 queillentau cymaintol gyda'r Brindol Cresedau Llywodraeth yng Nghymru? Felly mae'n grifiteilfaith ar gyfer y Prif Weinidog. Ie, mae'n ddweud hynny Ieagol yn ei ddweud. Ieagol yn ddweud pan oeddiwch gyda'r Brindol Cresedau Llywodraeth cymaintol gyda'r Brynod Cresedau Llywodraeth Ieagol, trefnod cael ei dwydig yn ei ddweud, ac mae'r coleg ac yn ei ddweud deiladol gyda'r Brexitanc mewn coleg, I thank the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill also. I also want to extend my thanks to the many stakeholders and individuals who gave evidence to the committee. I was encouraged to hear so many speak to the benefits that pre-recording evidence can bring. Some rightly pointed out the challenges and areas where more can still be done to improve our criminal justice system for the most vulnerable witnesses. That is something that I am very aware of and very much one of the reasons that I set up the victims task force. I look forward to this afternoon's debate, which I have no doubt will be positive and constructive on the significant proposed reforms. I am grateful for the Justice Committee's support for the general principles of the bill and in particular its endorsement of the proposed new rule requiring the evidence of child witnesses in the most serious criminal cases to be recorded in advance of the trial. The committee made a number of detailed recommendations to which the Government responded to yesterday. This afternoon, I will set out the principles of the bill and the positive changes that will bring to the criminal justice system if passed by this Parliament. I will also address some of the key points that the committee raised. First, it is important to acknowledge the work of the Lord President, Lord Justice Clerk, the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, evidence and procedure review. This work made recommendations on how to improve the treatment of vulnerable witnesses. The work also involved wider stakeholders and created a long-term vision for how evidence could be taken. It is also having a more immediate positive impact, in particular due to the new High Court practice note on evidence by a commissioner. The bill would not have been introduced without the leadership of my predecessor Michael Matheson to improve the way that evidence is taken from children. It is a vital first step towards the vision that where possible trial witnesses should not have to give evidence at trial. I will now turn to the main provisions of the bill. Evidence by commissioner is a special measure that allows for evidence to be pre-recorded and played at trial without the witness having to be present. The date and time for evidence by commissioner is scheduled in advance, avoiding uncertainty for vulnerable witnesses and minimising distress caused by delays to the trial. The atmosphere is less formal than in full court proceedings and evidence can be recorded directly or via a remote video link from another location. The early capturing of the evidence enables the vulnerable witness to recall events more accurately, ends their involvement in the trial sooner and allows where appropriate and necessary for quicker recovery. We should not forget that evidence by commissioner can happen now by application, but the main reform in the bill creates a new rule that makes a presumption that that will happen for children, complainers and witnesses under 18 in the first instance. That will ensure that where they are due to give evidence in the most serious cases, they will have it pre-recorded unless an exception applies. The bill also introduces a power for the proposed new rule to be extended in due course to adult-deemed vulnerable witnesses in solemn cases. That could include complainers in sexual offences, human trafficking, stalking and potentially domestic abuse cases. I sympathise with views that there should be a quicker roll-out to other categories of vulnerable witnesses, but it is vital that that major reform is undertaken in a phased, considered and effective way, targeting first the youngest witnesses in the most serious cases. That is why the bill proposes a framework for the phased extension of requiring pre-recorded for other vulnerable witnesses. The approach was supported by many stakeholders in the evidence sessions, and I am pleased that the committee agrees that a phased approach to implementation is sensible. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. He is right to say that the overwhelming evidence was in favour of a phased approach, but he will also be aware that there was compelling evidence for the inclusion of domestic abuse cases to be included alongside the ones that he has listed. Is he minded to accept that and bring forward amendment stage 2 to that effect? He has preempted what I was going to say later in my speech, but I am certainly very open minded. I thought that the evidence was compelling. I thought that it was very powerful. Liam McArthur will also be very aware of the steps that this Government has taken in order to improve the awareness and to improve the enforcement of tackling domestic abuse. Of course, the provisions are coming into force this spring, so I am extremely open minded. I am looking at the implications of resource and so on, which are important and cannot be ignored on this issue. I am certainly minded to bring forward an amendment in future, but I have to do some more work in that regard. I will be listening to what other members have to say on this matter. Of course, I will go away. Daniel Johnson I am thankful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Further to that point, he will be aware of the discussions around summary cases in general. Given that the vast bulk of domestic abuse cases are summary cases, are there any proposals to look at encouraging the use of similar techniques, given that it is possible for sheriff courts to do so? Michael Matheson It is a very good point to make, and that encouragement is something that I will certainly look towards when I can. He is right, of course. The vast, vast majority—I think it was almost 94 or 95 per cent—of domestic abuse cases take place in the summary proceedings. He is absolutely right. He will also accept that, if we were to extend the presumption to summary cases, that would be almost the wrong way around. It is important that we do the most serious cases and, therefore, solemn cases first and foremost, in focusing on the most vulnerable, i.e. the youngest in our society first and foremost. However, notwithstanding that point that he makes, he is a valid one. I just want to check how much time I have for the opening statement, so I might have time for 12 minutes. The world has to hear me, cabinet secretary. In