evidence taking on it. If the committee, given what we are proposing to do, feels that it needs more time to consider the matter, that is a matter for the committee. It is not for me to direct the committee in that matter. I appreciate that those things have happened before. Indeed, I have argued myself against my own Government in trying to do things at stage 2. It is not ideal, though, in terms of consultation and getting the views of stakeholders. That is one point of view. It is very reasonable that I have come along to committee at stage 1. You have flagged up concerns about the idea of cold release. You have said that you think that there should be some form or you have indicated that you feel that there should be some form of supervision towards the end of a personal sentence if we end automatic early release. I have responded to the committee saying that I am prepared to do that. We are looking at whether that is done within the existing sentence and how that would be managed. I have said to the committee that, if you feel that guarantee period should be a minimum of six months or three months, I am more than content to listen to the committee's views on that matter. I am responding to concerns that the committee has flagged up, which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing for me to do. Probably there will be a revised financial memorandum as well. Any changes to it would have to be considered on that. Will there need to be any changes to it, depending on the approach that we take? I think that, cabinet secretary, one of the issues is the use of the word guarantee as opposed to compulsory. One of the difficulties in terms of a technical thing is that, if one is to fulfil the entire sentence to say that we guarantee supervision at the end, it does not mean that you have to do it, because it is not compulsory. That is the issue that we are finding difficult. It would be more likely to have to be within the timeframe of the sentence itself, such as a 10-year sentence, with, say, perhaps nine and a half years and six months of compulsory supervision. That is the issue for us. You cannot just interchange those two words. Clearly, for the committee, if they were to come back with a view that they feel that it should be a compulsory period of community supervision towards the end of their sentence, which was three or six months, I would be more than happy to consider that particular review. I think that the problem would be if you said that you complete your sentence and then there is something compulsory. That becomes a sentence as well. I think that that is the difficulty that we are struggling with. That would have to be— Is it perfectly respecting that you have taken a different tack, perhaps, on previous cabinet secretary, which is your entitlement? Of course, but it is worth keeping in mind that this is to deal with a select group of prisoners. Those who will receive parole release prior to the end of their sentence, which is their entitlement to apply for after they have completed half of their sentence, will be those who will also have an extended sentence, which has been imposed at the time when their sentence has been handed down. There is that group that you then have left who have not qualified for parole but are coming towards the end of their sentence, and it is about reintegrating them back into the community and what that should look like in a form of whether it is compulsory or guaranteed period of community supervision. I think that that is the issue, as I have said, because some might, just as we have given in evidence, would serve their sentence, come out cold and you say, well, you guarantee me supervision but I did not want it and I do not have to take it. I think that that is just the issue for us, perhaps. I have got Christian. The first one is the point that you made. You said that nobody, you were concerned when people were objecting to the automatic early release. The evidence we took last week, I think that victim support Scotland was very clear about the ending of automatic early release. I asked every panel, every member of the panel, and we highlighted an answer, who I supported it. Can I maybe push you on this? Who do you think it does not support? Sorry if I have misinterpreted it in the view that, if they are all supportive of ending automatic early release, they may just have different views on how you should go about achieving that. They do not agree with the approach that we are taking, but, of course, they are intensively reviewing that matter. Talking about our approach, that is my second question. What I would like to reassure in some is that we do not end up like the custodial sentences in the Weapons Scotland Bill, where the principle is good and everybody would agree that the principle of automatic early release is good. It is questionable about the language. It is on the sound footing, but where the flow is where, on the custodial sentences and Weapons Scotland Bill, where the flow is where in the details. So can we have some reassurance this morning from you that we won't change any more the scope of the bill that will be really to focus on the details of what has been debated this morning so far? Of course, when the committee published your stage 1 report, we will respond to the issues that have been flagged up within the committee's report. We will then look at how we will amend the bill at stage 2. If there are particular aspects in how we respond to it that the committee feels that it requires a bit more time to consider those issues, as I mentioned, I am to Elaine Murray. That is a matter for the committee if it wants to then look at that specifically given what the Government is saying its response is going to be to it to take some more evidence in the matter. The general principles, anything that we take forward, have to fit within the terms of the bill. The principle of ending automatically release is not changing. What we are looking at as an issue is that we are going to bring the threshold down for the crimes of the non-sexual nature. We are also minded to take an approach that reflects the concerns that have been highlighted about the idea of cold releases, that the committee raised with me when I was before your last time. It is a matter for the committee to ask the bureau to give us extended time, perhaps, wherever we decide to do, whether it is to just do a report at stage 1 and flag up those