say anything. It is not an onerous task in its entirely proportion to support this amendment. I hope that people will. The question is that amendment 28, we agree to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Two, four, seven against. No abstention, as that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 165 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debate with amendment 28. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is amendment 165, we agree to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 166 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debate with amendment 28. To move formally. Moved. The question is amendment 166, we agree to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 23, we agree to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 29 in the name of John Finnie group with amendments 243 to 248, 250, 251 and 253. Can I point out that if amendment 29 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 243 and 244, which will be preempted. John Finnie, please, to move amendment 29 and speak the other amendments in the group. I formally move amendment 29, convener. As concur with the number of representations that I have received regarding the proposed threshold as outlined in section 24A and B, it is inappropriate. As presently worded, if the constable is satisfied that it is necessary to interview the person without delay in the interests of A, the investigation or the prevention of crime or B, the apprehension of offenders, that wording could and I would venture likely will be legitimately used to cover a huge percentage of instances. The amendment will ensure that the interview of a person without a solicit present would only take place in the most exceptional circumstances, again something that I would consider a fair and balanced approach. Alison, please, to speak to amendment 243 and other amendments in the group. Thank you. Both John Finnie and myself are concerned about the same things as we have taken a different tack to try and address it. All of my amendments in this group seek to strengthen the rules around a police's ability to interfere with fundamental rights of adult and child suspects. I am talking about the right to be assisted by a solicitor during an interview, the right to have a consultation with a solicitor, the right upright of adults to have an innovation sent to another person and the right of children to have access to their parent or guardian. Section 24 currently states that constables may in exceptional circumstances proceed to interview a person without having a solicitor present if a constable believes that it is necessary to proceed in the interests of investigating or preventing a crime or apprehending offenders. It grants them the right to override a suspect's request for legal assistance. Section 36 is drafted and also establishes that constables may delay a person's right to a private consultation with a solicitor on the same basis. I firmly believe that the phrase, the prevention or detection of crime and apprehension of offenders is far too broad a basis on which to deny someone their right to be assisted by a solicitor, and that is why my amendments 243, 244, 245, 250, 251 and 253 switch the whole thing to a kind of interference-based definition of the need, which stresses that the restriction of these rights must be to prevent interference with evidence or another person, and they also elevate these decisions from constable to superintendent level. Members will note, and the convener has already indicated that my amendments 243 and 244 are preempted by amendment 29 in the name of my colleague John Dfinney. His amendment is contrasted to mine. He would allow constables to proceed to interview a person without a solicitor in exceptional circumstances and does not seek to specify what those might be, nor does it raise the sign-off ranks. In my opinion, still grants the police too much leeway, though it is obviously better than what is already in the bill. The bill is drafted to suggest that the denial of these fundamental rights could become routine, and my amendments highlight the significance of these decisions and would ensure that there are proper safeguards in place to discourage the powers being misused. I agree that there is a need for the police not to routinely abuse their powers. I do not believe that the bill, as it is written, actually encourages that, because it does not make it quite clear that it is in exceptional circumstances. Obviously, things such as the prevention of crime are important circumstances may be necessary to act very quickly. Similarly to Alison MacKinnon's amendments, I do not disagree with what she is saying about the interference and connection with the offence and so on, but I think that those to certain extent are encompassing them. There might be an argument for expanding it at stage 3 to include some of these. I am not very sure, but on stage 2, 4 and 5, on the appropriate constable being a superintendent who has not been involved in the investigation of the offence, I do not see how somebody who has not been involved in the investigation of the offence can make the judgment whether or not the exceptional cases have actually arisen, so I would tend to resist that amendment also. I do not really have much to add beyond what Elaine MacKinnon has said, but I support that. The amendments in this group relate to authorisation for interviewing suspects without a solicitor present, delaying intimation of the fact that someone is in custody or delaying consultation with solicitors. I appreciate the intention behind the amendments to protect suspects. That is a key purpose of part 1 of the bill, which aims to strike the right balance between protecting the rights of suspects and ensuring the effectiveness of investigation of a crime. In order to do this, chapter 4 and 5 of part 1 can fair crucial rights on suspects, ensuring the right to have a solicitor present during interview, the right to have someone else informed that they are in custody and the right to a private consultation with a solicitor at any time. There will be exceptional circumstances in which these rights cannot be delivered, but we should set a high bar before this can happen. Amendment 229 and 244 would amend section 244, which deals with circumstances in which a person could be interviewed without a solicitor. Section 244 only permits such an interview in exceptional circumstances and does not define those circumstances. This reflects the recommendation in the Callaway report that interviewing a suspect without a solicitor against the suspect's wishes should only be possible in exceptional circumstances. Lord Callaway recommended that the exceptional circumstances should not be defined because case law has made it clear that it means in very rare cases, for example, where an immediate interview is required in order to protect persons or property from serious harm. Section 244 also includes an additional test so that, before proceeding to an interview where there are exceptional circumstances, police must also be satisfied that it is necessary to interview without delay in the interests of investigating or preventing crime or apprehending offenders. John Finnie's amendment 29 would remove that additional test of necessity. In doing so, it would remove protections for suspects and reduce transparency in decision making, although I do appreciate that this probably was not the intention of the amendment. Alison McKinnon's amendment 244 would leave the exceptional circumstances element of the test in place but would narrow the perimeters of the necessity test. The effect of that would be, for example, to prevent the police deciding that it was necessary to interview in exceptional circumstances where there was an additional suspect on the run. Amendment 251 substitutes the same narrow test into section 362, which deals with circumstances in which a suspect exercises of their right to a private consultation with a slister could be delayed. Amendments 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250 and 253 all seek to require that decision to interview without a slister or to delay intimation or consultation are made by constables of senior rank. The assumption underlying these amendments seems to be that requiring particular decisions to be made by very senior officers is necessary to ensure good decision making. All constables go through professional training throughout their career to ensure that they are fully able to carry out whatever role they have to undertake. All custody facilities across Scotland now come under the command of the custody division and there is a corporate approach to dealing with people in custody with a national standard operating procedure and training for all officers who work in those facilities. The committee agreed last week that sergeants should make the initial decision to keep people in custody. It would be during this initial authorisation process that any request would be made to delay notification to slisters or named persons and potentially to interview without a slister being present. The person who makes that initial custody decision would be best placed to consider these other rights-based decisions. The decisions covered by this set of amendments relate to rights afforded to people held in custody. I believe they are best made by specialist custody officers within custody division as at present. The decisions affected by this set of amendments may also need to be made in exceptional circumstances where time is of the essence. One example might be a kidnapped scenario. Requiring authorisation from a superintendent before interviewing a suspect could endanger life by creating delay in a situation where time is critical. There are a relatively small number of the superintendents in Scotland and while there will be always be a superintendent on call, that superintendent may not instantly be available to make such a decision. I appreciate that we are talking about very important decisions to be told or delay the delivery of crucial rights to suspects. The bill already sets high tests to ensure that these powers can only be used when absolutely necessary. However, I have also listened to the arguments put forward by Alison McInnes and I agree that authorisation by a police constable may not be appropriate in all cases. Therefore, I would urge John Finnie and Alison McInnes not to press his amendments and I wonder to consider the matter further and to bring forward amendments at stage 3 to ensure that these decisions are made by constables of the most appropriate rank. I don't know if that's the body language from John Finnie was. He was not persuaded. I don't know whether that's done it. John, to wind up, please. Well, I'm grateful for the cabinet secretary for his comments. He says that it's not defined what exceptional circumstances are, but, likewise, he quite rightly alludes to Lord Carlawy's recommendations in the reference to case law there, where there's ample—I suppose this is the challenge where you're trying to make a statute and have reference to case law and not have it volumous every time. There's no definition, likewise, of what a constable's satisfaction is or what constitutes necessity in regard to the interview of a person, but I acknowledge that you've seen that there are issues around this, and I'm happy to wait to see what you can come back with at stage 3.  