terms of the implementation of the legislation, legislative reform, as Janet Johnson has just made the point, is only a part of the work that is needed to ensure that there is much greater use of pre-recording. It is vital that we ensure that there are sufficient modern facilities in pre-recording technology to enable this important reform to be implemented in practice. We heard time and time again from the committee's evidence sessions that there is work to be done in relation to the facilities, the infrastructure, when it comes to pre-recorded evidence. On October last year, I announced £950,000 of funding to support the Scottish courts and tribunal service, with the creation of a new child and vulnerable witness-friendly hearing suite in Glasgow. The facility that I have visited will make significant improvements to the experience of victims of witnesses in the Glasgow area. We have also made another £1.1 million available to the court service and are working with them to upgrade other venues and technology. The funding is important to get the court infrastructure ready for the increase in the number of witnesses having their evidence pre-recorded. We have shared with the committee a provisional implementation plan for the stage commencement and extension of the rule requiring pre-recording. Before that, it can be finalised as important to see whether any significant changes are made to the bill during the parliamentary process, which could affect that plan. However, once the approach has been agreed, I will be very happy to share further details with the Justice Committee. On issues that were raised during the stage 1 report, I will turn my attention to them in the remaining time that I have. I was very pleased to see the committee supported a broad range of provisions in the bill in its stage 1 report. On the issue of cross-examination, I recognise that some legal stakeholders have concerns that the bill may enable a prior statement to be used as a witness's only evidence, even when the defence wants to cross-examine. The bill does not, in any way, limit or alter the right of the defence to cross-examine a vulnerable witness who has the evidence pre-recorded, nor does it limit the ability of the defence to test the evidence. However, I am keen to allay any concerns in this matter, and I will give consideration in advance of stage 2 whether an amendment is required to clarify that point. On the domestic abuse front, as Liam McArthur was asking, I note the committee's recommendation that the bill should be amended to include domestic abuse in the list of offences covered by the rule. I am open-minded to the suggestion that the list should be extended to include domestic abuse offences in solemn cases, and I will be interested, as I said, to hear the views of other members during today's debate. I also see a number of stakeholders in the briefing at NSPCC, just being one of them, who will also suggest that extension, I think that Scottish Women's Aid and many others as well. I am very open-minded to that, but I think that we will all accept some implications to which I have to work through. Other themes are mentioned during the evidence session by committee in terms of the ground rules hearing. The committee welcomed the provision in the bill that would require a ground rules hearing before the taking of evidence by a commissioner. However, they asked that we consider whether there should be greater scrutiny of the questions to be asked at the commission. I can understand that sometimes it may be of benefit for questions to be lodged in advance, but I am not convinced that requiring this in primary legislation is the best approach. I agree with Lady Dorian's evidence that, in order to maintain flexibility, the High Court practice note is possibly the most appropriate place to set out the detail of what should be required at the ground rules hearing. However, as members will have heard from my remarks thus far, I am open-minded to hearing the debate. In terms of the prior statements and additional measures to support vulnerable witnesses, the committee made a range of recommendations on broader matters such as joint investigative interviews and the work of the victim's task force. I will ensure that those recommendations are discussed at the next meetings of the task force and, indeed, the joint investigative interviews, governance and working groups. My response to the committee highlighted the significant on-going work to improve the quality of GIIs. That should enable them to be used even more frequently as part of a child's pre-recorded evidence. At stage 1, the committee made a number of recommendations relating to the implementation of the Barnahouse principles in Scotland. I am happy to accept the invitation to discuss those matters. Many members of the committee travelled to Norway to see Barnahouse in practice. Barnahouse concept is about much more than just evidence and the justice process supports their child's recovery from the point at which they disclose abuse as well as supporting their right to justice. Accordingly, any move to implement the Barnahouse model would need to look at all of those issues holistically. It is also accepted by most members of the committee, if not all of them, that every Barnahouse concept, wherever it is and whichever jurisdiction it is, is relevant to that jurisdiction and, therefore, tweaks and appropriate nuances may well be needed. We have to come up collectively with what we think is a Scottish Barnahouse approach, and we have a way of getting to that and a road map to getting to that destination. In closing, I strongly believe that the justice system should be compassionate, it should be trauma-informed and be able to respond effectively to the needs of victims and witnesses. There have been significant changes in recent years to the criminal justice system to recognise the interests of those groups. However, I am determined that more can and should be done to support child and other vulnerable witnesses. I am confident that the bill is a major step towards achieving that. I look forward to this afternoon's debate to hearing the views of members across the chamber, and I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence Scotland bill. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Before I move on, I can ask those members who have not yet pressed the request-to-speak buttons to do so. Now, if they want to take part in the debate, I now call Margaret Mitchell on behalf of the Justice Committee convener, nine minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee in today's stage 1 debate on the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence Scotland bill, and to thank all those who gave evidence to the committee. The committee thanks Lady Dorian and the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service staff for arranging visits for members to see the current arrangements for free recording evidence. Our grateful thanks also goes to all those at the Barnhouse in Oslo for the time that they spent with us during our visit to the facility in December last year. This first-hand experience was invaluable for scrutinising the bill and forming a longer-term view of changes that are required to improve the experience of child witnesses. Finally, my thanks to the Justice Clerks and to the committee for their hard work in producing the report. Turning now to the committee report itself, legislation already allows for a child's or vulnerable witness's evidence to be pre-recorded in advance of any criminal trial, but despite an increase in pre-recording, this is still not common practice. The committee therefore supports the bill's new rule, which would generally require all of a child's evidence to be pre-recorded in the most serious cases. Removing children and vulnerable witnesses from the court environment and the traditional examination and chief cross and re-examination has several advantages. It reduces distress and trauma, and it improves the quality of evidence because taking evidence earlier in the process aids their ability to recall events and allows them to get on with their lives. Crucially, undue delay is avoided, and here Bernardo set out compelling evidence of the potential consequences of undue delay. Young people who were 14 when they had an offence committed against them were 16.5 by the time that they presented in court. Because of the trauma that they had experienced, they can be involved in a lot of behaviours and not seem to be positive. So what the court sees is a difficult, belligerent, drug-addicted alcoholic young person instead of the child they were when the offence happened. However, the committee fully recognises that the new rule will have major implications for our adversarial criminal justice system. Not only will it require sufficient facilities and technology to be in place to pre-record evidence, but more significantly, there will also need to be a shift in legal practice and culture. The committee therefore agrees with the Scottish Government that phased approach to implementation is sensible. Given the importance of getting this right, the committee recommends that progression between phases should be based on careful and detailed evaluation. The committee agrees that the initial phases should focus on child witnesses in the most serious cases, but following powerful evidence about pressures that children can experience when giving evidence in domestic abuse cases, it urges the Scottish Government to amend the bill to include those cases in the new rule. The cabinet secretary's comments and confirmation that he will listen to views on that in today's debate is very welcome. The committee also supports the phased extension of the new rule to other serious offences and to adults deemed vulnerable witnesses, which the bill provides through affirmative regulations. It is crucial that there is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations preferably before they are introduced. The committee welcomes the cabinet secretary's willingness to share information gathered during the evaluation of the earlier phases of the implementation and asks to be provided with early notification of the Government's intention to lay regulations extending the rule. Members must also be able to consider whether the necessary technology and facilities are in place to cope with any extension of the rule and whether any lessons can be learned from earlier phases of implementation. In view of the above in undertakings and on balance, the committee considers the approach that is outlined in the bill is appropriate to allow vulnerable witnesses to benefit from the provisions without any unnecessary delay caused by requiring primary legislation. However, that would not preclude the possibility of the committee recommending an extension of the rule to be provided for in primary legislation if deemed necessary. The committee accepted the mental welfare commission's comment that a bad interview done earlier is no better than a bad interview done in a trial. Therefore, recommended that all those involved in questioning child and vulnerable witnesses receive appropriate trauma-informed training. The committee seeks assurances from the cabinet secretary that sufficient resources will be in place to deliver that training. Additionally, the committee considers that there should be measures in place to protect witnesses against the risks of harassment or further victimisation throughout the process, including after they have given evidence and proceedings have concluded. This is immensely important, not only to protect individuals from harm but to ensure that other potential witnesses are not deterred from giving evidence. The committee welcomes the establishment of the new victim task force to look at this issue in detail. Finally, the committee was unanimous in its strong support for implementing the Barnhooth principles in Scotland during our visit to Barnhooth in Oslo. We saw that the facility, located away from the court, was child-friendly and provided a range of support services all under one roof. Crucially, the visit allowed the committee to understand the one forensic interview approach, whereby the child is interviewed by a highly trained police officer with no direct questioning by lawyers. However, the rights of the cues are protected by allowing the defence to request a supplementary interview where necessary. That is carried out by the same police interviewer who asks the defence's additional questions to test a child's evidence. The one forensic interview approach delivers benefits both in terms of the quality of the evidence obtained and in supporting children's recovery from trauma. The committee realises that the approach would require a significant shift in legal culture and practice, as well as substantial resources. However, in principle, the committee considers that it could be used in appropriate cases. Furthermore, no lesser person than the Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorian said that she sees no reason why the Barnhooth system cannot be adopted in Scotland in the longer term. In the meantime, priority should be given to developing an enhanced process for joint police and social work interviews with children, conducted by highly trained interviewers in child-friendly facilities with other support services available under one roof. That would deliver significant benefits