concerns, then look for a longer stage 2 with evidence. It is up to us to approach the bureau. We have got some members of the bureau in here so that they understand what they are listening to. Gill, please, followed by Margaret, followed by Alice. Yes, follow up on that. One of the main criticism, I would say, is that would the prison service be able to cope in regards to the resources? If, indeed, they do need resources, will they be put in place? If there are going to be bigger numbers that are requiring supervision? The evidence that you received last week from the SPS or the week before was that there is a timeline for how the ending of automatic elder release will start to impact on prisoner numbers. That is a number of years ahead. It takes several years before that actually works through into the system. The other thing that I would say on this particular issue around prisoner numbers is that I do not see the whole issue of dealing with prisoner numbers in isolation. All that we are going to do is something about ending automatic elder release. I think that there is more that we need to do around short-term sentences to make sure that they are being delivered much more effectively. If we look at the churn of prisoners, they go through a prison estate. For short-term sentences it takes up a massive amount of the prison services resource and the evidence shows that they are not very effective in being able to address offending behaviour. We need to look at how we can improve that approach going forward. There are already measures that have taken place over recent years around different types of disposals, presumption against three months, sense of less than three months, all of those measures that are trying to address some of those issues. One of the things that I am looking at just now within Government is to look at how we can take some of those measures further in order to make sure that we are not spending as much time with a churn of prisoners in short-term sentences the outcomes for which are very poor. Of course, those who have to go to prison should, but there are continuing to send individuals who could be better addressed to community disposals. We have got several years to take forward some of those measures before the impact of any change to automatic early release will start to feed into the overall prisoner numbers. That is something that I want to look at in the whole, rather than in isolation. I am a great supporter of programmes. I was vice-conviner on men's violence against women and children and the work that was being done, particularly on Peterhead, was world-renowned. I would anticipate that there will be a desire for people who are serving, particularly people who have been involved in serious crime, serious sexual offences, that they may well want to participate in the programmes in Peterhead. Again, I am not from the prison service. I seem to say that they will be able to cope with whatever is decided, but that is maybe civil service speak. What I am asking you, Minister, is that, if I am right, there will be more people that would perhaps volunteer, because there is a voluntary system that was in Peterhead, but more folk will volunteer. Even though they volunteer for maybe the wrong reasons, they are not the right reasons to address their behaviour. Those programmes are so successful, but I believe that, if they do engage, even those who do it for what I am calling the wrong reasons would benefit from it. If you assure yourself that resources would be available in those circumstances, I think that, like night follows day, there will be an increase of numbers that might be minimum, but it is a good programme. I would not like to see it disturbed, because there is more coming in than not being able to benefit from it. I think that you raised a good point about access to programmes that we touched on earlier in the review work that has been taken for in the Scottish Prison Service to look at how they can improve the way in which they deliver their programmes and their rehabilitation programmes. I think that there was a stop programme that you were referring to at Peterhead that had a significant reputation for how it worked with the sex offenders. I know that the evidence that you received from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service said that the current uptake of sex offenders programmes, which is approximately 50 per cent, would increase to around 67 per cent with the ending of automatic early release. That is why it is important that the review programme of what they are taking forward just now is about looking at how they can make sure that the way in which they deliver those programmes, with increasing demand, is much more tailored to the individual prisoner's needs in order to address them much more effectively. There is no doubt that it is going to be challenging, but another part of that is that, in the prison system, a very sizable part of the resource is taken up in dealing with the churn of short-term prisoners, which draws resource away from tackling some of those issues because of the churn in the system. It is about trying to get that balance right. Some of the things that we are looking at going forward around how we can be much more effective with short-term prisoners and much more effective programmes in dealing with that, and at the same time making sure that the resource that is necessary for those programmes, for long-term prisoners, is able to be delivered in a much more individualised way. There are a number of things that have to be done in the system in order to achieve that, but one of the important aspects that was highlighted by Henry McLeish in his report is that prisons should be used much more effectively for those who should be there and where it is appropriate for them to be there. I think that the bill and some of the other policies that we are going to be taking forward will help to achieve getting that balance much more effectively. You have mentioned, cabinet secretary, that one of the reasons for moving and changing the proposal in the bill was consistency, but surely it would be consistency to include short-term sentences and abolish automatic early release for them as well. In the bill, we have set out that we are going to do it for long-term prisoners and it is within the confines of the bill that that can be achieved as well. You will also be aware that, before abolishing the ending