Official Report

Good afternoon. Our first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Laura Hemmati, a former member of the Scottish Interfaith Youth Committee, who has travelled from Brussels to be with us.

Good afternoon, Presiding Officer and members of the Scottish Parliament.

I would like to talk to you today about empowerment—the need to empower neighbourhoods, children and young people in Scotland and beyond.

We live in an age of contradictions, in which our neighbours are fast becoming strangers. It is an age in which we are more likely to turn a blind eye and keep to ourselves than to engage with the community around us. The consequences of such trends are graver for the future of our children and young people than for any other part of society, as suspicion and indifference not only fuel the spread of prejudice, but have the most disturbing capacity to extinguish a social conscience within our young people.

Young teenagers, in particular, are all too often written off by their neighbourhoods as problematic and lacking in respect when, in reality, such young people are unrivalled in their

“acute sense of justice, ... eagerness to learn”

and their

“desire to contribute to ... a better world.”

Neighbourhoods must not be left to the paralysis of apathy and anonymity, but must be empowered by their leaders and encouraged to come together in starting their own innovative and sustainable projects for social integration.

Youth and voluntary work, after-school initiatives, youth groups, environmental projects, local sports clubs and Sunday schools are some of the countless activities that create the heartbeat of a community and give young people of all backgrounds ownership over their own development, the power of expression, moral clarity, skills for service and the opportunity to forge lasting friendships.

Young people are ready to make a contribution to the progressive development of their communities, but they need to be afforded the necessary tools and support mechanisms to use their real potential as part of a vital, spiritual learning process that occurs outside formal education, just as those members of the community who take pains to set up activities that engage and motivate our youth must also be acknowledged, valued and supported.

Never has the need to transform how we guide and assist our young people been more urgent than now. Nurturing a new culture of grass-roots youth initiatives at the neighbourhood level is, indeed, the surest way to ensure that future generations of young people will come to realise the benefits of contributing to the betterment of their society and to its unity. It is the surest way to ensure that young people will become facilitators of their own wellbeing and be confident in their ability to bring about change. This is a kind of education with

“the heaviest responsibilities and the most subtle influences”,

for which the entire community is responsible and which it must come together to accomplish.

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S3M-7274, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for this week.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 27 October 2010—

delete

followed by SPCB Question Time

followed by Ministerial Statement: Literacy Action Plan

followed by Health and Sport Committee Debate: Report on out-of-hours healthcare provision in rural areas

followed by Business Motion

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

and insert

followed by Debate on a Government Motion to treat the proposed Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill as an Emergency Bill

followed by Stage 1 Debate: proposed Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Financial Resolution: proposed Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill

3.20 pm SPCB Question Time

followed by Ministerial Statement: Literacy Action Plan

followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Report on Draft Revised Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Committee of the Whole Parliament: Stage 2 Proceedings: proposed Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Stage 3 Debate: proposed Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Business Motion

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

6.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

(b) the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 28 October 2010—

delete

followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Report on Draft Revised Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland

and insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: Economic and Social Impact of the Strategic Defence and Security Review—[Bruce Crawford.]

Motion agreed to.

The next item of business is consideration of motion S3M-7266, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, to treat the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill as an emergency bill.

14:05

I propose that the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill be considered under the emergency legislation procedure. If Parliament allows the bill to be dealt with under that procedure, I will explain the background in more detail in the stage 1 debate. For now, I will outline why the bill should be handled under that exceptional procedure.

The need for the bill stems from the judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in the case of Cadder v HMA, issued yesterday, which decided that the practice of police interviewing detained persons in a police station without allowing them access to legal advice is contrary to the European convention on human rights and therefore Scots law. That overturned decades of Scots law and overruled the decision of the highest criminal court of appeal here in Scotland just last year. We did not choose this situation, but we are required to address it.

There are three main reasons why I believe the legislation needs to be passed under emergency procedure. First, the judgment affects current practice in detaining suspects. That is at the heart of our justice system, with tens of thousands of detentions taking place every year. The ruling of the UK Supreme Court, notwithstanding the decision of our High Court of criminal appeal in 2009, means that, as we stand here, our statute is incompatible with the ECHR in a key part of the justice system. In my view, we must act immediately to correct that. Although the Lord Advocate’s guidance provides some protection in individual cases, it is a poor substitute for a specific and identifiable right in statute.

The cabinet secretary seeks to justify emergency legislation going through in one day with no scrutiny other than what we will have today. Will he make it clear exactly what difference there would be in leaving the Lord Advocate’s guidelines in place until we have proper scrutiny of legislation, rather than concluding matters today? Would he have any additional cases to worry about that he does not have in the first place?

I think that we might do. Clearly, the police operate under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. As the member knows, we are not entitled in Scotland to have legislation that is contrary to the ECHR. Accordingly, there is a possibility of challenges that could strike down the basis on which the police operate. We are in a situation in which 1,000 or so people are detained every week. Without new legislation, there is the danger that matters could be struck down and that we could be left in a position in which we have no right of detention, so I believe that it is essential.

I am sorry to press the point, but it is important. The Lord Advocate’s guidelines operate at the moment. Is the cabinet secretary suggesting that the guidelines are not being followed by police officers? If he is not suggesting that, what is the problem?

Of course the Lord Advocate’s guidelines are followed: the police accept the instructions and act as directed by our senior law officer. The law that stands in Scotland is section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The police are correctly taking actions on the basis of the wise and sound counsel given by the Lord Advocate, but at present we face the possibility of detention being struck down. In fact, we could find ourselves in the position of not having the power to detain, full stop. That would be a retrograde step that would damage the rights of those who are the victims of crime, never mind the safety of our communities.

I want to develop Robert Brown’s point. Is the cabinet secretary confident that the interim practice that has been in place while the court case has been going on is sufficient to ensure that no further challenges could be brought on the same terms? If the current arrangements are sufficient to have prevented further challenges, they are sufficient to prevent them for even just a few weeks longer, which would give us time for at least some cursory scrutiny.

There are two matters to consider. First, the guidelines were introduced on an assumption of what the decision that became available only at 9.45 yesterday may or may not have been. They were wise actions taken by the Lord Advocate to protect the nature of convictions in cases that are outstanding. They are guidelines only: they are not the statute that currently stands, which is why we are required to act.

Secondly, are we certain that we will not be subject to challenges? If only that were the case. Because of the lack of protection that this Government and Parliament have, we face challenges on each and every thing. It is feasible to envisage a situation in which the bill, if it is passed, will be the subject of challenge yet again by a small industry out there that seems to think that it can take public funds, in many instances, and go to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Court of appeal in Scotland. There is a clear necessity to take action.

The creation of a right of access to advice from a solicitor cannot stand on its own. If we are to create such a right, we must also act immediately to put in place the means to give effect to that right and to maintain an effective system of police investigation. I therefore believe that it is necessary to act immediately to revise the maximum period of detention and to provide powers to adjust legal aid to make that work.

Finally, the bill contains provisions to ensure that we give effect to the court’s intention that closed cases are not reopened.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I am sorry but we do not have time.

Certainty and finality are important principles. It is vital that we move immediately to apply time limits to certain types of summary appeals and ensure that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission takes account of those principles. Passing the bill today will show that the Parliament is committed to maintaining the ECHR compatibility of Scots law; that we intend to give practical effect to that right; and that we want to maintain an effective, balanced system of police investigation. It will also signal our intention to bring certainty to concluded cases as quickly as possible, which is very much in line with the spirit of the judgment.

The bill is longer and more complex than emergency legislation that has been passed previously in the Parliament; however, for the reasons above, I believe that the bill must be seen as a package, all the elements of which are critical to maintaining an effective system of justice in Scotland and must be included.

For those members who are conscious of the adage of legislating at haste and repenting at leisure, I offer the reassurance that, although we are required to act as a result of a UK Supreme Court decision, all these matters will be subject to further consideration in Lord Carloway’s review of law and practice, which will start very soon.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.

Motion agreed to.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7267, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill. I warn members that time is very limited and that they should stick to the times that they are given.

14:13

Yesterday, the United Kingdom Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate. The case considered the practice in Scotland of the police interviewing detained persons in a police station without ensuring that they have had access to legal advice. The Supreme Court decided that that practice was contrary to the European convention on human rights, changing decades of law in Scotland and overturning an earlier Scottish appeal court ruling by our highest court of criminal appeal just last year. The idiosyncrasies of the Scotland Act 1998 mean that Scotland is uniquely susceptible to the effect of ECHR challenges in criminal cases. Normally, in criminal matters, the Scottish court of appeal has the final say. However, this route of raising devolution issues is undermining its final authority. I will make clear to the UK Government our view that the centuries-old supremacy of the High Court as the final court of appeal in criminal matters must be restored.

In Parliament, we are always to pass laws on the basis of evidence that is presented to Parliament. Could the minister make any evidence at all available to Parliament to support the view that there is a requirement to increase the period of people’s detention in police stations? I am afraid that I cannot see that any evidence for that has been made available.

I am happy to advise that the Lord Advocate is happy to discuss such matters with any member in relation to any requirements for stage 2. If Mr Rumbles wishes, the Lord Advocate, as the senior law officer and prosecutor in Scotland, will explain why the Crown holds that view. Equally, we predicate our view on information from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I would think that, if Mr Rumbles spoke to any police officer in his constituency, he would be advised that the scales of justice require to be balanced. When they are changed in one direction, in the interests of the rights of the accused, they require to be balanced in the other direction, in the interests of the rest of our community.

On the issue of balance, can the minister advise us who has been consulted by the Scottish Government? For example, have the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Glasgow Bar Association been consulted? Apart from the prosecution interest, in the form of the Law Society of Scotland, which is the only body that is mentioned in the document, has anyone else been consulted?

There have been many meetings throughout the preparation period to discuss the difficulties that we knew would come, details of which were made available to us only at 9.45 yesterday. Obviously, those meetings included the Law Society, which represents the bulk of solicitors in Scotland. Also included were representatives from ACPOS, the Scottish Police Services Authority, the Crown and so on. I cannot confirm whether any of the other organisations that have been mentioned were contacted but, as I said previously, we cast our net widely to ensure that those who are part of the legal family—the court, the prosecution, the police and the defence—were all taken into account and had their views brought in.

We need to respond to the implications of the decision. I have announced my plans to establish a judicially led review of the law and criminal procedure in Scotland. However, we cannot wait for that to conclude. We need to act now.

The bill has four main aims. It will enshrine in statute a right to legal advice for suspects who are detained and questioned by the police. It will give us the necessary powers to ensure adequate provision of state-funded legal advice to suspects. It will extend the existing maximum six-hour period for detention to 12 hours, with the possibility of further extension to 24 hours, along with appropriate safeguards. Finally, it will make provision in relation to cases that occurred prior to the Cadder decision.

The provisions on legal advice create a right for suspects who have been detained to have access to advice from a solicitor before and during questioning by the police. That is necessary in order to bring statute into line with the Supreme Court judgment.

Does the cabinet secretary intend children to be treated in the same way as adults?

Children have never been treated in the same way as adults, and that will continue to be the case. Children are viewed in a special category as are, for example, those with learning difficulties. Clearly, they will be dealt with differently. Such matters are dealt with in the ACPOS and Crown guidelines. Children are dealt with according to their nature and are subject to the provisions around detention periods. However, they would usually be dealt with in the presence of a responsible adult, and that will continue.