for child witnesses and would be a meaningful step towards implementing the Barnhooth principles. In conclusion, the committee unanimously supports the general principles of the bill and aims to increase the use of pre-recorded evidence. Nonetheless, it is evident that a Barnhooth model is far removed from our current practice in Scotland. The committee calls on the Government to work towards adapting the one forensic interview approach. It recommends that urgent action is taken now to adopt elements of the Barnhooth principles and to ensure that progress is made within this parliamentary session to drive forward efforts to fully implement those principles in the longer term. Thank you very much. I now call on Liam Kerr to open for the Conservatives. I am very pleased to close for the Scottish Conservatives and speak in favour of the principles of the vulnerable witnesses. I think that you are opening for them, aren't you? I am pleased to open as well as close for the Scottish Conservatives and speak in favour of the principles. At the outset, let me echo the convener's gratitude to the clerks, not only for the quality of the report that succinctly and clearly reflects the key points in examination by the committee, but also because, contrary to initial concerns, they hadn't shredded my draft that I left with them, which had all of today's speaking notes on it. Perhaps having said that I was closing, I wish they had shredded it now. However, the fundamental principle of the bill is one that, as the convener has said, the committee and the Scottish Conservatives are united behind. At its core, this is about improving the experience and evidential reliability of children and vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system. It does this by increasing the use of pre-recorded evidence. When a child witness, notably and rightly excluding a child accused in the draft bill, is to give evidence in solemn criminal proceedings for one of a set of list of offences such as, for example, murder, a culpable homicide assault to the danger of life, human trafficking, the court must enable all of the child witnesses evidence to be given in advance of the hearing. In other words, in an extension to the protections that are already in place, in those cases, all of the child's evidence will be given in advance. As the convener has set out, that was pretty much universally agreed to be a good thing. In fact, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service described it as a critical step in improving both the experience of witnesses and the quality of justice. In that regard, I found the evidence of children first, that Scotland's justice system, designed for adults and rooted in the Victorian era, often causes them greater trauma and harm to be compelling. Notable 2 was the Scottish Court Service's Evidence and Procedure Review, in which it was suggested that, particularly for young and vulnerable witnesses, traditional examination and cross-examination techniques are a poor way of eliciting comprehensive, reliable and accurate accounts. Some witnesses and some MSPs feel that we should go further, and we may well hear about that in the debate today. Certainly, the committee concluded that there would be merit in the rule requiring pre-recording to be expanded to child witnesses in domestic abuse cases. That makes sense, as the cabinet secretary noted. A number of submissions make this point. One would have thought that it stands to reason that the potential, almost special nature of the trauma to a child in such cases, as highlighted in evidence by Scottish Women's Aid, would mandate such special measures. Particularly given that, as suggested by ASSIST, the new domestic abuse act could logically lead to greater numbers of children being cited to give evidence. I agree with Liam McArthur on that point. There would seem to be merit in including that. I am encouraged by the cabinet secretary's response to Liam McArthur's intervention, stating his willingness to consider this proposal. I look forward to the developments at stage 2. I look forward to Liam McArthur's intervention. I was looking at the figures that I have. Although domestic abuse cases go to solemn proceedings are only 4 per cent, they are equal to around about 150 high court cases and 710 sheriff and jury cases. I am open minded absolutely to that, but does he agree with me with that number? It is important for the Government and others, of course, to examine the resource implication of making that potential change. Liam Kerr? Yes, I agree with the cabinet secretary that the resource implications of all of this are crucial. I will be saying something specific about that shortly. Just tracking back slightly before I do, because on the same theme, Daniel Johnson in an intervention brought up what I think is potentially a key issue, made most particularly in the submission of the NSPCC, who suggested that, as only a few cases of domestic violence are solemn proceedings, there is a danger that, by excluding the summary proceedings, we exclude the child witnesses in domestic abuse situations. Unlike Daniel Johnson, I find that concerning, but I do note that the Lord Advocate has presented a response, where he specifically addresses this point. Again, if I don't specifically respond to the cabinet secretary's intervention in two seconds, I would ask the cabinet secretary just to reiterate some of those concerns later, because the concern is well made by Daniel Johnson. Others in the sessions, and I suspect in the course of debate today, suggested that, particularly in relation to adult deemed vulnerable witnesses, we should go further expanding the categories that would be covered by pre-recording and automatic special measures. The bill gives the minister's power to do this, but the cabinet secretary indicated that there is quite a long timeline for this. That approach was supported by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, who felt it appropriate to take evidence-based deliberate decisions over time on extending the additional categories of witnesses. I accept that that will cause understandable frustration, but I agree with the cabinet secretary that it makes sense. That is a seismic change going to the heart of the criminal justice system. The cabinet secretary highlighted his concern that quicker expansion may overwhelm the system. It seems vital that whatever we put in place is introduced in a managed way, which takes account of what will be a cultural paradigm shift, particularly as highlighted by the Scottish courts and tribunal service. There also seems to be a significant cost involved. I note that the financial memorandum estimates the annual recurring costs of the