I would seek permission to withdraw, then. John wishes to withdraw. Are you agreed? A call amendment—I'm going to amendment 243. A call amendment 243, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already to amendment 29. Alison, move or not, move. I will move this one. I understand that the cabinet secretary has asked me not to move 245. The question is amendment 245—we're all getting a bit of battle with you here. I can hear it in your voice. The question is amendment 243, we agreed to it. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Oxygen, please, for everybody. Those against, please show. 247 against that—no, no abstention—that amendment is not agreed to. A call amendment 244, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already debated with amendment 29, move or not, move. The question is amendment 244, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If you're not agreed, there'll be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That's 247 against no abstention, that amendment is not agreed to. A call amendment 245, in the name of Alison McInnes, is already debated with amendment 29, move or not, move. Not moved. The question is section 24, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 55, in the name of Elaine Murray, group with other amendments as shown on the groupings. I'll take a deep breath here because I point out that there are various pre-emptions in this group as a result of which, and you'll be tested on this immediately after I've read it out. If amendment 58 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 168. If amendment 63 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 184 and 185. If, in the group, rights of under 18's minor amendments of amendment 38 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 32. Now, you all took that in, I take it, yes, by looking your faces. Elaine, please, to move amendment 55 and speak to the other amendments in the group. I'll try and get through this as quickly as possible because there are several amendments in this section. My amendments aim to afford the same protection to 16 and 17-year-old children as the bill does to children under the age of 16. My amendments 55 and 56 apply to section 25, the ability to consent to interview without a solicitor present. This bill treats older children aged 16 and 17 differently to those under 16, despite a child being defined in much of the legislation that we've passed as somebody under the age of 18, such as the Victim Witnesses Act, the Children and Young People Act and the Human Trafficking Act, which we passed last week. We know that young people who have contact with the criminal justice system are often very vulnerable in different ways. Many young offenders have poor literacy and numeracy skills, some may have chaotic home lives. Recent research by the British Psychological Society indicates that many have neurological conditions or acquired brain injury and some will have taken substances either legal or illegal, which render them less risk averse than normal. Apart from that, a young person under arrest with the prospect of an interview by the police may be frightened, worried that their parents, school or employers are going to find out and distressed. That in itself could lead to panic rather than rational behaviour. Access to come informed legal advice from a solicitor is particularly necessary when a young person is vulnerable or not thinking clearly. My amendments 55 and 56 would protect older children aged 16 and 17 from making the wrong decisions to consent to an interview without a solicitor being present by ensuring that no one under the age of 18 can give such consent. They are compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that children who are accused of breaking the law have the right to legal help and fair treatment. In addition, amendments 57 and 58 remove children under 18 from the provisions excluding people who appear to constable to have a mental disorder or who cannot communicate effectively with the place or understand what is happening from consenting to an interview without a solicitor. Those provisions are not necessary if 55 and 56 are passed. Amendments 167 and 168 are inadequate, in my view, offering additional protection only to young people aged 16 and 17 who are on a compulsory supervision order. The vast majority of children on CSOs are under the age of 16, and the number who will be protected by those amendments is very small. I agree that young people need protection, but they will receive it if my amendments pass. Amendments 59 and 60 to section 30 are similar and will ensure that all children under the age of 18, rather than 16, have the right to an intimation sent to another person that they are in custody. The child's parent, or another adult named by the child, will receive intimation as quickly as practical. The arguments for these amendments regarding the vulnerability of under-18s are the same as those of 55 and 56, and an appropriate adult should be aware that a child has been taken into custody. Amendment 61 prevents 16 and 17-year-olds from requesting that no intimation be sent to their parent or other named adult. Exactly the same arguments can be made regarding the varied vulnerabilities of older children, as for amendments 55 and 56. Those amendments would ensure that compatibility with the rest of the bill and with recent legislation, as stated previously. Amendment 62 gives a parent or other adult who has been sent into mediation that a child under 18 is in police custody, the right of access to the child, changing the age to which that right is applied from 16 to 18. Amendment 63 removes subsection 2, referring to 16 and 17-year-olds, as that section will not be necessary if 62 is passed. Amendment 64 is consequential to 63. Amendment 38, in the name of John Pendland, removes any reference to the age in the section on support for vulnerable persons. All persons who have equal rights to support should, consensibly, believe them to be suffering from mental disorder, though that condition would be removed by John Finnie's amendments, which incidentally we also support, or if that person is unable to sufficiently communicate with the police. Amendment 32 is an alternative to changing the age of 18 in that subsection to 16. That is a backup in case my other amendments and John Pendland's amendment 38 are not passed and would provide vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds with support. I move amendment 55. Thank you very much. You have actually spoken to amendment 38. Yes, I have. I do not need to talk much about that. Cabinet Secretary, to speak to amendment 167, please, and other amendments in the group. Convener, within Scots law, there are a number of definitions of a child, and those are put in place for different purposes. Under the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, a child generally means a person who has not attained age of 18. However, under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 and the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, a child generally means a person who is under 16, extending that definition to 16 and 17-year-olds subject to a compulsory supervision order. The bill defines a child as being a person who is under the age of 18 years for the purposes of arrest, detention and questioning. In everyone of any age has the right of access to a slister in the context of this part of the bill. However, the bill reflects the self-evident fact that 16 and 17-year-olds do have greater capacity, maturity and autonomy than younger children, and it is common reflected in other rights and responsibilities. Age-based laws, which allow for 17-year-olds to live independently, vote, work and marry reflect the extent of self-determination that can exist at 16 years of age and beyond. With that greater right of self-determination should come the right for older young people to have a bigger say in the major issues and incidents in their life. The bill seeks to respect, reflect and act on young people's individual views in a meaningful yet responsible way. Currently, the bill provides that a child under 16 cannot consent to an interview without a slister being present. The bill further provides that everyone aged 16 to 17 can decide to be interviewed without a slister, but there is a safeguard.  While I sympathise with underlying tension, the effect of Elaine Murray's amendment 55 to 58 will be to remove the right of any 16 or 17-year-old to consent to be interviewed without a slister. The Scottish Government prefers an approach which would allow young people aged 16 and up to make their own decision with safeguards in place to support them in this. This is consistent with Lord Calaway's recommendations and takes account of article 12 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, the right to an opinion, and for that to be listened to and taken seriously. Crucially, the effect of Elaine Murray's amendment would not oblige these young people to take on a slister. While these young people couldn't be lawfully interviewed, they can still be charged, released or released on investigative liberation. On balance, it's preferable to allow for the greater level of self-determination of 16 and 17-year-olds while also providing additional protection for those subject to compulsory supervision. I can assure committee that we plan to have further dialogue with partners, including children's organisations, in respect of these issues ahead of stage 3. The wider needs of 16 and 17-year-olds who may be vulnerable but not subject to compulsory supervision will also have to be reflected in guidance, practice requirements and fully implemented on the ground. I would ask then that Elaine Murray not press her amendments 55 to 58. We also take seriously the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds are more mature than others. After further discussions with Police Scotland and the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration, we are persuaded that amendments are required to improve protections afforded to 16 and 17-year-olds in custody who are perhaps more vulnerable. I therefore lodged amendments 167 and 168, which relate to young persons aged 16 and 17 years of age, who are subject to compulsory supervision order under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011. Our amendments provide that the bill should specifically set out that all children who are subject to such orders and specifically those aged 16 and 17 years of age should be treated in the same way as those aged under 16 years of age. Most significantly, this will remove their right to waive access to a sluster. The Scottish Government amendments are a positive and proportionate change. I believe that they strike an appropriate balance between respecting individual autonomy and affording protection to the most vulnerable youngsters. Section 30 of the bill sets out the rights of a person in police custody to have another person told that they are in custody. Section 32 sets out the rights of under-18s in custody to access the person sent