of automatic early release for short-term prisoners, the independent prison commission recommended that there is a whole range of other things that we need to be taking forward before that could be achieved. For example, dealing with the whole issue of the churn of short-term prisoners, more on the way of community disposals and all the different measures that we need to be taking forward. Some of that work has already started and some of it we need to exhilarate further on as well and that is what I am looking at doing as well. Once we are in a position to take that forward, I am content to then look at the issue of ending automatic early release for short-term prisoners as well. We are not at that point, as was highlighted by the independent prison commission. Once we are at that point, we can revisit the issue of automatic early release for short-term prisoners. Would it not be better if it is public safety and we know the highest percentage of people who re-offend and who end up back in the system are short-term sentence prisoners? Would it not be better to end automatic early release while still looking at disposals and doing the evaluation of whether community centre is more appropriate, looking better at how the short-term sentences that prisoners are being looked at just now, because through care is not there. We hear about it all the time, but it just is not in prisons every day. People are being released without having the through care that is necessary to help them not to re-offend. I do not think that it is possible and incompetent in the bill, because the purpose of the bill is an act of the Scottish Parliament and the right of certain long-term prisoners to automatic early release. It could not be done in the bill. What I am suggesting is that the round table panel should be scrapped. We should look at bringing it forward perhaps in the criminal justice bill where we can look at the automatic early release of all prisoners being abolished and starting to get down to providing the rehabilitation, which again in evidence we heard, far demand for which for those rehabilitation programmes far outweighs supply in prison, that we start getting to what happens to prisoners, what their experience is to try to ensure that prison does rehabilitate, which would have the stated aim of protecting the public and provide clarity and transparency in sentencing. There are a whole range of different issues in there. The first thing that I would say is that I think that it is wrong to say that there is no through care in prisons. Now it may be that there are areas where it still needs to improve, and I know that there is work being taken forward to achieve that, but it is simply wrong to say that there is no through care. I have witnessed it and saw it first hand in a range of different areas where through care is delivered and the Scottish Prison Service has also given a commitment to 42 through care officers who are going to that responsibility. Prison officers are about supporting and working with the different agencies in prisoners moving from prison into the community as well. Those things take time, but it is important to put that in the record that there is a significant amount of work that is undertaken by our prison officers. Sometimes in very difficult circumstances working with prisoners who come from very difficult backgrounds to deliver as effective through care as they can, but sometimes that is not always achieved as well as it could because the prison service cannot deliver it on their own. They need partnerships with other agencies and some of the work that I am taking forward in the ministerial group on tackling the offending is all around the issue of through care, housing, health, and all the parts that they have to play in helping to make sure that through care is delivered much more effectively for prisoners. The second aspect is an issue about ending automatic illeries for shop term prisoners. It is notwithstanding that it is not competent within the particular bill itself. The other part is that the independent commission in prisons looked at the issue in detail and recommended that there is a whole range of measures that have to be taken forward before you could achieve that in order to take it forward. Some of that work has already started and has already been indicated. I want to look at how we can exhilarate some of that further on. When you raise the issue about rehabilitating people and protecting the public, there is no doubt that prisons have an important part to play in protecting the public. We also have to look at the evidence base in short-term sentences. The evidence base shows that very often short-term prison sentences are not effective in tackling offending behaviour. We need to make sure that the approach that we take has that evidence base too around tackling offending behaviour. That is one of the things that I am keen to do. It is one of the things that I made very clear at the time when I decided not to go ahead with Inverclyde prison is that we need to make sure that the model and the approach that we take is much more effective in tackling offending behaviour, rather than the revolving door of people getting in and out of prisons and expecting the prison in a short period of time to be able to turn that individual situation completely around and their community situation completely around. It is entirely unrealistic to expect that. If we want to do that, we need to look at what is the best way in which to deliver those types of short-term sentences. Some of them will be in prison, others may be with their community disposal. We need to make sure that we are doing that in a consistent way to get better outcomes that assist us in reducing re-offending. Those are big issues within penal policy in itself, but I think that it would be far too simplistic just to think that if we end automatic early release for all short-term prisoners, provide just a wee bit more rehabilitation, or even a significant bit more rehabilitation in our prisons, that we will be able to deal with those things much more effectively. The evidence shows us that that is not the best way to go about doing this. It is about taking forward disposals that are much more effective in tackling offending behaviour, and that means using community disposals in a number of ways that deliver that more effectively. Can I ask if it is the cabinet secretary's intention just