bill's provisions at up to £3.5 million, but the maximum estimated cost of extending the new rule to adult deemed vulnerable witnesses would be around £14 million. The committee concluded—I agree with the minister on that point—that a phased approach would seem sensible. I also have a concern that it could almost be counterproductive for us to try and implement everything at once and end up in a situation that might be inefficient and might be ineffective with potential miscarriages of justice, and we end up potentially in a worse situation than when we started. On which point to pick up a point made by the convener, the ability to expand categories of protection by regulation did cause me some consternation. The concern was whether, given that this is a managed but nevertheless significant change to the system, expansion of categories by regulations avoids sufficient opportunity for scrutiny. The faculty of advocates in particular raised that concern, but we did hear a great deal of evidence on this point, including the cabinet secretary noting that primary legislation could cause delay. Delaying matters to get them right is never a bad thing, in my view, but it was reassuring to hear the cabinet secretary's promise and to receive an undertaking in the Government's response just yesterday to share the evaluation evidence with the committee prior to scrutiny of any such regulations. The chamber is called today to indicate its support, or otherwise, for the principles of the vulnerable witnesses bill. The Justice Committee's report and no doubt today's debate provide strong evidence that the principles of the bill are the right ones. It is clear that pre-recording evidence of children and adult vulnerable witnesses reduces the distress that they go through and can also help to ensure that the most accurate evidence is obtained. Throughout the evidence process, it was clear that, while that is a start, there are other areas into which protection of vulnerable witnesses might go. I look forward to hearing representations from colleagues across the chamber in that regard. I am certainly pleased to confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the principles of the vulnerable witnesses bill at decision time tonight. I, too, would like to reflect on how we can improve and modernise our justice system, making it both more effective and more humane. In that regard, I would, too, would like to thank the committee clerks, my fellow committee members and the numerous organisations who have submitted evidence orally and in writing to the committee. Without their efforts, we certainly could not do that. In particular, I would like to thank the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, because I think that seeing the facilities and how they take evidence by commissioner was hugely important. Likewise, I would like to thank the Norwegian police for the time that they took in showing us the barnahouse as they run it in Norway. However, above all else, I would like to thank Lady Dorian. The legislation represents a substantial amount of her work and effort. She first brought forward the proposals in 2015 and the reforms more broadly being initiated in 2013. The practice note that she introduced meant that the evidence that was being taken in commission was brought in in 2017, so we cannot underestimate the time that that has taken. That is undoubtedly a useful step forward for the Scottish judicial system and court system. It will improve the experience of child witnesses. I think that a number of speakers have already pointed out that we must not re-traumatise young people giving evidence in court. It is vital that they give evidence, but it is equally vital that we make sure that they do so in a way that does not re-traumatise them. More importantly, it is about improving the quality of evidence that we have at court. By reducing the time that it takes to take that evidence—what we heard as a committee was that it takes considerably less time for the witness to provide the evidence through commissioner—reduces stress and thereby improves the accuracy and quality of the evidence that they give. It is for those reasons that Labour will be supporting the bill at stage 1 this evening. However, it is also important that we examine the provisions and examine how legislation can be improved. Moreover, we look at the next steps that we can take to improve our justice system. I would like to, in my contribution this afternoon, look at how we ensure that the interests of the child are best met, look at the investment that we require and also look at the possible extensions to those provisions for other types of witness or other types of hearing. In that first regard, in terms of protecting the interests of the child, the ground rules hearing is absolutely central to those proposals. It is through the ground rules hearing that the different parties, both the prosecution and the defence, set out how they will cross-examine the witness and draw the evidence for the court. There will still be cross-examination, and we very much saw that when we saw the examples of the commissioned evidence when the committee went up to the High Court. The ground rules hearing does is to make sure that it is conducted in a way that is humane and is effective in terms of gaining that evidence. What struck me, certainly, was that it is going to be very reliant on both training and practice of the advocates conducting that evidence gathering. While the ground rules hearing is important, and it is also right that we do not overburden provisions or requirements on the face of the bill, we must understand the dependency on those ground rules hearings being conducted properly and recognise that they rely on that agreement. There is a trust. We are trusting the advocates to take their duties seriously and responsibly. We must review how that is carried out in the future to make sure that it is not abused or does not go in directions that were not foreseen at the point that it was taking forward. It is not beyond speculation that, although advocates in the main may approach that in the way that we would hope, the intention at the point of legislation can sometimes result in practice that was not intended at that point. We need to keep that under examination, but we must also ensure that the adequate support and a common point of contact have provided two vulnerable witnesses, in particular children. That was a point that was raised by a number of third sector organisations. I would question whether we should have much more of a proactive, positive duty at the ground rules hearing for them to look at what sort of support is provided to witnesses providing evidence through commission