intimation under section 30. The bill, as introduced, did not allow a 16 or 17-year-old to notify a responsible person that they were in police custody without requiring that person to be asked to come to where the young person was being held. Amendment 173 allows young people to intimate without requiring the relevant adult to attend at the police office. I recognise and acknowledge Elaine Murray's amendment 59 to 64, which also seeks to deliver a raising of the relevant age, but this at time in section 30 and 32 to include at all those under age 18. As I have already mentioned, I do not believe that such a blanket approach is appropriate when dealing with 16 and 17-year-olds. I would ask Elaine Murray to consider the package of Government amendments which I have brought forward. I would ask her not to press amendment 59 to 64. Amendment 38 and 32, in the name of John Pentland and Elaine Murray respectively, both relate to the age at which the vulnerable person provisions in section 33 apply. Section 33 places a duty on the police to seek support for vulnerable adult suspects who, as a result of mental disorder, are unable to understand what is happening or to communicate effectively with the police. That is intended to reflect Lord Callum's recommendations in relation to vulnerable adult suspects. As he defined a child as under age 18, it followed that adults should be those aged 18 or over, which is the approach that this section currently takes. In the written evidence, however, the Scottish Appropriate Adult Network, Police Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health, suggested that the definition of vulnerable person should be expanded to include 16 and 17-year-olds. They note that this would reflect current practice, whereby appropriate adult provision to support vulnerable suspects aged 16 and over. The Bill already makes important distinctions between those aged 16 years of age and those aged 16 and 17 years of age. On reflection, therefore, I am now persuaded that the Bill should provide an additional safeguard by including vulnerable children suspects aged 16 and 17 in the vulnerable person's provision at section 33. Amendment 32, in the name of Elaine Murray, achieves this and I'm happy to support it. However, I am unable to support amendment 38 in the name of John Pentland. This amendment would remove the age criteria from section 33 entirely, resulting in support being sought in relation to children younger than 16. While I completely understand the desire to ensure support for all vulnerable persons in custody, section 33 is aimed specifically at those vulnerable adult suspects who are currently supported by appropriate adults and to put this support on a statutory basis. Those support arrangements are simply not designed to cater for the specific needs of children, needs which are met through other means. The Bill strengthens support for children and young people with a range of provisions in relation to intimation, access and support. For example, children under 16 would apply, would always have support from a relevant person and a slister, even in cases where they do not have particular communication difficulties. There are also protections for 16 and 17 year olds, some of which are specific to children subject to compulsory supervision. Given that the particular support needs of children are addressed elsewhere, I consider that the focus on section 33 should remain on those aged over 16. I would ask Elaine Murray to consider an oppressing amendment 38 in John Pentland's name. The cabinet secretary makes a very strong case. He refers to 16 and 17 year olds being more mature and makes reference to both the Children's Hearing Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. I welcome his amendment that looks at vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds. I think that that strikes the right balance, as does Elaine Murray's amendment 32. First of all, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for accepting amendment 32. However, he has not persuaded me that my other earlier amendments are not necessary. As I said, other legislation such as the Victim and Witnesses Act and the Human Trafficking Act recognise the vulnerability of people under the age of 18. Although we have age-based laws, I would point out that maturity is not necessarily the same as age, so somebody of age 14 could be more mature than somebody aged 17 in terms of their life experience and so on. I still remain of the opinion that children under 18 who are being interviewed by the police will be vulnerable for a variety of reasons, not least the circumstances in which they find themselves in. Children who come to the attention of the criminal justice system are often vulnerable in a number of ways that are not absolutely obvious on first inspection, so I will press my amendment 55. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour, please show. Those against please show. Four in favour, five against. No obstentious, that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 56, name of Elaine Murray, already agreed to amendment 55. Move or not move? Yes, moved. Yes or forward? No, move, sorry. Yes, I am not moving. Yes, I am moving. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. I will not hear you. We are not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Four, four, five against. No obstentious, that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 167, the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to debate on amendment 55. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment... Sorry? The question is that amendment 167 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 57, the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendment 55. Move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 30, the name of John Finnie Group, with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Can I point out, because I know he'll love pre-emptions, that if amendment 31 is agreed to, I can't call amendment 169, and if amendment 34 is agreed to, I can't call amendment 190. John, please, to move amendment 30 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This is in the section police interview consent interview without a solicitor, and this amendment, I propose, removes the mental disorder requirement when it appears to constable that a person over 16 years of age is unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or communicate effectively with the police for the purposes of that person not being entitled to waive their rights to be interviewed without having a solicitor present. The law society and others believe that it's difficult for a police officer to assess whether a person is suffering from mental disorder, and indeed it's a challenge for many people, so the support of a solicitor should not be restricted as it is presently. Indeed, anyone unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or unable to communicate effectively with the police should not be interviewed without a solicitor present. I move the amendment. Thank you, John. Cabinet Secretary, please, to speak to amendment 169, other amendments in the group. At stage 1 report, the Justice Committee highlighted concerns that the definition of vulnerable person in the bill may not capture all those needing additional support when in custody, and asked that the Scottish Government give further consideration to that. In particular concerns raised during stage 1 was about the use of the term mental disorder as part of the definition of a vulnerable person in section 25 and 33 of the bill. There were suggestions that this term should be removed and that the only criteria for identifying a vulnerable person in custody should be that they are unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or to communicate effectively with the police. Amendments 30, 31, 33 and 34, in the name of John Finnie, seek to do this. While I can appreciate those concerns and the desire to ensure that all those who require support to communicate with the police receive it, it's worth revisiting the intention behind sections 25 and 33, an underlying recommendation by Lord Calaway. When discussing the support needs of vulnerable suspects, Lord Calaway's report noted that individuals who are intoxicated through alcohol consumption or drug use or who are experiencing short-term illness may be unable to communicate effectively, but that such difficulties will be cured through the passage of time. It also noted that some individuals may not be able to understand what is happening as a result of language or hearing difficulties, but that this could be resolved through the use of an interpreter or by other means. A deliberate and crucial distinction was made between these scenarios and cases where an individual has a permanent or semi-permanent condition, which results in them being particularly vulnerable and requiring additional support to ensure that they understand what is happening and can communicate with the police. It is at those cases that the relevant provisions in sections 25 and 33 are aimed. That is why, as part of the definition of a vulnerable person, the term mental disorder was used. This term encompasses mental illness, personality disorder and learning disabilities, and reflects the current basis on which support for appropriate adult services is offered. The police already have considerable experience in identifying those at risk and arranging for support where necessary. Equally, they have experience in dealing with those who, for reasons that I have mentioned, may be experiencing communication difficulties of a more temporary nature. In the reference to mental disorder, if the reference to mental disorder is removed, the requirements of section 25 and 33 would apply in relation to those who are temporarily intoxicated or who simply require an interpreter or other assistance. This would result in communication support being sought where it is simply not required, with potential significant practical and financial implications for current providers of appropriate adult services. It may also have an impact on the legal profession as a result of an increase in the number of adults unable to consent to be interviewed without a solicitor present. I consider that a requirement that communication difficulties be linked to permanent or semi-permint conditions is vital in order to identify those who genuinely require the support and protection offered by sections 25 and 33. For that reason, I am not persuaded that the term mental disorder should be removed. However, for the reasons mentioned by John Finnie and others at stage 1, we do intend to keep these provisions under review as part of wider, on-going work examining the remit and provision of appropriate adults. The criteria for support under section 33 can be changed by subordinate legislation if that is considered desirable in the future. On that basis, I would ask John Finnie to consider withdrawing amendment 30 and not to move amendments 30, 1, 33 and 34. My amendments 169 and 190 make minor changes to the definition of mental disorder in section 25 and 33. This term is currently defined by reference to section 3281 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003. However, subsection 