The bill makes provision to ensure that we have the necessary powers to make the right to legal advice for suspects effective in practice. Section 2 will therefore amend the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 to give the Scottish ministers a regulation-making power to allow state-funded legal advice to be made available to suspects in certain circumstances without reference to the financial eligibility criteria.

Section 3 relates to the detention period. The six-hour maximum has been in place since 1980. Advice from ACPOS, the SPSA and the Crown is that the establishment of an automatic right to consult a solicitor places intolerable strain upon the six-hour limit. We believe that an immediate extension of the limit to 12 hours, with the possibility of extension to 24 hours, is essential to maintaining the effectiveness of police investigations. It will also assist with the practicalities of giving access, particularly in remote and rural locations.

The cabinet secretary referred earlier to safeguards that are built into the provision for the possible extension to 24 hours of the detention period. What are those safeguards?

Those safeguards are that the investigating officer will not be present; that the provision will be used only in relation to a serious crime; and that the officer who is present will be of an inspector grade or higher and will not have been involved in the case. Those are appropriate safeguards and they mirror those that are in place south of the border. As I said earlier, the parties’ business managers and justice spokespeople will have opportunities to discuss the guidance with ACPOS as it is produced.

To repeat, an extension to 24 hours will happen only in exceptional cases and only when a senior police officer confirms that it is needed. Justice requires checks and balances.

The final sections of the bill relate to appeals. The Supreme Court emphasises the importance of finality and legal certainty in concluded criminal cases, and the judgment takes us a long way towards that objective by ruling out statutory appeals on these grounds in concluded cases where time limits have elapsed.

On the question of finality and certainty, I have concerns about section 7. It appears to undermine the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s role and purpose by introducing what seems to be something new, which is

“the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings”.

That can apply to many cases. Section 7 will also allow the High Court, when it sits as an appeal court, to reject a reference from the SCCRC.

Lord Hope and Lord Rodger referred to those matters, and advised that they should be dealt with so that there was not a back route by which people would seek to bring through the SCCRC cases of some vintage that would not be brought in through the front door of the High Court of appeal.

That is appropriate where an appeal was made timeously or the relevant point was made, but we must balance matters. According to the Crown Office, there could be up to 120 appeals outstanding among the live cases that are currently affected, so we need to ensure that we protect the validity of those judgments and provide some certainty.

The bill applies the principle of finality through the remaining common-law appeal route and to consideration of cases by the SCCRC. That is why we have introduced section 7, which relates to the issues to which Lord Hope and Lord Rodger have referred. It makes clear that finality and certainty are essential for legal judgments, but it does not preclude the possibility of other factors being taken into account: it simply requires the SCCRC to take that factor—along with others—into account to decide whether a case should proceed through that body.

I urge Parliament to endorse that approach. We must ensure that we have the requisite checks and balances; when the scales of justice are tilted, it is necessary that we balance them.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill.

14:22

We on the Labour side of the chamber are keenly aware of the momentous nature of the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling with regard to our justice system. Today we are debating the issues that require our urgent action and attention, but the wider ramifications for Scots law will need much greater deliberation in the Parliament at a later date.

We can debate now whether the situation in which we find ourselves is fair to our legal system, of which we are rightly proud. We can debate how we got here, and whether ministers should have done more at the time of the European Court ruling in the Salduz case. However, we agree that today we must deal with the actions that we must take urgently and rightly to minimise the judgment’s effect on our courts and on the victims of crime.

There is no doubt that the fact that the ruling is not, broadly speaking, retrospective in effect means that we will be dealing with fewer cases than may have been feared. However, there will still be cases that involve very serious offences, and that is why we recognise the need to act.

We have seen the comments from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that counsel against emergency legislation, and the solicitor advocate John Scott has made the point that legislation that is made in haste is often repented at leisure. As members have said, this is not an easy issue; we agree.

I do not believe that any member views as desirable the fact that we have to consider emergency legislation. However, while we are always ready to provide opposition to Government measures when it is the right thing to do, we believe that in this situation it is responsible to accept the cabinet secretary’s argument for emergency legislation and the broader direction that he has decided to take as a result of the judgment.

The more I examine the detail of the judgment, the more I accept the case that the cabinet secretary has made for the legislation. Although I understand the restrictions that emergency legislation necessarily places on debate, some of my concerns would have been afforded reassurance by more dialogue and more notice of the detail of some proposals. However, I understand that we are where we are.

Does the member share the concern that I have expressed? Since July, we have been operating a system whereby the police service has had six hours in which to interview suspects. Is he aware of any evidence that has been produced to us in the Parliament today that shows that that has been a problem and that the time should be increased at the police’s request to 24 hours?

I am simply aware of the advice that ACPOS has given. I would have liked us to have had more debate and dialogue on the issue, but there are practical considerations about the time for which people can be detained if they are to access legal representation. I am sure that we will debate some of those issues during today’s debate.

I am persuaded that we should act quickly to change our laws on access to legal representation during detention and, as a consequence, the time limits for detention. I do not believe that we should continue with our laws if they have been deemed to be incompatible with European law. I also believe that it is important to act quickly to legislate to include the need for finality and certainty in the factors that the SCCRC must consider when it deals with applications, as I understand that that will have a material impact on how many appeals can go ahead. I accept the case that the cabinet secretary made in his response to Christine Grahame’s question.

However, that is not to say that we should not debate the issues in the limited time that is afforded to us today. Specifically, we question whether there should not be greater debate on whether it should be possible for an application to extend the period of detention from 12 hours to 24 hours to be determined by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above. If such extensions are to be made only in exceptional circumstances, perhaps the role would be more appropriately performed by a sheriff. I understand from the legislation team that we will be able to debate that proposal through an amendment from Robert Brown. I ask the cabinet secretary to give the matter serious consideration and provide a response during the debate.

The financial memorandum suggests that the costs to the public purse might be higher than was previously indicated, not only because of the cost of legal aid but because the provision of the necessary police staff will cost the police some £20 million. My colleague James Kelly will raise more questions on that.

I mentioned the concerns that many have understandably expressed about the emergency legislation. It is important that we allay some of those fears by ensuring that the Parliament has an opportunity in the near future to consider these important issues in the normal detail and timescale that we afford to legislation.

There are, of course, far broader implications for Scots law, particularly with regard to our long-established laws on corroboration. In that context, we welcome the cabinet secretary’s request for Lord Carloway to undertake his review.

Many will argue that we should not be in a position where we have to review the operation of such key tenets of our well-established legal system. However, we must recognise that, although our own court of appeal made its view on the matter clear, the UK Supreme Court, including the Scottish senators, had to reflect on what the European court said on the matter. The ruling on Salduz is already affecting other European jurisdictions such as Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Ireland. In any circumstance, we cannot be immune to that. Unless people are suggesting that we opt out of the ECHR, or out of Europe entirely, this is where we were always going to be. I do not dispute that it would be good to see an ECHR issue discussed that was not about the rights of the offender but more about the rights of victims, but the idea of having human rights guaranteed throughout Europe is important.

Those broad debates are for the future. We have important issues to resolve today, and our approach is that the Parliament should work together to do that.

14:28

The Supreme Court’s decision is of importance to Scotland’s criminal law—of that there can be little doubt. However, it would be wrong to suggest that it was the decision of some foreign court that was imposing its will on Scottish law. I detected more than a hint of that in some of the comments from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice during his various media interviews in the past 24 hours. I do not remember the Scottish National Party raising any of those concerns when the Scotland Act 1998 or the Human Rights Act 1998 were passing through Parliament. We should also remember that the leading judgments were given by Scottish law lords.

I would like to deal with two points in my speech. The first is the suggestion by some in the legal profession that the Supreme Court’s decision is itself not compliant with the human rights convention in so far as it does not apply to all cases, even those that are subject to final determination.

In my view, that argument flies in the face of the long-established principle of the rule of law, the basic intuition of which is that the law must be capable of guiding those who are subject to it. It must provide certainty and predictability; after all, we must know what the law is if we are to plan our lives and organise our affairs, and that applies as much to public officials as to private individuals. In other words, judicial decisions must enable public officials to administer the criminal law and requiring all judicial decisions in criminal matters to apply to all prior decisions would be a radical departure from the simple truth that lies at the heart of the rule of law.

That truth is captured in paragraph 103 of Lord Rodger’s opinion, in which he cites Chief Justice Murray’s judgment in the Supreme Court of Ireland’s decision in the Arbour Hill prison case. This useful analysis illustrates not only how the law can effectively operate retrospectively but, more important, how new judgments can affect previously closed cases. Chief Justice Murray said:

“No one has ever suggested that every time there is a judicial adjudication clarifying or interpreting the law in a particular manner which could have had some bearing on previous and finally decided cases, civil or criminal, that such cases be reopened or the decisions set aside.”

The reason that it has not been suggested is that no legal system comprehends such an absolute or complete retroactive effect of judicial decisions. To do so would render a legal system uncertain, incoherent and dysfunctional, the consequences of which would cause widespread injustices. On that basis, I do not accept the view that the judgment itself should be retrospective in terms of reopening previous cases, and I hope that the legal profession does not use it as the basis for future challenges.

Of more concern, however, is the SCCRC’s position. Does it have the power to reopen closed cases, as is perhaps suggested in the Supreme Court judgment? In paragraph 62 of the Cadder judgment, Lord Hope notes that it is for the commission to

“make up its own mind, if it is asked to do so, as to whether it would be in the public interest for ... cases”

already subject to final determination

“to be referred to the High Court.”

Furthermore, I note that under section 194C of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended, the commission

“may refer a case to the High Court”

where it believes

“that a miscarriage of justice”

has

“occurred”

and that

“it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made”.

Given my earlier argument about the need of retrospective judicial decisions in a common law system, it is not clear whether there is anything amounting to a “miscarriage of justice” in cases that are already subject to a final determination. In any event, it would surely not be

“in the interests of justice”

for the commission to refer any such cases. Ultimately, there might be concerns about chilling the courts in that, if the commission referred cases after the Cadder judgment, future courts might be reluctant to make decisions on criminal matters that would involve important changes to the law in case such a move led to a flood of cases under the SCCRC process.

Will the member give way?

No. Mr Lamont is closing.

It is critical that we legislate as far as possible to limit the commission’s ability to reopen decided cases. Although we certainly hope that the bill achieves that aim, I am not sure that it does. Indeed, I know that the Law Society of Scotland has a number of concerns in that respect. I hope that my concerns do not prove to be legitimate, but only time will tell.

14:33

Now that the terms of the judgment are available, it is clear that the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Peter Cadder v HMA is neither an isolated spasm of eccentricity from judges unversed in Scots law nor an overreaction to a ruling in the Salduz case by the Grand Chamber of the European Court, on which it was based. In fact, the two lead judgments in the UK Supreme Court were given in uncompromising terms by Lord Hope and Lord Rodger, Scottish judges of significant calibre on the Supreme Court, and follow a substantial body of jurisprudence that has required changes to practice in a considerable number of European countries, leaving Scotland increasingly isolated.