evidence. Much has been made already about the requirement to have a phased approach to this and why that is necessary just due to the investment and the undertaking that this represents. Indeed, I agree with that. The Government is right to look at a phased approach. It is critical, as Liam Kerr pointed out, to get this right and therefore take our time in doing so. We must also ensure that that investment takes place. I was struck again by looking at the room that has been used up in Parliament House. That is still, essentially, a conference room within the courts. I think that it is far short of, perhaps, the child family environment that we might wish. I welcome the investment in a new evidence suite in Glasgow, but I would ask the question whether it will make those sorts of facilities available to every child giving evidence wherever they may be giving evidence in Scotland. We need to make sure that there is consistent access for vulnerable witnesses. Likewise, we must also focus on training, legal practice and culture so that that investment cannot simply be one of technology and of space. I would just like to briefly mention the domestic abuse and I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments already. However, if the bill is about establishing a principle that this is the right way to take evidence from vulnerable witnesses, I would beg the question of why at least the possibility of extending to summary cases is not provided for. I understand the arguments and I understand the restrictions in terms of investment and the requirements that there are. However, if the principle is right and if the strategy that has already been set out in the bill is for a staged implementation, I would just ask whether or not provision for the final extension to summary cases should be provided for. I think that the Government is looking at ways that this is encouraged within sheriff courts because it is a possibility for sheriff courts to take evidence in this way. I am running out of time, but I too am closing as well as opening for labour, so the bits have not managed to get in. I am going to get a second chance to, which I am very thankful for. However, in conclusion, this is a significant step forward. I think that this bill takes the right approach, both in terms of what it proposes, but also the way that it implements it. However, I think that we must always challenge and seek to go further, so we are both in terms of this bill but also in terms of future steps that we can take with our court system in Scotland. Thank you. I think that I should clarify that Mr Lindhurst understand that closing the Conservatives is looking a bit peeve there. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Like colleagues on the Justice Committee, I would like to thank witnesses, parliamentary staff, various organisations for their briefings, and indeed our friends in Norway for their helpful advice. As I hope the report evidences, there has been detailed scrutiny of the Government's proposals. There are a couple of recurring themes, if you like, and we are going to talk about that in a bit more detail. The tensions between the adversarial system as applied at the moment and the inquisitorial system that would tend to be more in keeping with the proposals in the bill here. Similarly, going along with that, the rights of witnesses and of accused, but to be unequivocally, the Scottish Green Party will be supporting the proposals in the bill. I want to take us back to the case for reform that is outlined in the committee's report. We highlight the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service evidence and procedure review, and that is from 2015. It says—I make no apology for the wrong quote, I think that it is helpful—that it is now widely accepted that taking the evidence of young and vulnerable witnesses requires special care and that subjecting them to the traditional adversarial form of examination and cross-examination is no longer acceptable. It goes on to talk about recounting traumatic events being especially distressing for children and can cause long-term harm. Importantly, it is a poor way of eliciting comprehensive, reliable and accurate account of their experiences. We have a situation at the moment where we are told that the status quo damages witnesses. In the same way that it disadvantages public interest and, indeed, the interest of accused, I do not think that any of us would want to see that situation prevail. One of the briefings that we have that has been alluded to already was from children first. They say that, over and over again, child victims and witnesses of crime have told us that Scotland's justice system, as someone said previously, designed for adults and rooted in the Victorian area, causes them additional trauma and harm. A scientific understanding of child development has been heartening the extent to which child development has been mentioned in the course of our deliberations. Of course, understanding the needs of individuals, whether that is whoever they may be, is very important. There is a growing awareness of that, not at least the impact of adverse childhood experiences and trauma awareness that a lot of organisations—please, Scotland, for instance—are aware of that. We are also told that, developmentally, children's ability to recall memories varies with both age and their experiences of trauma. I, too, would join with others in supporting the extension of provision 2, domestic abuse, and to summary cases. However, if I noted the cabinet secretary collectively, while he was supportive of that, he said that the implications have to be worked through, and I absolutely resolutely support that approach. The incremental approach that the committee supports, because it is vital that we get this right. That is a significant investment that we are talking of, both in terms of time training and facilities, and it is absolutely crucial that we get them right. Most important is to take the practitioners with us, whether that is the case, from all the sectors that are involved, and picking up on a point that my colleague Daniel Johnson made about facilities. It is about getting facilities right. I sat with Daniel Johnson and other members in that room. Daniel Johnson, I do beg your pardon, presiding officer. I saw the face. You read my lips there. I know that expression, yes. I sat with Mr Johnson and others in that room, and yes, that was not particularly child friendly. What we did see as a consequence of coming from that room was the benefit of a child being able to relate. Of course, we know that it is important for a criminal justice system that we get the whole system right. I know that the Lord Advocate needs reply