2 of this section contains further context to the definition, in particular setting out characteristics which do not of themselves signify mental disorder. In order to ensure consistency with the Mental Health Act, I think it is desirable to make reference to the definition of mental disorder in its entirety. Amendment 189 is a minor technical amendment to ensure stylistic consistency between sections 252b and 331c, which are worded in similar terms. Amendment 191 and 220 relate to regulation-making powers in section 34 of the bill. Removing that section from the bill and replicating it after section 53 with a number of changes. At present, the powers in section 34 allow Scottish ministers to amend parts of the definition of a vulnerable person in section 33, which currently provides that such persons are those who are unable to understand or communicate effectively as a result of a mental disorder. Section 252b, which describes persons who may not consent to being interviewed without having a slister present, also uses this definition but without any means of altering this by subordinate legislation. I consider that such a power should be added to ensure any changes made to section 33 can, if appropriate, be replicated at section 25. I also consider it prudent to further extend this regulation-making power to allow Scottish ministers to amend the definition relating to mental disorder and the police at sections 256 and 335, as those terms are also used in sections 252b and 331c, which themselves can be amended by regulation, so consequential changes may be required if those powers are ever used. Amendment 249, in the name of Alison McInnes, relates to concerns raised at stage 1, including in the committee's report that although section 33 places a duty on the police to request support, it does not identify where responsibility for ensuring the availability and adequate provision or suitably trained persons lies. The committee will also be aware that, more recently, Lord Bonomy recommended that the bill should identify a body with responsibility for ensuring the adequate provision of appropriate adult services. Amendment 249 seeks to place such a duty on local authorities, which currently provides such services. When the bill was introduced, it was considered that the appropriate adult system was working well and that a like-touch approach should be adopted, essentially placing the referral process on a statutory basis but going no further. However, further evidence, including that submitted at stage 1, has persuaded me that the current model of appropriate adult service is not suitable over the longer term. Concerns have been raised around the accessibility, consistency of service provision, the exact remit of appropriate adults and the funding of this service, all of which warrant further consideration. Therefore, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment and I agree that action is required. However, if we are to ensure that an effective and sustainable appropriate adult service is in place, it is absolutely vital that we get the model right. To that end, we are currently leading work with local authorities, the health service, Police Scotland and the Mental Welfare Commission and other interested parties to identify the best way to provide a sustainable service taken into account and consideration Lord Bornymi's recommendations. Workshops have been undertaken this year with key interests at a national and at a local level, and this has informed the development of potential service delivery options. We recently sought comment on these options, including from those who currently deliver the services on the ground. Over the coming weeks and months, a more detailed analysis, including consideration of financial implications, will also be undertaken. For that reason, while I am sympathetic to the issue raised by the committee and others, it is important not to allocate responsibility for the appropriate adult service without completing the work that is currently underway and reaching a consensus with those who currently deliver and use the service. I expect to be in a position by stage 3 of the bill to set out our preferred approach for the sustainable delivery of appropriate adult services across Scotland. On that basis, I ask Alison McInnes not to consider not pressing her amendment today. Thank you. Alison, that is your cue to speak to amendment 249 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. As we have just heard, Lord Bornymi's post-corroboration safeguards review recommended that the bill be amended to identify a body or an organisation with the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of persons with appropriate skills and qualifications to provide support for vulnerable people in custody. He said that it was a vital safeguard for the vulnerable suspect, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's recognition of the need for that. My amendment 249 is supported by the Law Society, and it is intended to give effect to that recommendation by proposing that we specifically enlist local authorities to provide that support. As we know that the provision is patchy, there is little co-ordination, and we do not know where to turn to to necessarily get it. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary's response. It was without a probing amendment, and I think that it has done its job. If, by stage 3, we can have some sort of answer as to the way forward, I will be more than happy. I will leave it at that. Anyone else wish to speak? Delane? Briefly, on John Finnie's amendment 30, I do not quite follow the cabinet secretary's argument on that. At the moment, it is only if a person has a mental disorder.  I appreciate that it is defined in statute, but it is a slightly derogatory term for people who have mental health issues or learning difficulties, but I know that it is in law. The only reason that a constable could decide that a person could not be interviewed without a solicitor was because they did not understand what was happening or communicated effectively because they had a mental disorder. Now, there are other circumstances when somebody might not be able to do that. That does not mean that somebody was drunk or under the influence of drugs. Somebody might not be able to speak English very well and therefore have difficulty in communicating particularly under those stressful circumstances. I am still quite, if John wishes, to press his amendment. I am quite entitled and inclined to continue to support it. John Finnie? I know what the cabinet secretary said about subsequent subordinate legislation. It is important that we keep all legislation under revision. However, with specific regard to that, the problems are well known and they are absolutely well documented. Can I say that the police deal with the responsible animals? Certainly, on the basis of my case load, a number of cases that I have dealt with, they deal with it very well. The cabinet secretary talked about additional support to communicate. I hope that we want informed decision making so that that will legitimise information that is obtained. There is ample case load to say that information that is obtained under GRS is inadmissible. I go back to the word in there. Anyone unable to understand sufficiently what is happening or unable to communicate effectively with the police should not be interviewed without having a solicitor present. It just seems fundamental. I will press the amendment. Thank you. There to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour please show. Those against please show. We have an abstention so it is four in favour, four against and an abstention. Oh yeah, so it does. I cast my vote against that amendment so there we are. It is not agreed to but I hear what the cabinet secretary has to say and I hope there is developments in that area to John Finnie. Amendment 58, in the name of Elaine Murray, already agreed with amendment 55. Can I remind members if amendment 58 is agreed to? I cannot call amendment 168. It is preempted. Move or not, move Elaine. Not moved. Amendment 168, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already agreed with amendment 55 to move formally cabinet secretary. Question is amendment 168. We agree to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 31, in the name of John Finnie, already agreed with amendment 30. Can I remind members that if amendment 31 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 169 which will be preempted. Move or not, move. Amendment 169, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already agreed with amendment 30. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Question is amendment 169, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Question is section 25, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Question is section 26 to 29, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 59, in the name of Elaine Murray, already agreed with amendment 55. Move or not, move. The question is, amendment 59, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. If we are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. It's 445 against no abstention that amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 60, in the name of Elaine Murray, already agreed with amendment 55. Move or not, move. Move. The question is, amendment 60, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There will be a division. It's not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Your hand was still in the air. I didn't know where you were going with it. It was still in the air. Right, so that's... Can we do that again, please, just to make it clear? Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. 4 in favour, 5 against, no abstention that is not agreed to. Call amendment 246, in the name of Alison MacKinnon, already agreed with amendment 29. Move or not, move. The question is, amendment 246, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I think that's a classic question. If you are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That's 3, 4, 8 against, no abstentions. That's a big apart. No, I know, I know, I'm just getting weary. That's 3, 4, 6 against, no abstentions. That amendment is not agreed to. It keeps you awake if I make mistakes. It just all yell at me. Call amendment 170, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already agreed with amendment 120. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Move. The question is amendment 170, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 171, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already agreed to. 120, Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Move. The question is amendment 171, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are? Yes. Go ahead. The question is, Call amendment 247, in the name of Alison MacKinnon, already agreed with amendment 29. Move or not, move. Not moved. Call amendment 172, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, group with amendments 174, 175, 177, 178, 179 and 182 to 187. Can I remind members that amendments 184 and 185 in this group are preempted by amendments 63, already debated in a previous group? Cabinet Secretary, please, to move amendment 172 and speak the other amendments in the group. Those are minor amendments in relation to under-18s, which follow from the earlier consideration that the committee has given to the two groups on social work involvement in relation to under-18s in police custody and rights of under-18s with reference to consent to interview without solicitor present, sending of intimation and access to other persons and other support. Those amendments complement and give effect to the provisions in the bill for the protection of child suspects while in police custody. Amendment 172 is a minor technical amendment, which clarifies that the person being referred to at section 30 is the person in custody. The effect of amendments 174, 175, 177, 179 as well as being minor amendments as part of the group on social work involvement in relation to under-18s, is to add to the circumstances where alternative arrangements to contacting the person requested may apply. Those are where it is not practical for the police to contact the person that they have been asked to contact, where the person contacted refuses to attend, or where the local authority advises against contacting the person that the police do not have to contact that person or continue to try to contact that person as may be the case. That case, intimation must be sent by the police to an appropriate person, as defined by section 315. Minor amendments in his group on social work involvement in relation to under-18s in particular amendments 176, 180 and 181 are associated with this. Section 30 of the bill sets out the rights of a person in police custody to have another person told that they are in custody. Section 32 sets out the rights of under-18s in custody to access a person sent intimation under section 30. It is possible that more than one person might be sent intimation under section 30. In that event, amendment 182 to 184 and 186 to 187 make clear that the police must give only one person so that intimation access to the child's suspect at a time through, though they may, in their discussion, give access to more than one at a time. This approach strikes the appropriate balance between facilitating support and not being unduly burdensome on police to manage the matter. Amendment 185 provides that the issue of whether the person contacted can attend at the person in custody in a reasonable time does not prevent the person being contacted by the police. I ask the committee to support those amendments, and I move amendment 172. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to come? Cabinet Secretary, I take you no one to wind up. Questions at amendment 172 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Questions at section 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendments 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 177, 178, all naming the Cabinet Secretary in all previous debate, and I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? There are no objections. The questions at amendments 173 to 178 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendments 61, the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendments 55, move or not move. The questions at amendments 61 be agreed to, are we all agreed? There are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. It's 4, 4, 5 against no abstentions that the amendment is not agreed to. Call of amendments 179, 180 and 181, all naming the Cabinet Secretary in all previous debate, and I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move amendments 179 to 181 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? The questions at amendments 179 to 181 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Questions at section 31 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendments 62, the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendments 55, move or not move. The questions at amendments 62 be agreed to, are we all agreed? There will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. 4, 4, 5 against no abstentions that the amendment is not agreed to. Call of amendment 182, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with 172, to move formally please. The questions at amendment 182 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 183, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with 172, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The questions at amendment 183 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 63, in the name of Elaine Murray, already debated with amendment 55. I remind members that, if amendment 63 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 184 and 185, which will be pre-empted. Elaine Murray, move or not moved. Call of amendment 184, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 172, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The questions at amendment 184 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 185, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 172, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The questions at amser cymdeithasol a bod yn tyfnio'r awl, yn rwyf. Yr angrifennid ym Y 58 yn amser cymdeithasol. Yn yw'r angrifennid ym 148 i mewn i'r angrifennid ym 149 i mewn i'r angrifennid ym 149 i mewn i'r angrifennid ym 149 a of Alison McInnes, who has already made her amendment 29. Alison, move or not, move? Not moved. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Cymru. Move. y byddwch fod yn ymlaen. Mae cymryd aethodol, maen nhw'n fhorffod gyda y byddwch a gael eu cyfryd, a phwy o'ch tympydd sydd wedi ymlaen. Rhyn i'n credu lle, nid i'n credu lai arbennwyd. Pwy o'ch tympydd yr un o'n credu lle. Y byddwch yn ynny i'n credu lle. Mae'r cymryd yn ymlaen, maen nhw'n credu lle. Pwy o'ch tympydd yr un o'n credu lle? Mae'r cymryd yn y byddwch yn ni arbennwyd. Mae'r cymryd yn ni arbennwyd yn y bêl. Saeth雪fnaeth, mae'n adeiladau i gael yn ei aa yn maith i ddaach. Gweld hynny yn ymwinech ddweud â'r drwy Ilion – ddweud hynny yn yr ymwyfyr, ddweud ymwinech drwy Elen. Yn yr ymwyfyr, ddweud ymwinech ar W189 – ddweud ydw i'r desmar yw ymwyfyr. Felly gwnewid i'r syniad wedi ymwyfyr? Rydym yn ymwyfyr. Yn ymwyfyr, ddweud yr ymwinech drwy Elen yn yr ymwinech drwy Elen. oedd yn iddynt i fy mwyfyrdd hynny, yn ddechrau, mwyfyrdd plants, yn roedwn i fynd i fy mwyfyrdd Ieithiol wrth yr aeth wedi eu call, amnynt i fy mwyfyrdd. Nae, mwyfyrdd. Cymru. Ac Fynau am mwyfyrdd? Mae ni'n ddim yn bwysig. Mae gweithio i fy mwyfyrdd hwn. Mae, cwrin. Mae, yr i fy mwyfyrdd hwn. Mae, mae, mae yn gweld. Mae, mae, mae, mae.  Mae'n wneud o'r iawn a'r awgrffod os ydych chi'n ceisio'n cael mblyneddau'r FF180. Mae'n gyllid dda'r awgrffod yn ymwneud. Mae'n ddweud o'r awgrffod? Mae f changeryn o'r awgrffod. Mae'n ddweud o'r awgrffod. Mae'n ddweud o'r awgrffod��iad hon gwheilio wedi chi'n bod yn dwad.ol am crawlysoeth tygfeydd,丹 dechaf? Ar Myfestog arteru, Maeeth y bnw imod. eifonlus darumu ddwyhaith. hanes locul o meiffyiw rip tygfeydd, y meddwl? rhi so railwayw, gaeth Freerys, beak gyd, yn barth meffaith, I agree to, I cannot call amendment 192, which will be preempted. Alison, please, to move amendment 252 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Section 36 establishes that a person who is in police custody has the right to have a private consultation with a solicitor at any time. At present, the bill states that this consultation should be in a quote, by such means as may be appropriate in the circumstances, for example telephone. I note the cabinet secretary's amendments 192 and 193 are drafting improvement, but they don't alter the meaning of this provision. In contrast, my amendment 252 amends the definition of consultation to stress that this should take place in person unless there are exceptional circumstances. It suggests that initial consultations can still take place over the telephone. My amendment highlights the importance of face-to-face advice, and just as Scotland has stated that solicitors are unable to adequately advise their clients by telephone alone since they are unable to assess the suspect's welfare and demeanour, nor does the solicitor have the same opportunity for access to information from the police concerning the suspected offence. Furthermore, the solicitor cannot readily make effective representations to the police concerning the decision to charge or further detain if they only advise their client by telephone. Cabinet secretary, please to speak to amendment 192 and other amendments in the group, please. My amendment 252 deals with an amendment to section 36 of the bill to provide for solicitors to be physically present during the police interviews, except in exceptional circumstances. As members will be aware, the bill extends the rights of access to a solicitor to all suspects held in police custody, regardless of whether the police intend to question the suspect, and this was welcomed by the committee in its stage 1 report. While it recognises that it is important for suspects to access legal advice in a timely manner, amendment 252 would require solicitors to attend police stations every time a suspect is to be interviewed except in exceptional circumstances. It is not clear from this amendment what would be considered to be exceptional circumstances. The Government has given extensive consideration to the appropriate means by which access to a solicitor should be provided to a person whilst at a police station to enable advice and assistance to be delivered in an efficient and effective way. Lord Callaway recommended that, subject to what can be reasonably funded by the Scottish legal aid board, or the specifics himself, that it is ultimately for the suspect to decide whether the advice from the solicitor should be provided by telephone or in person. Furthermore, Lord Callaway explained that initially the person will be expected to speak to a solicitor in private over the telephone, which will enable the solicitor to give immediate initial advice and to discuss whether the solicitor's attendance at the police station is necessary or desirable. As members will be aware, the current means by which suspects can secure legal advice is through the solicitor's contact line. The contact line is administered by the Scottish legal aid board and legal advice to suspects is provided through a mixture of solicitors employed by the legal aid board and private practice solicitors. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Suspects can either receive legal advice over the telephone or in person if so required. Not every suspect will want to or require a personal attendance by a solicitor. Solicitors are likely to want to consider what is in the best interests of their client, whether that is advice by phone or a personal attendance. The Scottish Government favours provision that allows for the most appropriate means of securing legal advice and to allow for the preference and requirement of the particular suspect. A telephone consultation will be appropriate for some individuals and in some circumstances. It is acknowledged that it may not be suitable for all, which is why the Government has chosen the most flexible, cost-effective and efficient means for suspects to secure legal advice. As I have just explained, the choice of personal attendance lies with the suspect in conjunction with the solicitor, which I consider to be a proportionate and fair approach. Finally, amendment 192 and 193 are technical drafting adjustments to avoid slightly awkwardness, the slight awkwardness of expressions in relation to consultation with a solicitor prior to interview. As I said at the start, this bill extends the right of access to a solicitor to all suspects held in police custody, regardless of whether the police intend to question the suspect. I consider this to be a significant step in demonstrating the progress and commitment that is being made to safeguard the rights of suspects and detained persons. I also consider that there should be time for the new provisions in the bill to bed in before making what could be unnecessarily or proportionately inappropriate changes. For this reason that I have explained, I would ask Alison McInnes not to press amendment 252. Any other members? Roderick, John. Just very briefly to say that, to emphasise what the Cabinet Secretary has just said, the choice really ought to be for the suspect in conjunction with his solicitor, and we haven't heard anything from Alison about the cost of these proposals, but I suspect it will be significant. John. There is a cost of services itself with not having the highest standards are just as applied to people, and I don't think Mr Campbell, for instance, would, given the choice of phoning someone or meeting them face to face and assessing the entire set of circumstances as laid out by my colleague, I know which he is likely to choose. Of course there will be challenges associated with this, but I think we should start off with new legislation with the best possible standards, and for that reason I will be supporting Alison's amendment. Alison. Thank you. Well, in closing, amendment 252 does not specify what the exceptional circumstances would be, and that is quite right, Cabinet Secretary, but the term is used elsewhere in the bill without any definition, so one must presume that the phrase is well known and can be readily interpreted. Just as Scotland's briefing suggests that without amendment 252 we would be condoning the provision of inadequate advice and I have a great deal of sympathy with that argument. As I noted last week in committee, a 2013 study by Police Scotland and an analysis of interviews conducted in the autumn of 2013 have both shown that the fact that 75% of suspects waive the rights to a solicitor, and I think we should all be very worried by that indeed, and this amendment would help address that imbalance that's in the system. It's important that interviews are not only conducted fairly, but are seen to be conducted fairly, and I will press the amendment. Questions amendment 252 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. There'll be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. 247 against, no abstentious. That amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 192 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I've already debated what 252, Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Questions amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There's groans coming from you. Call amendment 193 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I've already debated with amendment 252. Cabinet Secretary, move formally. Moved. Questions amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? You're saying yes before I'm even asked a question. Yes, calm down now. Calm down. Call amendment 253 in the name of Alison McKinnis. I've already debated with amendment 20. I move or not moved. Questions at section 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Questions at sections 37 and 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 194 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I've already debated with amendment 116. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Questions at section 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 254 in the name of Alison McKinnis in a group in its own. I'm pleased to move and speak to that amendment. Thank you very much. Amendment 40 seeks to update the definition of biometric information and improve how the use of samples is regulated. Members will recall my concerns about the use of facial recognition technology by Police Scotland in conjunction with other forces around the United Kingdom. The effect of my amendment would be to ensure that the retention of individuals' images by the police is subject to the same law as the retention of DNA and fingerprints. My amendment draws upon the arguably more up-to-date definition of biometrics contained in the last UK Government's protection of freedom acts 2012 and extends the regulatory regime to a wider array of relevant physical data. In 2006, the Scottish Liberal Democrats introduced the law governing the use of DNA. In 2010, that was extended to cover fingerprints, but new biometric technologies are being developed quicker than primary legislation can keep up with. For example, gate and ear recognition software may, too, soon be a very real possibility. We're seeing ear. We didn't realise our ears could be recognised, but there we are. That's why my amendment is future proofed as best as it can be, because it would also ensure that any new collection and use of biometric information and technology by the police must be subject to the agreement of Parliament through the affirmative procedure. In England and Wales, the biometrics commissioner recently stated that proper consideration should now be given to the civil liberties and other issues that arise as regards to the new biometric technologies. Urgent steps should now be taken to ensure that they are governed by an appropriate regulatory regime. In the absence of such steps, there must be a real risk that the considerable benefits that they could be derived from their use will be counterbalanced by a lack of public confidence in the way in which they are operated by the police and or by challenges to their lawfulness. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that Scotland is any further forward than the rest of the UK in regulating the use of emerging biometric technologies. Those technologies could obviously be a useful part of the police's toolkit, but they must be properly regulated to ensure that civil liberties and privacy are protected, and I move amendment 254. Thank you. Any other members? Roddie and Margaret? Thank you, convener. Just to say that in the long distant time when we consider things at stage 1, I don't remember this kind of issue being discussed at all, but it is an important issue. Obviously, I'd be grateful for some comment from the cabinet secretary on it. Margaret. Again, I think that what Alison McAllister makes sense is important. We keep pace with these new technologies and the proper protections that are in place. As Alison McAllister explained, amendment 254 would provide for how biometric information is used, retained and destroyed. I support the intention behind that. However, the effects of the amendment 254 would be significantly wider than that. The amendment could add significantly to the list of physical data that a constable can take from a person who has been arrested or detained. It would do so by adding other biometric information to the list of physical data in section 18 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995. The amendment uses the very wide definition of biometric information, including any information about a person's physical or behavioural characteristics or features that could be used to identify someone. That would be a significant change and implications could be far-reaching. I'm also conscious that we have carried out no formal consultation on this particular matter. This amendment would cover the type of physical personal data the police can take, the way it is used and the way it is disposed of. As always, we need to strike the right balance between the need to prevent and detect crime and the need to protect civil liberties. I believe that, at the moment, we have the right balance. However, introducing the changes provided in amendment 254 without the necessary consultation and consideration could alter that balance as an unintended consequence. Alice McKinnis will appreciate that we have had very little time to consult stakeholders or considered implications of this amendment. However, the limited discussions that we have been able to undertake have already raised a number of issues. I believe that we need to look at the whole area of biometrics in the round. We need to ensure that we have the right balance and the necessary safeguards in oversight in place. As Alice McKinnis is aware, I asked her inspector of constabulary in Scotland to consider including scrutiny of Police Scotland's use of facial recognition technology in its work programme, and they are currently carrying out that review at the moment. I expect that this review will be published in the next few months. The remit for this review goes beyond facial recognition alone, though, and considers the wider policing and societal opportunities and threats that arise from the police use of new and emerging biometric technologies. I would suggest to Alice McKinnis and the committee that it is sensible to wait for that review. Once we have seen the recommendations, we will consider options and can look at wider biometric issues in the round. There may be a need, for example, for a full public consultation at that particular point, and I am happy to discuss this with the committee once HMICS has published its report. In summary, I support the intention that lies behind the amendment. However, I believe that the effects of the amendment could be far-reaching with the high risk of unintended consequences, and it would not be appropriate to embark on such a major change without full consultation. I would ask Alice McKinnis not to press amendment 254. As the cabinet secretary said, HMICS is conducting that independent inquiry to look at biometric images. That was commissioned at the urging of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and I look forward to reading its findings. We have led the way in Scotland over governing the use of DNA, and we were taken belatedly to extend that to cover fingerprints. We always seem to be playing catch-up now, and I am anxious that we do not, but I am glad to have been able to air the issues and to hear the cabinet secretary's views on the matter, and I will not press the... You want to withdraw it. Alice McKinnis wishes to withdraw it. Is that agreed? Call amendment 195 and name the cabinet secretary and a group in its own cabinet secretary to move and speak to that amendment. Amendment 195 inserts a new section into the bill under which the police will be able to take drunk people suspected of committing offences to a designated place where they can receive help to recover from the effects of their alcohol intake and on-going alcohol issues can be addressed. This replaces a power that the police already have under section 16 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, which will be repealed through the effect of amendment 208. Therefore, I move amendment 195. Call amendment 41 and name of Mary PANT and redded debate box 39. Call amendment 43, name of Mary P story, redde debate box 39, move or not. Call amendment 45, name of Mary P story, redded debate box 39, move or not.