As a result, the chamber should take issue with—and take with a large pinch of salt—not only the indignant claims that we have heard in the past 24 hours that the European Court of Human Rights is unwarrantably trampling over our rights in this country but the strident claims that in some way the integrity of the Scottish criminal justice system is being impugned. Such claims are nonsense. It is absolutely right that Scots law be judged by the same standards of justice, procedure and respect for human rights that apply in other European countries.

Liberal Democrats were ready to back action to close off a flood of retrospective appeals, but the judgment rightly does not have retrospective effect. Live cases could not be affected by the legislation, of course, and the interim action that the Lord Advocate took with the agreement of the Scottish Government in July was timely and appropriate to halt problems with future cases.

I have listened with care to the cabinet secretary and am grateful to him for keeping Opposition parties briefed over the summer, but I am astonished that no consultation has taken place with the Scottish Human Rights Commission on one of the Parliament’s biggest human rights issues. The Scottish Human Rights Commission was set up by the Parliament with exactly the sort of situation that we discussing in mind. Its advice would have been the same as the view of the Law Society of Scotland: that there is no problem with the bill undergoing a proper process of development and consultation. Such discussion as has taken place has been highly unbalanced and has been primarily with the police and prosecution interests. That is an extraordinary fact about a basic civil liberty issue.

I have come to the view that the bill is ill considered, not justified by evidence and unsuitable for emergency legislation. The explanatory notes add nothing to the sum of human knowledge, and the policy memorandum is extraordinarily tentative on the evidence base for extending the six-hour detention period. It refers to “limited empirical statistical evidence”, securing the attendance of responsible adults in juvenile cases—that is adduced as an argument, but is, in fact, irrelevant—and additional options for police investigation by putting forensic evidence to the suspect. All those issues may be valid, but they are no justification whatever for emergency legislation.

Section 1 gives a detained suspect a statutory right to have access to a solicitor, but that right is watered down by defining such access not as a private interview; rather, the right is satisfied by other means such as a telephone call, perhaps even an e-mail exchange, “as may be appropriate”. Appropriate to whom? Subsection (8) of proposed new section 15A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 then takes that right away entirely by stipulating that the police can start the interview and questioning anyway with no solicitor present if that is necessary to the interests of the investigation. It seems to me to be questionable at the very least whether that is compliant with the ECHR and the judgment.

Section 3 allows the extension of the period of detention from six to 12 or 24 hours. It is not obvious to me that the net result is an extension of civil liberties, but the extension manifestly requires to be consulted on and justified. Six hours should remain the normal maximum, and the extension to 24 hours should be allowed only with the approval of an independent judicial official, such as a sheriff or magistrate. Richard Baker touched on that.

In summary, Liberal Democrats are unpersuaded of the need for emergency legislation and regard the bill as unnecessary in part and meaningless in part. We regard the need for the extension of the detention period as unproven at best, and wider issues are tacked on by the appeal procedures in sections 5 and 6. Christine Grahame touched on that. I will lodge amendments to tackle the most obvious deficiencies, but the Liberal Democrats will oppose the bill at stage 3 if it is not substantially changed to meet our concerns.

The bill raises vital issues relating to the proper balance between the rights of a suspect and the interests of the public in convicting people who have committed serious criminal acts. I am not convinced that it is ECHR compliant. Those serious matters need proper scrutiny by the Parliament in the normal way.

14:38

Today, we are in a predicament that has been forced on us by the UK Supreme Court, which is a folly built by Labour and supported by other unionist parties. Creating the Supreme Court took a historical anomaly whereby civil appeal cases were heard in the House of Lords and hard-wired it into the system. There should be no UK Supreme Court, as we simply do not have a single legal system within the UK. We warned those who supported its creation that it would result in a diminution in the independence of Scots law at the very least, and that is what we are now seeing.

I am slightly concerned by the tone of Mr Maxwell’s opening remarks. Is he saying that the Scottish National Party is now against the ECHR?

Mr Butler must have misheard me. I said that we are against the UK Supreme Court. We were against it when it was created: we have been against it from the beginning and we are against it now. It is Labour’s folly.

At the point of its creation, we were told that the Supreme Court would deal only with civil cases, yet it is dealing with an issue in a criminal case. The promises that were made about how it would act have been broken. It is time that we rid ourselves of the so-called Supreme Court and returned Scots law to where it belongs: Scotland.

In the past 24 hours, I have heard various reports about the matter, insinuating that, because our law is different from that of England, we are obviously in the wrong. That notion is simply mistaken.

Detention in Scotland is for a maximum of six hours. In England, it is 24 hours and can be extended to 36 hours or even 72 hours. In Scotland, a person can remain silent during detention, with no inference whatever being drawn from that silence. That is not the case in England. In Scotland, all interviews are recorded and, of course, there is the requirement for corroboration. The system is different from that in England and has served us well for decades. Although it is not perfect, it has provided a balance between the various parties’ rights.

Will the member give way?

Sorry, but I do not have time.

In October 2009, seven appellate judges in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland unanimously ruled that Scots law and practice provide adequate safeguards to protect the interests of suspects during detention. Among the seven judges were the two most senior judges in Scotland—the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk. I have more confidence in the decision of seven judges with a lifetime of experience in the law of Scotland than I have in a decision of the UK Supreme Court sitting in London with a majority of English judges.

On that point about English judges ruling on issues of Scots law, I remind members of what the Lib Dems told us back in 2004, when the Supreme Court was being created. Margaret Smith stated:

“if the supreme court is considering a peculiarly Scottish case, there is no question of Scottish judges being in the minority.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2004; c 5300.]

That has been proved to be completely wrong and Margaret Smith should withdraw that wholly inaccurate statement.

Underlying all the difficulties is the relationship between the ECHR and Scottish legislation. If there is an ECHR issue in a case, that should be taken to the European Court of Human Rights to rule on, as happens in any other jurisdiction. If that court rules against our procedures, that should be a matter for the Parliament to deal with, after due consideration. However, we are in the invidious position of having to suffer at the hands of the UK Supreme Court while we have it embedded into our rules that all legislation must be ECHR compliant. That is very different from the situation of every other country and it has the effect of leaving us extremely vulnerable to such cases and to the consequences that follow.

That is not to be against the ECHR; it is to be against the way in which the convention is implemented particularly and peculiarly in Scotland. As things stand, any ruling against us on ECHR grounds has the effect of making our legislation null and void—it is as if it never existed. That is not how the system operates elsewhere and it is not how it should operate in Scotland.

14:42

I regret the tenor of Mr Maxwell’s speech, which was unhelpful. We should be considering the issue in terms of the rule of law and not through any nationalistic prism.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

Instances of emergency legislation such as the proposed legislation that is before the Parliament are mercifully rare. Given the unicameral nature of this legislature, it is a necessary prerequisite, in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, that legislation should undergo exhaustive examination in committee after a period of extensive public consultation. That is correct and entirely sensible. However, there is little doubt that today is one of those exceptional occasions when circumstances dictate that the Parliament must act swiftly but try to act sensibly in a short space of time.

The UK Supreme Court has overturned a unanimous decision of seven judges sitting in the Scottish appeal court last October. However, two of the senior judges in the Supreme Court were members of the Scottish senate. We should consider the situation as we have it today.

The First Minister (Alex Salmond) rose—

No, thank you.

The Cadder judgment has to be dealt with, which means that we must act quickly. On that point, I agree with the cabinet secretary. However, I wonder why, when the verdict in the Salduz v Turkey case was made known in 2008, the Government did not use the two years following that to consult the public and to exhaust the parliamentary procedure so that we could have a sensible and timely examination of the serious matters that are before the Parliament today.

Stewart Maxwell rose—

No, thank you.

Given the few hours that are available to us because of the emergency nature of the proposed legislation, it will be difficult to discharge that important duty to act sensibly, but we must try. In the course of the afternoon’s business, we must test as far as is humanly possible the effectiveness of the proposals and try to ensure that they contain no unintended consequences.

We must try to remedy matters by way of the emergency legislation; there is no other way. Labour is willing to work with the Government to introduce appropriate reforms to deal with the serious issues that need to be addressed following yesterday’s ruling. In particular, I see no reason why agreement cannot be reached on the provision that will introduce a right of access to legal advice before and during questioning in police detention. That is a most sensible provision that is surely worthy of support across the chamber. The provision of an enabling power to allow for the adjustment of legal aid eligibility rules for legal advice and assistance, which will allow new arrangements to be designed for the provision of legal advice at police stations, is an aspect of the bill that seems both necessary and rational and is worthy of support.

However, I am not convinced of the need for the provision that would allow a person to be detained for a further 12 hours, making 24 hours in total, on the say-so of a senior police officer, where necessary and proportionate. I am concerned that such an extension might be disproportionate, with insufficient checks and balances. Perhaps during today’s proceedings the Government will offer some comfort on that aspect of the bill, and I will listen with interest to what ministers have to say on the matter. I hope that they can engage positively on the issue with parties across the chamber, especially with regard to the amendment that will be lodged by my Justice Committee colleague, Robert Brown.

14:46

On one level, I welcome the eagerness to bring the law into compliance with the ECHR as soon as possible. However, I have concerns about the possible risks that we might run by introducing the bill as emergency legislation. I am also concerned that whenever we discuss human rights legislation, there is a general tendency for some people to view it as an inconvenience to be worked around rather than as an important principle in our society.

It is essential that people have a right to bring a challenge where they feel that human rights violations might have occurred. That is a mark of a civilised society. The cabinet secretary seems concerned that there is some kind of overactive human rights mischievousness going on among a number of lawyers. Even if that concern were valid and the challenge were not the exercise of a necessary right in a human rights-based system, it would only deepen my concern about the haste with which we are legislating. If we make mistakes in a piece of emergency legislation, we could be making law without consultation or considered scrutiny and we might run the risk of further challenges that could be avoided but for a few weeks or months of scrutiny.

On the wider concern about how human rights are considered, and in reply to Stewart Maxwell in particular, we should be proud in Scotland and as members of the Scottish Parliament that Scottish Parliament legislation is not permitted to violate the ECHR—that is the correct relationship between this Parliament and the law. I was surprised that Stewart Maxwell seemed to imply that we should do things the way that Westminster does them, when Westminster so clearly has it wrong.

I will explain briefly why Scotland is in a difficult position. In a normal country, when the Supreme Court and, in our case, the Court of Session—

First Minister, I am sorry, but I must ask you to speak into the microphone.

If the Court of Session ruled against a person, they would have recourse to the Strasbourg court and we would be able to argue our case in front of that court. The reason why Scotland is uniquely vulnerable is that the system in Scotland does not even allow us the right to argue the case in front of the court in whose name we are required to make the changes to Scots law.

That only makes me wonder further why the criticism seems to be directed at the Supreme Court, but I will pass over that aspect.

An argument has been made about balance. The cabinet secretary’s idea is that, in bringing the law into compliance with the ECHR, we have to do so in a way that offers balance. I see no clear reason why time limits need to be extended in response to the recent case. The cabinet secretary seemed to imply that whatever change is necessary for human rights reasons must, for purely perception-based reasons of balance, be countered by a quite separate change in the other direction.