to the committee, which has just come in, pretty much like the Scottish Government's response, but we are very pleased to have them, albeit 11th hour. It talks about the need to disclose inadequate time, because the ground rules hearing that people have alluded to is a fundamental part of what we are wanting to get. The timing associated with that is crucial, because we have had debates about the benefit, whether that should be pre-indictment or post-indictment. What we do not want is a situation in which someone is unnecessarily put through the trauma of having to go through something where the crown decides again that it is not in the public interest or an insufficient event to proceed, but equally the trauma of waiting. Again, that is another tension and a balance that needs to be worked through. Part of that will be helped. Again, this is expeditious process, as the Lord Advocate prefers to hear. The Crown Office's procurator fiscal service has created 41 additional posts in the High Court to tackle the most serious cases. Certainly, at this time, that is the type of case that is likely to have that approach. We also took some evidence on the joint investigative interviews that are placed at the moment involving Police Scotland and social work staff. Clearly, they are an important part of our process, but it is a long, long, long way away from the system of Barnhouse that applies as we saw in Norway and sat in Iceland and applies across the Nordic countries, where the level of training for police officers, for instance, was three years. We saw the charts on the wall about the expectation of understanding of children at different stages, and that is where the developmental issue is very important. In closing, I would like to say that I think that this is an excellent proposal. There is a way to go, and we will work on that. I start like colleagues in thanking Clark's, Spice and others who supported the committee, but, in particular, all those who gave oral and written evidence during our stage 1 consideration of the bill. The principles are ones that Scottish Liberal Democrats, like others, strongly support. Those are hardly controversial, but that can present challenges in itself. As cross-party consensus can sometimes blunt robust scrutiny, I am confident that that is not a risk in this instance. As I think that the committee has already identified a number of areas where, over the course of stage 2 and stage 3, we will be looking to work with the Government to improve and strengthen the bill. Before turning to some of those aspects, let me, again like others, record my gratitude to those who hosted the committee's visit to Oslo at the end of last year. It was, as others have said, enormously helpful to see first-hand how Barnahouse or Child's House principles are applied in Norway, while approaches differ between countries that apply those principles. The visit demonstrates clearly to the committee what a genuinely child-centred and integrated approach to criminal justice looks like. For a country that aspires to being the best place to grow up, ultimately, Barnahouse has to be at least part of the yardstick against which we measure ourselves here in Scotland. I accept that, for one forensic interview approach of Barnahouse, it would require a shift in legal culture and practice, given our adversarial system. Nevertheless, we see the lighthouse model being trialled in London and almost unanimous support from those that we took evidence from that, ultimately, we should be moving more quickly towards adopting those principles, including, as our convener suggested from Lady Adorian, to whom we owe a huge debt of gratitude. As NSPCC points out, integrating justice, healthcare and on-going therapeutic social care services all under one roof, often in purpose-built, child-friendly accommodation is the best if not only means of effectively reducing trauma for child victims and witnesses while maximising the chances of capturing their account of what has happened. It is fair to say that we are still some way off the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service that was admitted in its 2015 review that Scotland is still significantly lagging behind those at the forefront in the field. At the same time, SCTS rightly argued that this bill is, quote, a critical step in improving both the experience of witnesses and the quality of justice. Enabling greater use of pre-recorded evidence by children and vulnerable witnesses is the right way to go building on the special measures that are already in place. As Lady Adorian made clear, ways must be found to take evidence from children and other vulnerable witnesses in an environment and in a manner that does not harm them further but allows their evidence to be given and tested fully and appropriately. I will give way to the justice— I thank Liam Carther for giving way. I have been listening and reflecting on what he is saying very carefully. I wonder if he agrees that the relative consensus in this chamber could be an advantage to help to shift the culture, the legal culture that has not been in Scotland for decades but centuries old and some of the obstacles that we may come across if we put a collective effort towards it, so that there may be some value in helping to shift some of those mindsets. That is a very valid point. I would not want to diminish the value of consensus. Sometimes there has been a perception that the demand for reform emanating from this chamber is met with resistance within the legal community. The evidence that we took on this particular issue would suggest that there is an appetite within that community to work in collaboration with us, so I would hope that that does indeed be a fruit. The balance is crucial. The rights of the accused cannot be lost in this process. The Lost Society makes valuable points in relation to the need for early identification of cases and effective communication by COPFS, including timely disclosure of information. Without that, the defence is unlikely to be able to test fully the evidence. That said, the Lord Advocate is right to identify ground rules hearings overseen by a judge or sheriff as an opportunity to strike that right balance between defence and prosecution, as well as ensuring that the approach to questioning of a child or what vulnerable witness is carried out in an appropriate and sympathetic fashion. Where evidence is then taken by commission of the committee felt strongly that every effort should be made to minimise any delay that could affect the child's recollection of events, but also the need to avoid, if at all possible, the need for such recorded interviews to be carried out more than once. Although none of that is entirely