暖faith dw i ddweud. Ac rwy'n ddweud o'i ddweud yn Cymru i ni stablen R150. Y stefno y mae ddweud eich amser. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Y Cymru i ni ddweud. M glyfwng â'i ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud. Diolch yn fwy o rimbodol eich ffordd yn Caerdydd. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud. Rwy'n gweithio arall gwlad cymdeithas Personal 1-9-6. Rwy'n gweithio arall gwlad cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7. Cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7 rwy'n gyffredinawyd a gan 50 peth, ac mae'r Cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7 yw i'r dweithio arall gwlad cymdeithas Personal 1-9-7. Ieg yn bryd y bydd unig cymdeithas Personal 1-9-6. A ben merlyw, yn y maes yn ymgyrch ar gyfer ein maes yn ein bod yn ar deimlo yr Amyn Paul yng Nghymru yn fawr ar gyfer 36 yma. Felly yn ddych chi'n diwethaf y byddwyr 35, a chwyfio gyda'r gyfyfyrredig ac yn ddysgu boeddwyr 34 yn ganodau. Ie. Ydych chi'n dydag 35 ac 36 ar gyfer 36 ymyau i gweithiau cyfaeliaethau aethau, acille yng Nghymru efallai ei wneud i gwyseud bod yn brwysig ac yn ti'n gyffredig. Rydyn ni, cymdeithasol biadau ladw i chi'n holl gŵel Cymru a chwyfio beth yna ffordd, cyfleidwyd ei bwysig hynny ac mae hwn yn gweithio gyda'r llwyddiant sydd yn arwihodd dyma. Ac mae'n byw'r gwaith i gyd yn ddiwyllg ymddiadau gyda'r llwyddiant cyfryd yn gweithio gyda'r llwyddiant cyfryd ymddiadau cyfryd yn gweithio cyfryd yn gweithio cyfryd yn gweithio cyfryd ymddiadau gyfryd yn gweithio gyfryd yn gweithio gyryd. Y corffordd mewn cwrs digwydd ei gwaith ag gorffordd neu chi yn gweithio gychwynent yn gweithio gyfryd, maen nhw'n England arrested but not charged?" It is suggested that it is assumed that a person arrested is guilty or that a suspicious individual is at least a suspicious person. Amendment 35 therefore requires a constable not to disclose information that might allow a person arrested but not officially accused to be identified other than when that was in the public interest. Any decision to disclose information would be made by a constable of the rank of inspector or above. amendment 36, allwz y constable to disclose information regarding the release of a person, not officially accused to victims and witnesses if this is in the public interest or promotes the self-safety and wellbeing of the victim or witness, and such information would be released by a constable of the rank of inspector or above. I move amendment 35 in my name. Thank you and Lach. Other members? We came around. Nobody else wishes to speak, Cabinet Secretary. The convener of the pubs of amendment 35 is to protect the privacy and reputation of suspects during an investigation. I sympathise with the intention behind amendment 35, but I consider that such provision is unnecessary. The committee previously accepted Police Scotland's assurances that they do not and would not release a suspect's name to the media when they have not been formally charged with an offence. I have seen no evidence that runs counter to that and, like the committee, I am reassured by Police Scotland's approach on this subject. In addition, we have always had a very strict contempt of court regime, which applies after charge to cases which are progressing through the courts and which prevent the release of information to the media. This regime will apply in relation to suspects who have been arrested and will continue to apply during the entire time of investigative liberation. The protection of the contempt of court act 1981 is statutorily afforded to the accused from the time of arrest. No one will be released on investigative liberation unless he or she is in police custody after being arrested for an offence, at which point the protection of the act is in full effect. The same protections will apply in the case of someone liberated on a police undertaking, since they too have been arrested. Amendment 36 seeks to ensure the safety of alleged victims when a suspect is released on investigative liberation. Again, I am sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment, upholding the rights of alleged victims and ensuring their safety is crucial to ensuring a safe criminal, a fair criminal justice system. This includes ensuring that, where they may be at risk, alleged victims are informed of the suspect's release on investigative liberation and any other conditions. However, this proposal has to be considered in the context of existing measures to notify victims of the release of the accused person by the court on bail, which were recently put into place as part of the work to implement the European Protection Order Directive and the Lord Advocate's guidelines to replace on liberation. We are currently considering how investigative liberation will fit into this landscape and are discussing with stakeholders to ensure that a consistent and proportionate approach to victim notification is put in place, taking into account the risk to and safety of such individuals. I would therefore ask Elaine Murray not to press the amendment. However, I would be more than happy to meet with her to discuss the issue in more detail and to provide an update on our proposals as we approach the stage 3 process. With respect to amendment 35, I appreciate that Police Scotland has given assurances, but assurances are no good if somebody has released the information. That does not help the person whose name may be smerched by information being out there that they have been arrested in a circumstance when they are never officially charged. I am inclined to press amendment 35. With regard to amendment 36, I appreciate that there will be some overlap between the Victimal Witnesses Bill, so I will not press 36. I hope that there will be some discussion prior to stage 3, in order to clarify what is happening. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Four, four, five against, and there are no abstentions, that is not agreed to. Call amendment 36, the name of Elaine Murray, or Regivate amendment 35, move or not, moved. Call amendment 198, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 198, be agreed to, are we all agreed? I am getting your yes's and no's muddled up. Call amendment 199, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Question is amendment 199, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 200, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 200, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 201, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 201, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 202, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Question is amendment 202, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 203, the name of the cabinet secretary, or Regivate with 144, to move formally, please. Question is amendment 203, be agreed to, yngnewisio ddoa i amddangos. sticksion overl бл allocate 144 meant 40 quesant 404 à derbydd 50 mwy oed 100 ned I  closet .... y gawdd hynny i gael Mae o'n dweud i'i gyd? Felly mae 5a oes iawn. Mae gyd yn ffrind â gwiseg a'r gwaith, oes iawn. Mae gennym unig, mae feddwl am gyfryd, nid yn maen nhw? Mae un uchymai'r Ymmogwr pwysig, mae yna llun los i'r Fwydd, maen nhw'n ddau? Mae'r mewn ym canonical. Y cwestiynau felly y yw'r ef i fawr yn gyngerweithio ni nhw? Y cwestiynau felly yw'r ef i fawr yn gyngerweithio ni nhw? Mae ydych chi'n ddweud y cwestiynau cymryd yn gwybodaith ar gyfer mi ar 7, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 5, 2, 1, 6, y cwestiynau cymryd yn gwybodaeth ar gyfer mi ar 2, 6, ac mae'n bwysig i gwrth各位 yn y cwestiynau cymryd yn teimlo. Rydyn ni, mae'r cwestiynau cymryd yn ddweud gyda'r gwestiynau gan gwybodaeth The amendment 206 amends a special statutory form of citizens arrest found in section 59 of the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. It talks about a person who has been arrested by a member of the public under that power being delivered into the custody of a constable. The new general power of constables to arrest without warrant under section 1 of the bill means that there is no longer a need for the 1982 act to make that provision. So amendment 206 provides for the repeal of this unnecessary provision. Amendment 207 and 213 amend the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 respectively to remove them from certain references to arrest. The types of arrest in question are quite different in nature from the types of arrest part 1 is intended to deal with. The word arrest is therefore removed from the provision in question so that the consequences of arrest provided for in the bill are not attached to those provisions. Amendment 208 and 215 are consequential on the previously debated amendments, which move the rules about giving information to suspects and sexual offences cases from the Criminal Procedures Act 1995 into the bill. Amendment 209 is a very minor amendment to make consistency within the bill. Amendment 210 and 212 provide for the repeal of provisions in the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995 relating to the police's duties in relation to child suspects. It is in consequence of the previously debated amendments, which move the rules about child suspects into the bill so that they are no longer required in the 1995 act. Amendment 216 deals with the other side of the coin. That is, it amends the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 to update its cross-reference to procedures under the 1995 Criminal Procedures Act so that they instead cross-reference to the equivalent provision in the bill. Amendment 211 is a set of consequential amendments to section 18, 18d and 19a of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995, which gives powers to a constable to take samples and prints. The amendment removes reference in those sections to detention, because, as members know, the concept of detention under section 14 of the 1995 act is being dispensed with. I move amendment 206. I take your orders to wind up, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed to are all agreed. I call amendment 207, the name of the cabinet secretary, ready to debate with the 206 to move formally, please. The question is amendment 207 be agreed to are agreed. I call amendment 259, the name of Margaret Mitchell, ready to debate with amendment 234, move or not, move. I call amendments 208, 209, 202, 201, 212 and 213, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. Can I invite cabinet secretary to move these on block? Does any member object to a single question that we put to these amendments? She says, we're worn out, we're not objecting anymore, no. The question is amendment 208 to 213 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 214, the name of the cabinet secretary, group of amendments 217, 218 and 219, cabinet secretary, please, to move amendment 214 and speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendments in this group deal with interaction between the provisions in part 1 of the bill and the rest, which are able to be made under other enactments. Generally, part 1 will not apply to people arrested under the terrorism act 2000. This is already provided for by sections 53, but