Of course the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland says that the time limits ought to be extended. When the Scottish Parliament asks security consultants what we should do, they tell us to spend more money on security measures. When any of us ask a life insurance salesperson whether we should get more life insurance, they say yes. In the same way, if we ask the police whether there are circumstances in which longer time limits would be useful to them, they will say yes. However, that does not mean that it is the right thing to do.

There are wider questions of detail, which we do not have time to go into—that is part of the problem—including concerns about section 7. Even in older cases, there must be the possibility of challenge, as Parliament was reminded only yesterday.

If the bill is passed in its current form, we will run the risk not only of facing further challenges as a result of errors that we might be making but of having to go back and rewrite the whole thing again next year.

14:50

The Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill is a very important piece of legislation that we should not even be considering. Unfortunately, the UK Supreme Court did not respect the position and decision of the Scottish criminal appeal court, where seven senior and highly respected Scottish High Court judges, each with a strong grasp and deep understanding of Scottish law, ruled that Scots law pertaining to detention and questioning did not breach the European convention on human rights. That is the response to what Patrick Harvie said: our senior judges made a ruling that Scots law did not breach the ECHR. However, the UK Supreme Court chose to muscle in on our criminal law by using its power under civil law and the ECHR. Importantly, that crucial decision was taken by five Supreme Court judges, only two of whom have a background in Scots law. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Thompson, I would be grateful if you could address more directly the general principles of the bill, which is what we are supposed to be debating at this point.

We are dealing with the decision and the ECHR, but I will do that, Presiding Officer.

A court with limited Scottish representation has overruled a court consisting of very senior Scottish judges.

The UK Supreme Court was established in October 2009 to deal with civil matters, despite opposition from the SNP. We warned that it was irrational for a court without a majority of Scottish judges to decide on cases involving Scots law. We also pointed out that the practice of hearing Scots civil cases in the House of Lords was a historical anomaly and that that role should be repatriated to Scotland. What other legal jurisdiction allows its appeals to be heard in another jurisdiction?

Unfortunately, the previous Labour-led Administration failed utterly to stand up to Westminster and protect the independence of Scots law. Cathy Jamieson, the then Minister for Justice, said at the time:

“The proposal for the creation of a new supreme court for the UK does not impact on the integrity and independence of Scots law”.

Unfortunately, she was wrong. Our warning that the UK Supreme Court was a threat to the integrity of Scots law has come to fruition. The complacency of Opposition parties has led us to this situation.

Mr Thompson, could you come now to the general principles of the bill, please?

Okay.

Robert Brown mentioned the 12-hour limit. Does he know that in England, under the Lib Dems—where they are in government—the limit is 24 hours? Does he support that?

This is Scotland.

Why is Robert Brown arguing against the 12-hour limit here, when the Lib Dems are in favour of a 24-hour limit south of the border?

The Scottish Human Rights Commission has claimed that this is no time for emergency legislation, but it fails to acknowledge that, in anticipation of the Supreme Court finding, the Scottish Government had already prepared emergency legislation that is intended to protect the victims of crime and minimise the possible number of appeals.

Indeed, for more than a year, the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and ACPOS have been working on the contingency plans. The Lord Advocate issued interim guidance to the police on 9 June, requiring them to offer detained suspects access to a solicitor before and during an interview in serious cases. That was rolled out to all cases on 8 July. The reality is that the SNP Government has been preparing for all possible decisions and, as a consequence, is ready to act immediately to protect the Scottish legal system and taxpayers alike.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the change should have been introduced a couple of years ago—we had to wait for the decision before we knew what we had to do.

Will Dave Thompson give way?

No. Dave Thompson must close now, please.

The case highlights dangers for the independence and integrity of Scots law.

14:55

The Scottish Government has the Scottish Labour Party’s full co-operation in examining the bill today, which is all the more reason why the cabinet secretary should be embarrassed by his back benchers’ speeches. Stewart Maxwell should be aware—as I am sure that he is—that, before the Supreme Court was established, more than 300 cases on devolution points were considered under the same mechanism. Does he not know that?

Dave Thompson asked what other country allows another jurisdiction to hear appeals on its cases. If members are not aware of it, I tell them that every country that signs up to the European convention on human rights signs up to the declaration—[Interruption]—that there can be a court judgment based on the convention.

Government members’ ignorance is staggering. If the point that the First Minister has made all day is about special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was given in the Cadder case, there is scope for discussion. I do not want the special leave provisions to be used in every case. However, we must be clear that, as we are signed up to the convention on human rights, even if the Cadder case had not gone to the Supreme Court, it would have gone to the European Court of Human Rights. I am pretty certain that that court would have ruled in the same way as the Supreme Court did.

If the case had been heard before the European court, the checks and balances of the Scots system could have been examined before that court.

When the Scotland Act 1998 was passed, no one envisaged that the devolution route of appeal—whether to the House of Lords or now to the Supreme Court—would be used in criminal cases to second-guess the Court of Session. Neither Donald Dewar nor anyone else envisaged that unintended consequence—that is what is wrong.

If that is the Government’s position, why did it say nothing when 300 cases on devolution points went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Is the First Minister not aware of that system?

I will address the issues that are pertinent to scrutiny in the stage 1 debate. Whether or not we agree with the decision in Cadder v HMA, it is a judgment of the Supreme Court that is based on the court’s view of the convention on human rights. It is down to the Parliament to deliver on that.

New guidelines that relate to the six-hour provision have operated for six months. A pertinent question that the Government should answer in the stage 1 debate is what has gone wrong—if anything—in the six months during which the guidelines have operated and why moving to a 12-hour limit is necessary. I remain open-minded about that, but I want to be convinced that the extension is necessary.

I share the concerns of Richard Baker and other members about allowing the period of detention to be extended to 24 hours in some circumstances. If we are to change the provisions, we must have clarity. The bill says that, if an extension is necessary, a person of inspector level can sign that off, provided that they are not involved in the case. That proposal needs serious scrutiny. The suggestion that it would be better for a sheriff to decide on an extension is worthy of consideration. A sheriff is available 24/7. Involving a sheriff would build safeguards into the system.

I think back to my experience of when the Parliament debated custody time limits and the Bonomy reforms. Courts are now repeatedly breaching the custody time limits that we in the Parliament set, because of how the legislation is worded. I do not want us to make the same mistake. The detention period must be extended to 24 hours only in exceptional circumstances, and the decision must be taken by someone at an appropriate level.

We come to the closing speeches.

14:59

We are, of course, in the chamber today to debate an emergency bill, as a result of an appeal in the 2009 case of McLean v HMA. That was followed by an appeal brought by Peter Cadder in which he claimed that, under European human rights laws, because he had no lawyer present during his police interview, his human rights had been breached. In the McLean appeal, a full bench of seven of Scotland’s most senior judges ruled that the position was not in conflict with human rights laws and that it complied with the ECHR. It was therefore perhaps a surprise to some that the UK court then got involved in the Cadder case. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary will take up the issue of the independence of the criminal law in Scotland with the UK Government. I am concerned about the subject.

The Lord Advocate appeared for the Crown in front of the Supreme Court. She was obviously concerned by what she perceived the result of the process might be. She therefore immediately put into effect interim guidelines under which suspects were allowed to insist on being given legal advice before and while being interviewed. We believe that that approach has worked well in the majority of cases. Of course, we really do not have any information about that, so it would be interesting to know the exact results of the guidelines and how they have worked.

There is concern that we are rushing into this legislation too quickly. This morning, I received an email from Professor Alan Miller, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, in which he shows that concern and from which I think it worth while to quote:

“The Commission welcomes the UK Supreme Court’s careful and considered decision in the case of Cadder v HMA.

This is no time for emergency legislation as there is no emergency. The floodgates have not been opened—this decision clearly does not apply to concluded cases. Rather, now it’s time to get it right, and we have the time to get it right.

Interim steps which are already in place provide an adequate basis on which to launch a broad based consultation so that the practical implications of the decision are properly understood before a response is adopted. This should take into account experience so far in implementing the Lord Advocate’s interim guidance as well experience elsewhere in Europe, including our near neighbours, which already have increased access to legal advice for those who are questioned by the police.

The Commission is concerned by a number of elements of the response announced today by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Not only does the timetable present no reasonable prospect for a considered response, but the proposed extension of the six hour time limit for detention on reasonable suspicion to twelve and then possibly twenty four hours at the discretion of the police seems a disproportionate response to a decision which was based on the need to recognise the vulnerability of those questioned in police detention.”

Like my colleague Robert Brown and the rest of the Liberal Democrat group, I am a strong supporter of the ECHR. However, we have concerns about rushing through this legislation just 24 hours after the Supreme Court ruling. The new system is likely to be considerably more costly. If the reports are correct, it may add up to £4 million pounds to the legal aid bill. Our greater concern is that it will allow suspects to be locked up for up to 24 hours, which could be a breach of their civil liberties.

I agree that the judgment is binding and that we have to accept it, but, in accepting it, we have to make as good a job of things as we can. As my colleague Robert Brown said, the Liberal Democrats will lodge a number of amendments at stage 2 that we believe will improve the bill.

Scots law stands on its own. There are at least two principles of Scots law: first, that corroboration is needed to get a conviction; and, secondly, that silence is not an admission of guilt and cannot be taken as such. As two lawyers suggested on “Newsnight Scotland” last night, yesterday’s judgment might bring both those principles into question. If that were to be the case, it could result in a fundamental change to Scots law. I am sure that we all would agree that none of us wants that unintended consequence. I am therefore very pleased that Lord Carloway is to conduct a review. I am sure that he will look at both those aspects.

Like Professor Alan Miller, the Liberal Democrats have concerns about our rushing through this legislation the day after the judgment in London. It is too hasty, and a period of reflection and consideration would have been a more considered response.

15:04

This afternoon’s exercise is one of fire fighting. We accept Robert Brown’s point that we are dealing with the matter rather more speedily than was necessary and have some criticisms of the way in which the Government has handled the matter, but it was confronted with a problem and it had to act. We fully accept that, which is why—in general terms—we will support the bill at decision time.

That said, I cannot but respond to some of the issues that Government back benchers have raised. The problem is not yesterday’s judgment or the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the original Salduz case, but the fact that we signed up to the European convention on human rights in a manner that has undoubtedly prejudiced Scotland. The Salduz case came from Turkey, which is a jurisdiction in which human rights have been treated in a somewhat cavalier fashion over many years. The case demonstrated oppression: a 16-year-old boy was held for three days for a politically related offence. The justices in Strasbourg had no option but to accept that that was wrong.

Unlike certain Scottish football managers, I do not think that there is much percentage in criticising the referees. Once the decision had been made in Strasbourg, it was inevitable that the Supreme Court would reach a similar verdict, as it did yesterday. It is a bit much for members who criticise the Supreme Court not to recognise that the problem arose much earlier, when they enthusiastically committed themselves to including the European convention in Scots law.

We find the bill unobjectionable in many instances. No one wishes anyone to be held in custody for any longer than is necessary, but we must recognise the practicalities. If someone is charged with a section 1 offence on the Isle of Skye, there is no possibility—especially in January—of getting a solicitor there from Inverness, Fort William or wherever within the time limits that have been laid down. We have no option but to extend those limits.

That is complete rubbish.