for clarification? I do not think that it was clear from your evidence this morning to propose that stage to a minimum period of this guaranteed supervision and actual amendment at stage 2, so that we can see what the Government is proposing. I have listened to the views that the committee has already expressed on this matter. Obviously, we will get the stage 1 report with what the committee is recommending in this issue. We will reflect on that, but I recognise the concerns that have been raised by the committee about the idea of cold release. I am prepared to look at whether it is a guaranteed or compulsory period of supervision that has to be provided at the end of its sentence. I am prepared to bring forward an amendment in order to achieve that, given the concerns that the committee has raised. The final detail of that will be reflective of the concerns and issues that have been raised by the committee at stage 1 report. We are having a debate here about guaranteed and compulsory. Presumably, if it is within the sentence period, it is guaranteed, and if it is posted, it is not only guaranteed, it is compulsory, because you will have finished your sentence. If it was going to be provided over and above the sentence that is handed down by the court, it would have to be an extended sentence. That is right. Obviously, it is compulsory if you still have your sentences in the middle of it. Just to get those two words clear in my head, and you are looking at me as if I have not there, John, but I have. I have very clear my head, Alison. Minister, I acknowledge that you have acted in good faith in responding to what the committee said earlier on. However, if the period of compulsory supervision is in its self-part of the sentence rather than subsequent to it, how would you respond to the point that this is actually only automatically early released by some other name, and that is really just a rebranding? Well, it is unfair to say that we rebranding it in that sense, because automatically early release for a long-term prisoner is at two-thirds of their sentence, no matter what the circumstances are. There is no control over that period of time whatsoever. It is to when that certainly will not be the case. What we are prepared to do is to give the powers to the parole board to be able to determine what that period of compulsory or guaranteed period of supervision should actually be given their individual's circumstances. Right now, the parole board is absolutely powerless to stop anybody who qualifies for automatic early release, so it would give them the power to be able to determine that, which puts them in a position where they get more control over what is happening. Also, the supervision measures that are put in place for that individual, and if you look at the data that I offered to Roddy Campbell earlier on, it just demonstrates the marked difference that it can actually have in the outcomes for a prisoner in breaching their supervision. We are extending the powers of the parole board to be able to make that determination as to what that period should actually be towards the end of their sentence, so it removes automatic element of it. That is helpful. During that period, that hypothetical compulsory supervision would there be a power of recall? Yes, there would be. Ms Murray pressed you on the financial memo and you said that you might update it, but surely in considering those issues, you must have considered what the financial resource implications would be. Have you had discussions with Social Work Scotland about your revised proposals? It is worth keeping in mind that it is a very small number of prisoners that we are talking about, and it is several years into the future before any of that starts to actually have an impact. The danger is that you start to put some limits on it just now, thinking that in five or six years' time that is what you actually require. If there is a need for some additional resource going forward, we will, of course, be alive to that and we will look to address that. However, I think that it would be about getting the balance right. If there is a need for additional resource going forward, which, as I said, will be a number of years ahead, we will look at that. However, as I have mentioned as well, it is about the balance in the system, about the amount of resource that we have tied up dealing with short-term offenders and the chum of short-term offenders. Some of that resource might be better directed in dealing with some of the issues around the end of a sentence, so it may be about reallocating of existing resource once we start to get that balance much more effective. Cabinet Secretary, it is clear from what we have heard this morning that some of those topics are quite complex and interconnected. I note that the Scottish Sentencing Council is going to be set up. Is there any benefit from waiting to hear from them about the impact of those reforms on sentencing policy? The Scottish Sentencing Council will be up and running October and November this year, and it will then develop its own programme of work. I am not entirely sure what the benefit of that would be other than to delay taking that forward and then what benefit would be gained from that. As a Government, we have made it very clear that we are ending automatic early release for long-term prisoners and we intend to take that forward. It might be that the sentencing council will want to look at things such as the use of extended sentences and so on going forward in their work, but I am not entirely persuaded that there would be any benefit in doing that and delaying this bill to allow them to look at the issue other than just to delay taking things forward. I suspect that there would be many victims who would find that difficult to understand. Why have you got a bill on the stocks before Parliament that could end automatic early release that we decided to delay for an indeterminate period of time? Everyone has agreed that transparency of sentencing is very important. I was trying to clarify whether there is an on-going interaction between the bill and the work of the Sentencing Council, but I would like your views on that. Well, not at the moment in the basis that it is not up and running as yet. I think that the Scottish Sentencing Council can play an important part to play in sentencing policy in the years to come. We will prove to provide that type of invaluable