schedule 8 to the terrorism act cross-references to the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 to apply certain protections under that act. Amendment 214 updates a reference in schedule 8 to the terrorism act to refer to the bill and its concepts instead of the 1995 act. Amendment 218 is in consequence of amendment 214 and simply puts beyond doubt that the disapplication of part 1 of the bill in relation to people arrested under the terrorism act does not mean part 1 does not apply to the extent previously provided for by schedule 8 of the terrorism act. Amendment 218 provides that part 1 of the bill does not apply to people arrested for service offences under the armed forces 2006 act. This act sets out its own rules for the treatment of suspects arrested for service offences. Amendment 192 provides ministers with the power to use subordinate legislation to apply some or all of the part 1 of the bill to arrest under the terrorism act 2000 and service offences under the armed forces act 2006 and, conversely, to disapply some or all of the part so that it does not operate in relation to people who have been arrested otherwise in connection with an offence. The terrorism act and, as mentioned, the armed forces act set out its own rules for people arrested under them and generally the bill does not impinge on those rules. There may, however, be some aspects of part 1 that it would be appropriate to apply if they are not already covered by the procedures in the other acts. For example, for service offences under the armed forces act it may be desirable to ensure that provisions relating to access to a third party or information to be recorded at the time of arrest do apply for the short period that someone suspected of a service offence is in police custody in the custody of police Scotland before being transferred to the custody of military police. Amendment 119 would allow ministers to disapply some or all of part 1 using secondary legislation for arrest that are not in relation to offences. There are many powers of arrest that do not relate to a person being suspected of committing an offence. For example, under the Adult Support and Protection Act 2007, there are powers of arrest stemming from the ability of a court to grant a banning order against a subject, prohibiting them from doing a variety of things, including prohibiting them from being in a specific place. There are other examples and it may not be appropriate in every case for part 1 of the bill to apply in its entirety. The additions of this power will allow the interaction between this bill and each individual piece of legislation to be specifically tailored as is most appropriate. I move amendment 214. Can I just say, Cabinet, that I'm glad to see you're wearying too, because I think you twice said 119, you said of amendment 219, so I think the official report will be suitably amended, but we forgive it, we understand that. Any other members wish to come in. I take you don't want to say that. So the question is that amendment 214 be a greater, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 215, named Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 206. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Question is that amendment 215 be a greater, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 216, named Cabinet Secretary, already debated with 206, to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 216 be a greater, are we all agreed? The question is that should one be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 258, name of Alison McKinnis in a group in its own. Alison, please to move and speak to that amendment. Thank you, convener, and I know that members are tired, but I hope they'll bear with me for this final amendment of mine today. It would introduce a code of practice in connection with identification procedures and interviewing of suspects, similar to that that is established by PACE in England and Wales. The post corroboration safeguards review stated that the evidence points persuasively towards the inclusion in this bill of a statutory requirement that there should be codes of practice relating to the interviewing of suspects and identification procedures, and it argued that further regulation through the introduction of codes should be introduced regardless of the abolition of corroboration requirement. My amendment seeks to implement the draft legislation set out in that review. It would require the Lord Advocate to issue codes of practice on the questioning and recording of suspect questioning and the conduct of ID procedures. It requires the Lord Advocate to regularly review the code, consult and lay a revised code before Parliament, and in the event of a breach it states that the common law fairness test would apply to the admissibility of evidence. The Lord Advocate last published guidance on the conduct of visual identification procedures in 2007. There are no such guidelines at all in relation to suspect interviews. Lord Bonomy observed that the standard operating procedures and practices implemented by each of the legacy forces were not uniform and that these regional differences persist within Police Scotland. Lord Bonomy's review highlighted that some practices in these areas are inconsistent. I think that that is worrying, given how critical those aspects of an investigation are. ID procedures and interviews often provide crucial incriminating evidence. My amendment would ensure that the interview and the ID operating procedures across the country are predictable and consistent, as the public would expect, and it would serve to improve standards. I move amendment 258. Alison McInnes has explained that this amendment is based on recommendations made by Lord Bonomy's post-corroboration additional safeguards review. When Lord Bonomy's report was published, I said that we would consider whether any of its proposals could be taken forward in this parliamentary session. However, on the whole, our preference was to take time to consider all the recommendations in detail and carry out a more holistic review of those recommendations alongside other reforms. I have advised the committee that we will therefore only take forward a small number of his recommendations this year. For example, we have introduced an amendment that requires the Lord Advocate to publish the prosecutorial test. I still consider that there is great value in many of the other recommendations, but such substantive and important changes to our justice system are required to be looked at in the round and alongside other potential reforms. For example, as members will be aware, the Scottish Court Tribunal Service is currently conducting an evidence and procedural review. In my view, the work that we are starting later this year should take into account recommendations from both those reviews to ensure that any future packages of reform is comprehensive and strikes an appropriate and fair balance. I do not consider that there is a significant gap in the law in the meantime while that wider package of reform is being looked at. I understand that the Lord Advocate already issues guidance to the police in relation to identification procedures, and this particular guidance is available to the public. The police produce guidance to officers for interviewing suspects and witnesses with numerous safeguards built into ensuring that human rights legislation is adhered to. The interviewing of suspects already receives significant scrutiny during the judicial process, and police procedures are constantly updated based on stated cases in the courts. The police are in the process of collating and investigations, standard operating procedure document, which will bring together the various legacy documents on interview and other matters relating to investigations. This guidance will include the specific guidance on the interviewing of children and vulnerable persons. Once completed, the intention of Police Scotland is that this guidance document will become publicly available, subject to any redactions for technical or security reasons. The recording of interviews is a subject area that would require careful examination to establish what measures were deemed appropriate and necessary. Any recommendation relating to an increase in audio or visual recording would lead to significant financial costs to upgrade infrastructure training and retention facilities. Again, I consider these issues. These are issues that should not be looked at separately, but as part of the wider set of recommendations by Lord Bonomy, alongside other relevant reform work. I also do understand the good intention behind this amendment. I hope that members understand why I do not think it is appropriate at this time to require such a code of practice to be published. This substantive issue should be considered alongside the other outstanding Lord Bonomy recommendations, as part of the wider criminal justice review project, due to start later this year. It will also be considered in the context of the justice digital strategy. I therefore ask Alison McInnes not to press this amendment. I am disappointed in what the cabinet secretary has had to say on this particular amendment. He says that the Lord Advocate already publishes guidance on the conduct of ID procedures. That has not been updated for eight years, so clearly not operating appropriately. I think that the conduct of interviews and the conduct of ID parades are fundamental issues in a different order to many of the other things that Lord Bonomy recommended. The cabinet secretary is saying that we will take together in a holistic way. I think that we should move ahead with this amendment. My amendment sets out that there must be full consultation ahead of the code of practice coming into place. We have seen during the stop and search debate the importance of statutory codes of practice and the benefits that they can bring in terms of consistency, transparency and accountability. I believe that there is considerable scope for interviewing codes governing how other procedures should occur without risking interfering in operational matters. It is essential in the interests of justice that interviews and ID procedures are conducted fairly and in a uniform manner. There is evidence that that is not the case at present. I will press my amendment. We are all yeses. The question is that amendment 222 be agreed to or are we all agreed. The question is that section 56 be agreed to or are we all agreed. Call amendment 216 in the name of Mary Fee already debated with amendment 39. Elaine, move or not move. The question is that sections 88 to 91 be agreed to or are we all agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to or are we all agreed. That ends, here are the words you have been waiting for. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill and not in my script is thank you all and we can now and all move into a darkened room in the lie down. We are not away yet committed the next meeting will take place on 27 October when we will consider an issues paid from the community justice bill before we finalise the stage 1 report. We will also consider a number of SSIs, discuss the work programme and options for budget scrutiny and I formally close the meeting.