I am sorry, but time is restricted and I cannot take interventions.

There are unresolved issues. I have already mentioned to the cabinet secretary that there is a problem with section 7, which deals with appeals. I intend to lodge amendments, pending clarification of the matter. I hope that it can be resolved.

We must recognise that we are where we are and that there is no possibility of dealing with the matter other than by legislation. There is genuine and unanimous agreement on that. However, I express regret and some resentment at the fact that, as a result of the judgments, the Scottish law system—which, for all of its imperfections, is recognised throughout the world as, if not a paragon, at least one of the best justice systems—is being equated with the legal systems of Turkey and other countries in which human rights are not upheld. The Labour Government was responsible for the Human Rights Act 1998, which was supported by the SNP. That is a matter of considerable regret.

15:08

There is no doubt that this is a unique parliamentary occasion. We meet in emergency session as a result of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, which has serious implications for the Scottish legal system. The matters that are before us this afternoon require a serious debate. It is regrettable that some of the speeches by nationalist members did not address the issues that are before us in the bill. The cabinet secretary has spoken the language of consensus throughout the process, but Dave Thompson did not address the general principles of the bill and Stewart Maxwell’s speech was akin to something that would be heard at the SNP conference.

Patrick Harvie and Robert Brown expressed fears about passing emergency legislation. The decision that has been made is a landmark ruling that changes a central feature of Scottish law relating to suspects’ access to a solicitor. The Scottish Government is right to act. We have received representations from Alan Miller and others who say that it is wrong for us to rush into legislation, but my view and the view of Scottish Labour is that we cannot operate in a vacuum.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am sorry, I am rushed for time.

In my view, yesterday’s judgment means that our law is incompatible, in this aspect, with ECHR. Taking that view, it is not enough simply to have the guidelines that the Lord Advocate introduced in the summer. There is a vacuum, and we need legislation. We need certainty for the judiciary, for the police and for suspects. Above all, we need to legislate for victims. We must not expose ourselves to unsafe verdicts.

A number of serious representations have been made, and I have reflected on them overnight, but I think that the Government is right to introduce the emergency bill.

A central aspect is the introduction in statute of access to a lawyer. Like other Labour members, I recognise the guidelines that have been in force concerning the six hours of detention. The bill seeks to increase that to 12 hours. Bill Aitken pinpointed some of the practical issues in that regard, and spoke about the reason for there being support and sympathy for the proposal. As for the move from 12 to 24 hours, I am not unsympathetic to it, but so far I have not been totally convinced by the cabinet secretary’s explanation as to why that needs to be encompassed in emergency legislation.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

I urge the cabinet secretary to address those concerns, as well as the concerns that Bill Butler, Pauline McNeill and other members have raised regarding further authorisations being built into the bill.

One of the untold stories in this morning’s press is that of the cost implications of the bill. We were told that the potential legal aid costs are £4 million, and that is covered in the financial memorandum. On police costs, there could be £7 million of set-up costs for police consultation rooms. The requirement for the police to be on site to administer the new arrangements will mean that 480 officers will be required—144 sergeants and 336 constables. That will come at a cost of £20 million per year. That is a matter of serious concern, and its implications need to be considered. We need an impact assessment to assess what that means for front-line policing, and that requirement lends weight to demands for early publication of the budget.

The bill is necessary legislation. There are reservations about some aspects of it, but Scottish Labour is pleased to support the general principles of the bill.

15:13

I am grateful to members for their contributions. It is appropriate to touch on three matters that have been raised in the debate. First is the reason for the urgency; second is the action that is being taken and why it is being taken now; and third is the extension of the period of detention.

On the urgency of the situation, the judgment is clearly not as cataclysmic as one of the scenarios that we planned for. Had the judgment been retrospective, it would have been calamitous—that is accepted. That said, the decision is not simply prospective. There are current, pending and live appeals, so the consequences are still severe. We already have 3,420 devolution minutes relating to the Cadder case, but thankfully, according to the Crown Office, the serious cases number only 120. However, we should not underestimate the significant changes that require to be made to Scots law. The consequences—for victims, the courts, the police and everyone else—require us to act urgently. The world changed at 9.45 am yesterday.

Moving to the action to be taken, we require to clarify some of the points that Pauline McNeill and other members have made. As the First Minister correctly said, the normal situation in most jurisdictions is that there is a final court of appeal. That court of appeal in Scotland is the High Court of appeal, in which the case of McLean v HMA was dealt with. The First Minister was also quite correct to say that when the Scotland Bill was being considered and it was envisaged that human rights would be part of it in the context of the ECHR, nobody anticipated that solicitors would seek to take appeals on criminal law matters to the Supreme Court, which had not even been envisaged at that juncture.

However, we find ourselves having to take action, as happened with Somerville—I was grateful to members, whatever their party, for bringing in the one-year period of limitation, because without that protection from ECHR challenges we were exposed. Equally, in the current circumstances, people can use a devolution minute to deal with matters that are fundamentally meant to be dealt with by the criminal law and the highest court in Scotland.

On Pauline McNeill’s comments, I think that the First Minister made the position clear. The question is whether other jurisdictions are affected and find themselves challenged in respect of the ECHR. The answer is, of course, yes, because those who sign up to the ECHR accept that it is binding. We accept that it is incumbent on us—indeed it is part of our founding principles—to abide by the ECHR. However, other jurisdictions have the opportunity to go to the European Court of Human Rights, put forward their case and reflect on matters. Such an opportunity is precluded for the Government and law officers of Scotland. The decision of the UK Supreme Court was based on an interpretation of a Strasbourg decision. It was not a decision of Strasbourg on Scots law, so we do not have the opportunity to go to Strasbourg.

Bill Butler suggested that we should have addressed matters after Salduz v Turkey in 2008. It is clear that matters relating to Salduz v Turkey were considered in McLean v HMA in October 2009, when, as Stewart Maxwell said, the High Court of Scotland, presided over by the Lord Justice General, who was supported by his deputy the Lord Justice Clerk and by five other High Court judges of significance and stature in Scotland, found that Scots law in relation to the period of detention and lack of access to a solicitor was not incompatible with the ECHR.

I do not know whether Mr Butler was suggesting that we should have second-guessed the High Court’s decision before October 2009 or that after 2009 the Government should have unilaterally said, “Well, the Lord Justice General has got it wrong.” It would be scandalous for a justice minister to second-guess, never mind criticise, a decision of a supreme court sitting on a criminal appeal matter in Scotland.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

No. I do not have time.

The period of detention clearly requires to be addressed. First and foremost, let us remember the circumstances and where we are being taken by the UK Supreme Court, which is down the road to replicating the position south of the border under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. South of the border—a Labour Government presided over this situation; I used to meet Jack Straw and others—the period of detention is initially 24 hours, and on cause shown and by request of a senior officer to another senior officer it can be extended to 36 hours. At 36 hours, the case can be put before a magistrate and the period of detention extended to 72 hours.

In Scotland, as I said, there has been a significant change, with a lawyer being in for the interview that takes place. We simply seek to strike a balance by extending the period to 12 hours. Only on cause shown and in the most serious cases and indictable matters will that period be extended. It will not be extended on the basis that a breach of the peace or anything like that is being investigated. However, in cases such as attempted murder, rape and serious assault, there can be forensic and ballistic investigations. Mr Brown should consider that. If someone has been detained for 12 hours in a rape case and forensic and other investigations are taking place, must the person be released because we have not managed to secure a report of significance, which would allow an officer to put questions of fundamental importance to the accused? Is the person to be liberated just because he has been detained for 12 hours?

The question is how the extension is to be signed off. South of the border it is simply a matter of going to an equivalent senior officer. To require the issue to go before a judge or a justice of the peace seems to me to undermine the police investigation. It is a matter of balance, which is why we have introduced the bill as a matter of urgency. The scales of justice require that we acknowledge the importance of having a lawyer in for an interrogation during an investigation. Equally, we must remember the rights of victims and ensure that a fair balance is struck for those who police our communities and prosecute. If there is no extension, we undermine that balance.

The question is, that motion S3M-7267, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the general principles of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. As this is the first division, it will be five minutes.

15:19 Meeting suspended. 15:25 On resuming—

Members can vote now on the general principles of the bill.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you clarify where we are? I thought that we had been in the process of actually recording our votes.

No. There was a suspension of five minutes, and we are now in the vote. If you have voted, it is all right. [Interruption.]

Right, can you listen carefully? There has been a slight hiccup. Will everybody vote again, please? The hiccup was not—[Interruption.] That’s it now.

Members: No, it’s not.

The vote will be rerun.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]

Will members please be quiet? There is a point of order that I would really like to hear.

There is some confusion about where we are in the process. Can we start everything again?

That is indeed what we are doing. Your vote will be on the general principles of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill.

Members can vote now. It is working.

For

Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)

Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)

Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)

Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)

Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)

Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)

Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)

Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)

Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)

Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)

Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)

Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)

Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)

Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)

Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)

Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)

Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)

Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)

FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)

Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)

Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)

Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)

Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)

Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)

Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)

Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)

Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)

Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)

Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)

Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)

Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)

Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)

Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)

MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)

Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)

Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)

Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)

Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)

Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)

McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)

McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)

McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)

McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)

McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)

McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)

McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)

McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)

McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)

McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)

McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)

McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)

McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)

McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)

Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)

Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)

Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)

Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)

O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)

Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)

Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)

Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)

Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)

Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)

Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)

Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)

Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)

Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)

Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)

Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)

Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)

Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)

Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)

Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)

White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)

Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)

Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)

Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Against

Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)

MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)

The result of the division is: For 111, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill.

The next item of business is consideration of motion S3M-7275, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution in respect of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b)(iii) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Kenny MacAskill.]

Motion agreed to.

We will move to the next item of business. Members leaving the chamber should do so quietly, because if we do not proceed with the next item now it will give them less time for the later debates. [Interruption.] Please be quiet when you are leaving.

The next item of business is a statement by Mike Russell on the literacy action plan. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.

15:34

The development of literacy skills is vital to people of all ages in Scotland. We recognise without question that a strong, successful country requires strong and secure literacy skills.

Literacy is key to life chances for learning, employability and full participation in our society. Without literacy skills, health and wellbeing are impaired or negated. Without literacy skills, the chances of offending and repeat offending behaviour are greater. Without literacy skills, it is also more likely that an individual will live in poverty. Most profoundly of all, the likelihood is that the children of the person without literacy skills will also lack those skills. Without literacy skills, people in our society become locked into a cycle of difficulty that leads to impairment in learning.

In January, during our debate on the literacy commission’s report and its recommendations on ways to advance literacy across society, I made a commitment to work with the commission to bring forward an action plan for literacy in Scotland. Today, I am fulfilling that commitment and I am launching the Scottish Government’s literacy action plan. This is the first time since devolution that a Scottish Administration has laid out a concerted plan of action aimed at improving literacy levels.

The plan sets out our vision to raise standards of literacy for all, from the early years through to adulthood. It is designed to improve the literacy of all who would benefit from support across the continuum of learning. That will require sustained commitment and continuing action at all levels of Government, and support at all points of the education system and through wider public services. There needs to be a particular focus on those with the lowest levels of literacy. The action plan will build on existing good practice and ensure that literacy will have a central and continuing focus in education and related Government policies. I am confident that it will raise standards.