insight, but, once it is up and running and it is operating, we will be engaging with it in an on-going basis. I welcome your acknowledgement about the cold release aspect and your encouragement for greater use of non-custodial disposals in the resource that is tied up, the shift that can take place with that. You have mentioned on a number of occasions of the independent commission in prisons. As a number of colleagues have said, cabinet secretary, there are a number of issues overlap here. I note what you have said in relation to a waiting receipt of the stage 1 report before coming up with amendments. Would it be possible to get a copy of where things stand with the Scottish Government at the moment with regard to each of the proposals of the independent commission in prisons, just to see where that sits in relation to everything else? Of course, we can provide a committee with a response to that. The question is that some people in evidence last week did ask for the bill to be scrapped. They all came back afterwards at the end of the evidence when they heard from the victim's support. That is very clear. I would like you to tell us what you are thinking on stage 2, to get that balance right between the right of the families of victims and between the process that we have to go through for this bill, because I cannot think that it has not been addressed too much this morning. In terms of trying to get the balance right, that is why I have indicated to the committee that I want to see all automatic early release for long-term prisoners to come to an end. There is a consistent approach to that. There is a transparency to that. There is no staged approach for crimes of a non-sexual nature that have a long-term sentence. There is a consistent approach, which is important from a victim's perspective. The other aspect of that is about the evidence that shows us that the supervised release of prisoners helps to reduce significantly the risk of those individuals breaching their supervision. Obviously, if someone is breaching it, it could be committing an air offence that then has an air impact on victims. The bit about having that guaranteed period of supervision at the end as well is about reducing the risk of that individual going back into the community and potentially committing further offences and to have that managed in a way that allows them, for example, to be recalled as and when necessary should that occur. Again, that is about helping to protect the public as well. In ending automatic early release and the transparency that that creates, having equalised at four years across the offences and also that guaranteed period of supervision towards the end of the sentence, I believe helps to provide victims with greater transparency and also offer greater public protection. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes. Oh, I thought you were wanting me to move on. Roddy, yes. Very small point. Just on the question of through care, you talked about the operation of through care officers. This bill deals with long-term offenders serving sentences of four years or more. I'm correct, cabinet secretary. I believe that statutory through care applies to prisoners serving sentences of four years or more. Yes. Convenience has helpedfully reminded me of another part of the bill that hasn't been explored in great detail. That's the ability for the prison service to be able to vary at least by two days. It's a very good example of where the prison service are flagged up the difficulties they have in through care because it was so rigid. It's a reflection of trying to address some of those issues within the legislation as well to help to improve through care. For a long time and so we're very happy with that because it's been a very practical issue that we've come across. I want to conclude this evidence session. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. If I may, cabinet secretary, I'm just going to continue on to the next item while you're moving because it's time pressures. Item 4 subordinate legislation. It's three negative instruments. The next item is three negative instruments. The first is the Firefighters Pension Scheme Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-19. It provides for a reform pension scheme for firefighters in Scotland. The Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee agreed not to draw the attention on the farm up to this instrument. Do many members have any comments on relation to it? John? It's a comment to see what a disappointing state of affairs that we have moved to this new scheme. I know that there are interim arrangements, but I know that it's out with the control of this place, but I think that that's worth saying. I think that I share your concerns that the retirement age is, as I understand it, apart from the interim measure 60, which seems to mean certain kinds of professions that are very difficult to fulfil your job physically up to that age, notwithstanding some of us who are approaching 60 are still able to do it. I knew that that would make you smile. Apart from that, do any members have any other comments on relation to this instrument? The second negative instrument that we are considering today is the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Procedure for Appointment of Members Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-19. It sets out the procedure for selection and nomination for appointment for members of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Procedure. Again, the DPLR committee agreed not to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument. Do you have any comments on relation to this or are you content with its content? The final negative instrument is the Scottish Administration Office's Order 2015, SSI 2015-200. It specifies that Clark and Deputy Clark are the sheriff of Peelcourt's offices and the Scottish Administration, which are not ministerial offices for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998. These are new offices and are to be office holders and the Scottish Administration in the same way as the existing posts of Sheriff Clark and Sheriff Clark deputies are such offices. The DPLR committee agreed not to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument. Do members have any comments? No comments, thank you. You are content to make no recommendation on relation to this instrument. Thank you. We now move into private session.