We have worked closely with members of the literacy commission as we have developed the literacy action plan, drawing on their expertise. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with them as we implement its actions.

The plan draws on the recommendations of the literacy commission, which were set out in its report, “A Vision for Scotland”. Those recommendations reflect in great part the aims of the Government, and many of the commission’s priorities feature in the literacy action plan.

I am sorry that Rhona Brankin is not in the chamber, but I would like to commend her—

She is behind you.

I am sorry that Rhona Brankin is not in her usual place, but I am glad that she is in the chamber, as I would like to commend her and others in the Labour Party on the establishment of the literacy commission, which has been a valuable innovation.

It is important to note, without being in any way complacent, that the need to improve literacy is not unique to Scotland. It is a persistent problem throughout the United Kingdom and internationally. The literacy skills of the majority of people in Scotland compare well across the world, but poor literacy among a minority is unacceptable.

We know that the majority of children in Scotland develop a good grounding in literacy skills in early primary education. However, a minority do not and, as pupils progress through primary and into secondary, the proportion that achieves expected levels of literacy decreases. That must be addressed.

We know that the overall Scottish adult population has a good level of literacy skills. Although around 25 per cent of the adult population would benefit from improving their literacy skills, only around 3.6 per cent of the adult population have very limited capabilities. Those results are encouraging, but we still have work to do to reduce the numbers of people who have issues with reading and writing.

We also know that literacy skills are linked to socioeconomic status and levels of deprivation, with those from more deprived areas experiencing lower achievement. Our ambition must be to break that link in order to create a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish.

The evidence suggests that there need to be a number of priorities across learning: breaking the link between poor literacy levels and deprivation; improving the skills of the few who have difficulties with basic literacy, particularly those who are vulnerable; ensuring that young people progress successfully from basic to advanced literacy skills; and raising advanced literacy skills for all.

The literacy action plan sits within the context of existing policy frameworks, and it is important that it does so. The curriculum for excellence is clearly one of the key routes to drive forward improvement, but the broader education system and wider socioeconomic policy are also important. The early years framework, the curriculum for excellence, the getting it right for every child agenda and our adult literacy and numeracy strategy are of central importance as the national policy frameworks through which we will deliver our vision.

What happens to children in their earliest years is key to outcomes, including the improvement of educational attainment in childhood, adolescence and in adult life. There is a strong relationship between early life experiences and how children learn. Positive influences in the early years are important and will improve a child’s life chances.

We will ensure that literacy development is a key priority for our youngest children as they take their first steps into learning, helping to stem the problem of poor literacy early on. We will encourage our early years delivery partners, including those in health and social work as well as in education, to develop new and innovative approaches that will lay the foundations for literacy development for our most vulnerable children.

For school-age learners, curriculum for excellence is already under way. It will ensure that young learners develop the basic literacy skills that they will need to thrive in the 21st century and move beyond those to gain the more advanced skills that will help them to reach their full potential.

Curriculum for excellence inevitably has literacy at its core. Literacy is mainstreamed across all subjects and it is the responsibility of all practitioners to work on it with our young people.

The new Scottish qualifications are progressing with the development of new literacy units, which are available to those in our schools and adult learners. The units will help to develop literacy skills and ensure that learners’ attainment is recognised.

We must acknowledge that early identification of a child’s additional support needs and learning difficulties is important in breaking down barriers to literacy and attainment. We will therefore encourage all local authorities to ensure the early identification of support needs for each child, and encourage all early years practitioners to be aware of and act on the personalised assessment and the learning and support needs information.

I expect that, for each child, any barriers to literacy will be identified early and appropriate support to overcome those barriers will be put in place. Interventions are most effective before a child falls behind, and it is important that we work together to ensure that no child does so.

We know that as learners progress into adulthood some will still need support to develop their literacy skills. Adult learners have different needs, motivations and personal circumstances, and there are critical transition points at which the provision of support is more important. Those include leaving formal education, finding a job, re-entering a community after a period in prison and becoming a parent. To reach the diverse range of adult learners, we will continue to offer a variety of learning opportunities, with flexible delivery methods and learning programmes that are relevant to learners’ lives.

The recently published 2009 Scottish survey of adult literacies provides a good basis on which to move towards a refresh of our existing adult literacy and numeracy strategy, which we will launch by the end of the year. We will build on collaboration with our partners and service providers to strengthen our support for adult learners, particularly those in our most deprived communities. We will build awareness of and access to the appropriate services, ensure that our practitioners are well equipped to support learners and continue to monitor and evaluate impact.

The action plan highlights the importance of supporting young people and adults in the justice system to help to improve their future prospects. That will include prioritised screening for offenders who are likely to have profound and particular literacy difficulties.

Beyond the learning environment and community, there are other key influences on literacy. Employers, for example, have a role in developing vocational literacy skills so that employees can improve their chances in their professional and working lives.

The media, and the broadcast media in particular, can have a strong influence on how we use language, and it has a broader impact on literacy. We will engage with the media to discuss their role and responsibility in contributing to our vision.

We want to develop a strong reading culture in Scotland, where reading is a valued activity from the earliest age. Sharing books in a family environment and the love of reading that it creates enriches the family experience immeasurably, is likely to be passed from generation to generation and has a major beneficial impact on individual outcomes. We will continue to work with partners to support measures to develop Scotland as a literate, reading nation and continue to encourage Scottish writing and publishing activities, on which much Scottish reading depends.

At this time of challenging financial circumstances and huge pressure on resources, it is more important than ever for all of us to work together to improve literacy for all, with a determined focus on the most vulnerable. We must use our combined resources productively to ensure that we achieve our vision for literacy in Scotland.

We will facilitate a broad partnership, including with those agencies that are outwith the formal education sector. We need involvement from all services—including health, justice and employment—that can make a positive contribution to our vision.

We will identify the key support relating to literacy that is currently being delivered by agencies and institutions. That will enable us to make the most effective use of resources, target future work more effectively on priorities and encourage interagency working throughout the country. We have worked closely with many partners to develop the plan, and we will continue to do so as delivery of it progresses.

We want to maintain the momentum that was begun by the literacy commission and followed up by the launch of our plan. We will establish a standing literacy commission to facilitate and oversee the delivery of the actions that the plan contains, and I give a commitment that we will report to the Parliament on progress over three years.

I commend the first literacy action plan to the Parliament.

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I will allow 20 minutes for that.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Given that the literacy commission reported in January, I would have welcomed the statement more warmly had we not had to wait so long. The cabinet secretary says that it is a statement of ambition, and it is much more that than a plan of action. Although we on this side of the chamber support the establishment of a standing literacy commission, we would have been much more enthusiastic had the cabinet secretary, first, taken forward the literacy commission’s core recommendation that there should be zero tolerance of illiteracy in Scotland and, secondly, put in place the resources that are needed to remove the barriers that prevent too many people from learning to read, write or count.

This morning, we heard from the cabinet secretary that teacher numbers are in a continuing downward spiral, for which he gave a sort of grudging apology while blaming the councils. I therefore ask him what discussions he has had with local authorities about making resources available for the development and implementation of local literacy plans, what help he can give with the continuous professional development that is needed to make the changes to which we all aspire, and whether authorities are in a position to protect existing learning support provision as well as to add to it in order to meet the needs that have been identified by the literacy commission and in the document that was published today.

Through you, Presiding Officer, I also ask the cabinet secretary when any of that will start. Try as I might, I cannot find a timetable or a financial commitment in either the plan or the statement. To use a phrase that was coined by a US presidential candidate, where is the beef?

I call Elizabeth Smith, to be followed—[Interruption.] Sorry. I call the cabinet secretary.

I thought that I should reply, Presiding Officer, although I accept that the question was scarcely worthy of it.

I regret the tone that Mr McNulty has taken, although I suppose it is typical, and I am used to it after 11 months in my post. The Administration has worked hard with the literacy commission, and the people whom Labour chose to lead it, to develop a plan. We are already implementing parts of it because, as I said at the beginning, it focuses the work and attention of a range of agencies on the priority that literacy has become.

There is no downward spiral of anything in Scottish education. What we have is a commitment to take forward the key issue of literacy as a priority, as I said when I responded to the literacy commission, but to do so across Government, across agencies and within the curriculum. We already have a number of actions that are bringing those together and focusing on the curriculum for excellence. It is all in the document, which has been welcomed by those who work in the sector.

I am sorry that Mr McNulty thinks that the production of Scotland’s first-ever literacy action plan is simply an excuse for him to tediously repeat his political prejudices. I do not think that it will be seen like that by those who are keen on improving Scotland’s literacy and I deeply regret that he takes that attitude. I had believed that he might behave differently on this occasion, but then I suppose I will never be disappointed by the low level of Mr McNulty’s ambitions.

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of both his statement and the literacy action plan. I welcome the majority of the contents, particularly the commitment that he has made to the synthetic phonics method of teaching, which has unquestionably raised standards in three local authorities in Scotland and which I believe can go a long way towards improving the disappointing statistics for reading literacy. Attainment in primary 3 is generally pretty good at 75 per cent, but I am afraid that it falls to only 40 per cent by secondary 2.

I have two questions. First, what specific plans does the Government have to improve teacher training in teaching literacy skills, which is urgently requested by several primary headteachers writing in the current edition of The Times Educational Supplement? Secondly, will the cabinet secretary spell out the specific detail of what page 9 of the document states will be a better assessment process of literacy standards among primary school pupils?

I thank Elizabeth Smith for those important questions, which serve to highlight where the issue is going.

With regard to specific plans for teaching training, I have discussed the issue with Graham Donaldson on one occasion. Indeed, I indicated to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that I have continued a dialogue with Mr Donaldson throughout his review of initial teacher education. Some interesting information is emerging that although primary teachers in particular might be confident in teaching and pedagogy, they lack confidence in specific skills, which might well include certain aspects of literacy. The issue will feature in Mr Donaldson’s review and I expect that we will be able to take it forward.

As for assessment, I have a particularly strong interest in ensuring that early interventions take place. Where literacy problems arise as a result of learning difficulty, which is the case in many, though not all circumstances, we should be in a position to assess that difficulty as early as possible and assist children in setting things right. I think that that is one of the key tools that we can use. Indeed, some local authorities are already doing so, and I encourage other local authorities to do the same. I find it profoundly wrong that in one or two places in Scotland it is still possible for a young person with a learning disability to fail to have it diagnosed throughout their entire schooling. Anyone who has heard Sir Jackie Stewart talking about his school experiences will know that that has happened in the past and that the earliest intervention that we can possibly make in identifying learning difficulties and disabilities and helping young people with them will pay profound dividends.

I welcome the literacy action plan and the establishment of a standing literacy commission to oversee its delivery. I support, in particular, the cabinet secretary’s comments on early intervention and the need to focus on our poorest children.

On early identification, which I think is absolutely crucial, how will the cabinet secretary guarantee that any barriers to literacy are identified early and how will such work be taken forward? Secondly, what is the Scottish Government doing to identify what works and what does not work in improving literacy to ensure that best practice can be shared across Scotland? Finally, given that local authorities will be expected to develop local literacy strategies to reflect need in their own areas, will those strategies be subject to any central monitoring or evaluation to ensure that they are improving standards and are contributing to the sharing of best practice across authorities?

The standing commission will play a strong role in sharing good practice and I look forward to its work. In its new incarnation within the newly merged organisation, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education will also play a strong role in ensuring that literacy and numeracy, which now form a core element of the curriculum, are observed. The fact that literacy and numeracy are no longer being put to one side or seen as a specialist matter, but actually form part of the curriculum, is actually a very important innovation in Scotland, and we should not forget that.

As the plan indicates, I am keen to take that a step further and ensure that the practice of early identification grows. A number of local authorities are carrying out that work and I am happy to provide information on those that we know about; after all, some hide their light under a bushel while others do not. We will also want the standing commission to encourage the practice to spread elsewhere and I am very happy for the chamber to debate the issue and examine other means of ensuring that it happens. It is crucial to what we are trying to achieve.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that this is Scotland’s first literacy action plan? Does he agree that it shows that the Scottish National Party takes action where it sees need; that it is shameful that Scotland had to wait until the SNP was in power before any action was taken on literacy; and that it is rank opportunism for a party that was in power for 10 years to start whining about it only after the Scottish people consigned them to opposition?

I tend to agree with the member, but I am trying to be generous. I hope that, as the questioning continues, Mr McNulty will be seen to be an aberration in this matter. However, I will not say anything more about that, because I hope that we will have a positive response to what has been my positive gratitude to Rhona Brankin and the Labour Party for the establishment of the literacy commission. I responded warmly to the commission. I met it on the day that it published its report. We had a debate on the commission in the chamber. I took the issue forward, the commission has been involved in developing the plans, and I have paid tribute to it. I see an opportunity for us to work together to get things right, and I hope that we can do so.

I, too, welcome the action plan and the establishment of the standing commission.

The cabinet secretary will know that the most recent evidence from the 2009 survey of achievement indicates that 20 per cent of pupils in primary 7 did not reach their expected reading level and a third of primary 7 pupils did not reach their expected writing level. I have had the opportunity to look at the plan and to see the proposals relating to continuous professional development, the assessment of literacy skills and reports to parents. Will the cabinet secretary expand on what will change in P1 to P7 to address those figures?

Wendy Alexander raises an important issue. We know that there are unacceptable dips in performance at various stages of the educational journey. One of the many purposes of the curriculum for excellence was to show that they had been smoothed out and high standards had been maintained. We need to ensure that work is done on assessing and following up literacy levels from the earliest stages in primary schools. It is not enough, as has happened until now, to shine a spotlight on primary 6 or 7; rather, we need to check literacy levels and, if there are shortfalls, ensure that we make them up. We need earlier assessment in primary 1 or primary 2. If that is coupled with the assessment of learning difficulties, we will get a good, personalised picture of the individual child in the very early years of primary school and will then be able to follow that child through personalised learning. To ensure that high levels are maintained, they can be checked later on in primary school and again at the crucial stage after the transition from primary to secondary school. It is a matter of the combination of the curriculum for excellence and the methodology, and ensuring that education is personalised and literacy is integrated as a core activity in all education. We hope that that will be picked up.

The member will know that there tend to be rises after dips, which is interesting. Transition seems to create inconsistencies as well as other difficulties, and emphasising better transition will certainly work out well. It is rather interesting that one tends to find that transition difficulties are not nearly as great in schools with a single campus and a flow-through. There are issues to do with change.

Wendy Alexander asked questions that it is correct to ask. A lot of work is being done and will continue to be done to address those questions.

I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement.

The literacy commission has highlighted the decline in Scottish performance in international tests of literacy in the programme for international student assessment and progress in international reading literacy study tests between 2000 and 2006, when Labour and the Lib Dems were in power. Does the cabinet secretary have any insights into what went wrong in that period that might have led to such a decline? What has the Scottish Government taken from that period as examples of what to do and what not to do to meet best practice?

That is an interesting question. I know that Kenny Gibson is tempting me to be partisan, but I do not want to be and I will not be.

It seems to me that, from 1999 to 2003, the Parliament decided that there was a problem with Scottish education in general. Those who remember the national debate on education, in which Wendy Alexander was deeply involved, and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee’s inquiry into the purposes of education will know that broadly similar conclusions were reached in that debate and by the committee. It was concluded that there was over-examination and over-inspection in Scottish education, that it was too shallow and that not enough connections were being made. Therefore, it was agreed that Scottish education needed to change. That change started in 2004-05 with the introduction of the curriculum for excellence, and the change is working its way through. However, education is like the proverbial tanker—it takes a while to turn round—so I do not think that we will see the effect of the change in improving education in Scotland for some time. That is not to say that standards of education in Scotland are low, but they could be higher. I think that the curriculum for excellence will make the difference.

All successful education systems throughout the world have two characteristics in common. One is that they rely on the highest quality of teaching and the second is that they have a consistency of policy and a consensus about policy that is not short term. If we stick with curriculum for excellence and do not succumb to the temptation of being partisan about it, and if we can get it operating well, which we are trying to do, we will achieve long-term benefits. I appeal to the Parliament to accept that advice.

I, too, welcome the Government’s literacy action plan. There is little in it with which I disagree. I also welcome the establishment of a standing literacy commission. However, I am still concerned that the references to assessment are too woolly. I am sure that the cabinet secretary knows that the key feature of successful literacy plans such as that in West Dunbartonshire Council and those in several other councils has been the regular use of diagnostic assessment using standardised testing. There are references in the plan to functional literacy, but the report of the literacy commission is underpinned by a commitment to ensuring that, as a minimum, all youngsters become functionally literate. How, specifically, will functional literacy be tested?

If we wait until primary 1, there is a danger that that will be too late for some children, particularly those from deprived backgrounds. Will the cabinet secretary give a commitment to consider screening children in nursery school for communication and pre-literacy skills, which several local authorities do and which is another key feature of successful literacy plans?

The member raises two important issues. On pre-school screening, there are arguments for screening early, but also arguments against. One of the arguments against is that some learning disorders and difficulties do not develop and are not identifiable until later on. I am by no means ruling out that suggestion, as it is an interesting development. I would like to continue to debate it with the standing literacy commission to consider whether it is possible.

Curriculum for excellence provides the framework for assessment. Having literacy at the core of curriculum for excellence means that there will be personalised assessment of what has been achieved, of capability and of how to proceed. That is a rigorous process, but I am happy to meet the member to discuss further how we should do that. I want to ensure that the member’s connection with the literacy commission is renewed with the standing commission, so that she can continue to make her points. I know that she has a commitment to the issue.

I want to get in all members who have a question, so I ask for succinct questions and answers.

In his statement, the cabinet secretary referred to CPD, which is an important element of the overall plan. What consideration have he and the other partners that will be involved in implementing the plan given to teacher training? Teachers who are not specific English teachers are responsible for addressing literacy, but they might not feel confident about that. Has the cabinet secretary spoken to Graham Donaldson about the review of teacher training that is taking place? What steps are being taken to ensure that Learning and Teaching Scotland and the Scottish Qualifications Authority are tied into that? I have had a look at some of the materials on the LTS website, and it seems to me that it would perhaps stretch those who are not English teachers by profession to follow what is expected of them.

I said to Elizabeth Smith that I have spoken to Graham Donaldson about precisely that matter, but I just confirm that I have spoken to him about the confidence of people who undergo teacher training in their teaching skills—the pedagogy—and about their lack of confidence in specific subject skills, even in primary. We are concerned about that, and I am sure that Graham Donaldson will take that forward.

On the other issues that the member raises, I am absolutely certain that, with the standing literacy commission, we can consider the matters and make progress on them productively. The standing literacy commission will focus the work of a range of organisations. LTS, the SQA and HMIE have been key players in developing the plan and they will be key delivery agents. I expect them to show the strongest commitment to getting it right.

One key step in addressing literacy in secondary schools has been the introduction of the Scottish Government’s new foundational national literacy qualification. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on progress on the qualification and say how he sees it fitting into the overall literacy strategy?

I decided early on in my tenure that the existing plan needed to be refined. We have tried to make sure that it fits in with the examination system in the fourth year and that there are specific freestanding units. That is going well and I am happy to let the member consider the advice on the qualification that I am currently receiving from the management board.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7212, in the name of Gil Paterson, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee report on the draft revised code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland.

16:05

I am pleased to open this debate on the draft revised code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

On 10 June, the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland laid before the Parliament a consultation document on a proposed revision to the code of practice for ministerial appointments. The consultation is on the first revision to the code of practice that has been proposed since 2005.

Public bodies play an important role in delivering services to a wide range of communities and parts of Scottish life. The boards of such bodies are required to ensure that those services are provided efficiently and effectively. The code of practice plays a key role in ensuring that there is transparency and fairness in the way in which ministers make appointments to the boards of public bodies and ensures that those individuals who are appointed have the necessary skills and experience to maintain and develop the services that are provided by public bodies. The revised code that we are debating today is intended to support that process by setting out clearly what should be expected at each stage of the appointments process for applicants, members of public bodies, Scottish Government ministers and officials, as well as the commissioner and her team.

In considering the code of practice, the committee heard evidence from the commissioner on the various aspects of the code. I put on record the committee’s thanks for that evidence and for the commissioner’s engagement with the committee in developing the revised code. The committee also notes that issues that were raised by the commissioner in previous reports to the Parliament, such as the requirement that ministers should always have a choice of candidates from which to make an appointment, have been addressed in the proposed revision. The committee welcomes that.

The committee report makes specific comments on four areas of the revised code: ministers being provided with a choice of candidates from which to make an appointment; the use of alternative application methods; the requirement for ministers to keep a written record of appointment decisions; and the fit-and-proper-person test that will be introduced in the revised code.

Ministerial choice in appointment decisions was considered by the committee in 2009. The draft revised code moves away from requiring that ministers be given a choice of candidates in relation to every appointment. That reflects the nature of some appointments for which potential appointees are required to meet certain specific criteria, such as holding a professional qualification or having held a particular office. However, the committee noted that in circumstances where a choice of candidates cannot be provided, it is important to ensure that any individuals who are recommended to ministers have been assessed to confirm that they have the necessary skills and experience for the role.

The committee noted the potential benefits of using a range of alternative application methods to encourage and enable a wider range of applicants to become involved in the public appointments process. Although it recognises that potential benefit, the committee believes that some form of written application, adapted to suit the particular position, continues to provide a reliable way of assessing a candidate’s suitability.

I turn to the requirements for ministers to keep a written record of appointments decisions. The committee had some concerns about the potential for the appointments process to become subject to politicisation.

You should be finishing now, Mr Paterson.

Okay.

An element of subjectivity in appointments decisions would be necessary where a minister was presented with a choice of equally qualified candidates from whom to make an appointment.

Having said all that—and given that you are looking at me, Presiding Officer—I will conclude. Subject to my comments, the committee is content to endorse the draft revised code of practice.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 6th Report, 2010 (Session 3): Draft Revised Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland (SP Paper 491), together with the Official Report of the Parliament’s debate on the report, should form the Parliament’s response to the consultation by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland.

16:10

I commend the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its diligence in preparing the draft revised code of practice, which is before us today. The current consultation is on the first revision to the code of practice since 2005 and it is intended to reflect the experience of the code since we last revised it. It also follows the introduction of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner’s equalities strategy, “Diversity Delivers”, in 2008.

I am sure that a number of my colleagues are away preparing their amendments for the item of business after this one, but I can say on behalf of the Labour Party that the approach that has been taken in revising the code is to be welcomed. It is a step forward to move away from the detailed chronological approach of the current code to a format that sets out the requirements that should be met at each stage.

In the short time that is available to me, I will refer to one particular area: the alternative application methods. I recognise that the current code anticipates that every applicant will complete an application form, the content of which will determine whether they are selected for interview. I agree with the commissioner, who has observed that that process appears to favour applicants who carefully orchestrate and complete application forms. She recognises that that is a barrier to people from underrepresented groups. That view was reinforced by a number of stakeholders, including chairs of public bodies. I welcome the revision in that regard. The proposed code will allow a selection panel to choose any fair, open and transparent method of selection for interview that it considers appropriate, given the position to be filled and the people to attract.

I will highlight some exchanges between the commissioner and members of the committee. Robert Brown referred to the “magic circle” of applicants who become serial applicants to public bodies. That is a well-chosen phrase and I concur with his view. I have noted over the years those who have become well-kent faces on the quango boards. Many people serve our quango boards well, but I have to say that many of them have been recycled from other elements of public life. We should recognise that those who play a crucial role in community organisations in our constituencies, such as housing associations, community councils—dare I say it?—and tenants and residents associations seem to be underrepresented on quango boards.

The approach that has been taken is to be welcomed and the draft revised code of practice is to be welcomed, but more important is that we look forward to ensuring that it is taken forward in practice.

16:14

I am happy to make a very brief contribution to this short debate and to support the committee’s endorsement of the draft revised code of practice, subject to the comments that the committee’s convener has made.

It is clear that people who are appointed to public bodies should have the appropriate skills and knowledge to allow them to make a useful contribution to the work of the bodies on which they serve. In seeking the right people for the positions in question, it should be open to anyone with those skills and knowledge to apply and to be considered for appointment by ministers.

The appointing board must have the necessary levels of skills and knowledge to be able to select the right people to recommend for appointment by ministers, because it is crucial to get the right people in position for each public body.

One of my concerns, on which I questioned the commissioner when the committee took evidence from her, is about the competence of panel members who are tasked with assessing applicants for public appointments. That issue was flagged up in consultation on the revised code by stakeholders who include—importantly—the chairs of public bodies.

The current code requires selection panel members to be familiar with its content, but it does not say that panel members must be competent to assess applicants by the assessment methods that are chosen, nor does it require them to be knowledgeable about equality and diversity issues and about how such matters might affect the outcome of appointment rounds. I share the commissioner’s belief that a requirement for competence and knowledge of those matters should have an impact on the people who apply for roles on selection panels and—ultimately—on the make-up of the boards that they select. I therefore agree with her that those attributes should be a requirement in the revised code of practice. The committee made no comment on that in our report, so we agree, too.

Some selection panel members might well have all the necessary skills and knowledge at the outset, but I am reassured by plans to support new members and to help them to develop in their roles. It is important that selection panellists are effective and can select the right people to put before ministers for appointment.

When I asked the commissioner whether she envisaged a general induction for new panel members, she said that

“quite a good briefing happens at the panel pre-meeting”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 14 September 2010; c 399.]

and that she plans to run familiarisation workshops on the new code. She intends to use the five months between the code’s publication on 1 April and its implementation on 1 September for training. If the Government says that it, too, would like some initial training of panellists, that could be done in the months from April to September.

In this short debate, not all speakers can go into detail on all aspects of the revised code, but the committee’s convener did so ably at the start. I will close merely by reiterating that I am happy to support the motion that is in his name.

16:16

As Paul Martin said, the debate has a link with the broader debate on the Cadder situation, which we are dealing with during the rest of the afternoon. The link relates to high standards in public life—the need for a code of ethics, human rights standards and all that sort of thing to apply to everything that we do, particularly in relation to public issues and public appointments.

Paul Martin was right to touch on the fact that the pool of people who apply for public appointments is perhaps too small. Behind the formality of reports such as the committee’s, the key issue is that we widen ordinary people’s knowledge of the availability and potential of posts and give them confidence to become part of a wider pool of candidates from which to choose. It is undoubtedly an issue that some people are recycled around the public appointments scene. To an extent, the appointments process lends itself to that, because it requires a certain skill—which all students who go through schools, colleges and universities today have developed to perfection—in how to write a curriculum vitae. That is an element that lies behind the situation.

It is important to remember that, as the code says, the overriding principle is that selection should be based on merit. The people who are appointed should best match the skills, knowledge and personal qualities that are needed for the appointment. It is reasonably clear that many people should have the qualities to match the job specifications for public appointments that are on offer, but we do not always manage to reach such people to get them to apply.

I will make two comments on the report. Paul Martin touched on alternative application methods. As the convener of the cross-party group on visual impairment, among other things, I think that it is important that people who require to make applications in alternative formats should be able to do so. However, even that is subject to the overriding principle of appointment on merit and of people matching the job’s requirements. That is important.

My final point is that, having been a minister, I am aware that it is important that ministers should have a choice in appointments. However, we should not allow the system to be bogged down by formalities, if difficulties arise in particular situations. The committee’s comments about that achieve the right balance.

On the whole, we are moving forward well on public appointments. The improvements that the commissioner has suggested and the committee’s comments in the report form a good basis for going forward. With those comments, I support the motion.

16:19

Scottish ministers welcome the opportunity that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has given the Parliament to debate the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland code consultation document.

All public bodies, including those that are regulated by the commissioners, play a vital role in Scottish civic life. They serve Scotland’s diverse population. Indeed, it is precisely that diversity of background, experience and skills that we are committed to seeing reflected on the boards of the bodies. We therefore welcome the intention behind the revised code for greater simplicity, reduced bureaucracy and a proportionate and risk-based approach to public appointments. If those intentions flow through to the way in which the code is implemented, we believe that it will encourage a wider and more diverse range of applicants. Scottish ministers are very clear that they want to see people who have never before applied for a public appointment applying for such appointments.

The commissioner indicated that she will publish guidance to support the new code. It is essential that the Government be fully involved in developing that guidance. At that stage, it will be much easier to iron out any scope for misunderstanding or differences of interpretation than will be the case at a later stage. The last thing that anyone wants to see is appointments being held up by debates on process. Working together will ensure a common understanding and the most appropriate approach to delivering successful outcomes for such ministerial appointments. Our aim is to reduce the length of time that the appointments take. We cannot afford to elongate the process; under the current code, appointments can take up to six months.

I turn to the new code, a key change in which is the welcome reduction in the number of principles. We believe that clarity of outcomes must be the first consideration. Once that is agreed, it will help us to focus on the skills and expertise that we seek in potential applicants for a role. We welcome the focus on encouraging people to apply. In addition, we are committed to ensuring that the experience of applicants who go through the public appointments process is a positive one. Clearly, not everyone can be successful in gaining an appointment, so it is essential that they are treated with dignity, professionalism and respect throughout the process. Constructive feedback is therefore a very important part of the process. The feedback must be based on gathered evidence and should be offered in a way that helps the applicant to learn from the experience and allows them to give feedback on how the process was for them.

The proposed code includes a responsibility on ministers to ensure that the person to be appointed is a fit and proper person for the role. Clearly, we always want to ensure that anyone who is offered a public appointment is a fit and proper person. It is very important that the Government understands what the commissioner means in making such a statement. Being a fit and proper person appears to us to be a normal part of any appointments process. Such a statement is therefore not strictly necessary in the code.

We welcome the intentions that lie behind the revised code for greater simplicity, reduced bureaucracy and the proportionate and risk-based approach to public appointments. That said, we want to engage with the commissioner to understand more clearly the intentions that lie behind some of the detail and to ensure that the move from intention to implementation is as smooth and effective as possible for all parties—applicants, public bodies, commissioners and ministers.

16:24

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I thank members who contributed to the debate and committee members for their work in considering the draft code of practice. I also thank the commissioner in that regard. In addition, I thank the clerking team for the work that they undertook in support of the committee.

The code of practice is the core document in relation to the operation of the Scottish public appointments process. It sets out the requirements and expectations that apply at each stage of the process. As such, it is important for the code to be maintained and revised in the light of experience, if we are to ensure that ministers continue to make appropriate appointment decisions. Together with the commissioner’s equality strategy, the code has an important role to play in engaging a broad range of people from across Scotland in public appointments. This afternoon’s short debate has reflected that.

Paul Martin spoke about the alternative application method and barriers to underrepresented groups. Importantly, he spoke about people who play vital roles in our communities. As all of us know, those people are underrepresented. Nanette Milne spoke about the skills that are required by panel members; the committee discussed that issue. Robert Brown spoke about the higher standards that are required in public life and the fact that the pool of people who go forward is too small. The minister spoke about the need for diversity to be reflected. The committee debated those issues.

The main themes of the committee’s consideration of the revised code were ensuring that candidates for appointment are assessed fully, ensuring that the work of public bodies is supported effectively, and ensuring that the appointments process is—and is recognised as being—open and fair. In the light of those themes, there are two areas in which the committee recommended that the commissioner might wish to consider changes: the requirement to keep a written record of appointment decisions and the operation of the fit-and-proper-person test at specific stages of the appointments process.

Notwithstanding its specific recommendations, the committee is content that the revised code of practice, along with the supporting guidance that the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland intends to issue, will provide an effective framework to support the operation of the public appointments process and contribute to the effective operation of Scottish public bodies. I support the motion in the convener’s name.

To allow members to consider the amendments that have been lodged at stage 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill, I will suspend the meeting until 5 o’clock.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will take Patrick Harvie’s point of order first.

This is the first that we have heard of a change of timing. The amendments that have been lodged were circulated recently to members by e-mail, without any indication that the timing of the process would change. Can you provide an indication of the expected timescale for the rest of the process and indicate at what point it was decided that the time at which stage 2 would start, which was previously 4.20, should change?

The Presiding Officer took the decision that members would wish to have a bit longer to consider the amendments. I cannot answer the last part of the question—which was not a point of order—at the moment, but I will do so as soon as I can. Does Margo MacDonald have the same point of order?

My point of order refers to the code that is established when members are sworn in as members of Parliament. The clear implication is that we will produce to the best of our ability legislation that is required by the people whom we serve. I suggest that we are not doing that this afternoon. What we produce may be correct, but it will be subject to much less scrutiny than such an important piece of legislation requires. I request that we consult standing orders to see whether there is any other way of treating the matter properly.

That is not a point of order, but you have put your comments on the record. I suspect strongly that the Presiding Officer has allowed a suspension simply because members want longer to examine the amendments that have been lodged.

Further to my earlier point of order, Presiding Officer, in what way is a query about the timing of decision time not a point of order? If it is not, how are we to find out when decision time will be?

It was not about decision time—we were about to consider a bill at stage 2. Those proceedings will now start at 5 o’clock.

16:28 Meeting suspended.  

I advise members, for their guidance, that proceedings will be suspended until 7 o’clock.

18:30 Meeting suspended. 18:59 On resuming—