new, I think that the committee quickly recognised that what is being proposed in this bill will have serious resource implications from training through to equipment and facilities mentioned by John Finnie and Daniel Johnson. Some of that has already been recognised by the Scottish Government, and I welcome the additional investments that have gone into the court service and the Crown Office. However, if those measures are to be applied routinely and to a consistently high standard, we should not underestimate what is involved or the pressure that will place on the criminal justice system. For example, we already know that the support for victims and witnesses in our courts and the wider communities is stretched. That message came through during our earlier inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal services. I welcome the provisions in the bill undoubtedly are. They will inevitably compound the challenge faced by many of those services. That is why it makes sense for the Government to adopt a phased approach and implementation, starting with the most serious solemn cases in the High Court involving child victims and witnesses. I can entirely understand the impatience in some quarters to see those measures rolled out across all victims and witnesses in the High Court and Sheriff Court. However, the overwhelming evidence that we heard is that that would carry a significant risk of the system being unable to cope, and that is an outcome that serves no one's interests. Therefore, I accept the case for working through each phase systematically, reviewing and learning lessons before seeking to extend the provisions. I agree that categories of cases in section 1, covered by the rule, need to be expanded to include domestic abuse. Again, the evidence that we heard in that regard was compelling and overwhelming. The Justice Secretary has suggested that, as an open mind to that, I welcome it, but I would encourage him to accept that case and to bring forward an amendment at stage 2. As for future changes to the circumstances in which those protections and provisions will apply, I think that there is a sense in enabling that through regulation. In conclusion, let me quote children first, as most others have already, who state that a joined-up approach to care and justice needs of child victims and witnesses through a barnahouse or child's house is the best way to get it right for children from the moment they tell their story, ensuring that the child and their family get the support that they need to recover. That will ensure that we have a justice system that is able to do both what is best for children and best for securing evidence, and I hope that we can go somewhere to ensure that in that head of stage 3. Thank you very much. Thank you. Open debate, speeches of six minutes. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Maurice Corry. Mr Mackay, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me start by saying that this is a good bill, and I'm happy to recommend the general principles of it to the chamber. As deputy convener of the Justice Committee, I also thank the clerks for all their work in producing a fair and well-balanced report. As we've heard from my colleagues, this bill received consensus among the committee. We heard a lot of evidence from stakeholders within the legal profession, children's organisations and the court service, and I thank them for giving evidence. So the essence of this bill is to ensure that children in the most serious criminal cases are spared the trauma of giving evidence in court. That is children who have been victims or witnesses to sexual offences, murder, assault or danger to life. It would enable them to give prerecorded evidence much closer to the time of the offence. Lord Justice Clark, Lady Dorian, told the committee, when children are asked to give evidence at a time that is remote to the event, not only has their memory diminished, but they're more likely to be confused by general questioning about the incident. This is crucial, added to the fact that asking a child to recall an event that may have taken place some time ago can be extremely distressing and traumatising. Mary Glasgow, from children, first told us that, over and over again, child victims and witnesses have told us that Scotland's justice system, designed for adults and rooted in the Victorian era, often causes them greater trauma and harm. Our understanding of adverse childhood experiences has grown and Scotland's traditional approach to justice is the least effective for eliciting consistent, reliable accounts from child victims and witnesses. As we know, the bill only applies to witnesses in solemn cases that have been heard in the High Court, but it includes a phased approach to extending the bill to cases that have been heard in the Sheriff Court, which would include child witnesses of domestic abuse. I, like others, would be extremely keen for that to happen as soon as possible, as the majority of domestic abuse cases are heard in the Sheriff Court, and I'm pleased that the justice minister has said that he'll keep an open mind in that being on the face of the bill. I understand the need for a phased approach, which relates to monitoring and evaluation of the bill in terms of court procedure and resources. I hope that a successful evaluation can be made quickly, and arrangements are put into place for the extension from the High Court to the lower courts. I also hope that this will be the case for the extension to adult vulnerable witnesses in solemn cases, who can benefit in the same way by giving recent, unpressurised evidence in a less intimidating environment. Rape crisis Scotland stated, cases often take two years or longer from the police to report to trial, then complainers may get a call the night before to say that the trial isn't going ahead. That causes considerable trauma and distress and does not assist in complainers being able to give their best evidence. I understand that special measures are currently put in place for witnesses who have been assessed by Crown Office staff, and I would encourage that to continue until the new rule applies. The bill also focuses on the quality of joint investigative interviews by police and social work, which are of vital importance, particularly when using pre-recorded evidence. As with all aspects of the bill, it is vital that through trauma-informed training—sorry, thorough trauma-informed training is given to all parties involved in taking evidence. I am encouraged to note that a new GII training programme is expected to be finalised by March. Interviewing vulnerable witnesses takes a very special skill, and those skills are most certainly necessary when carrying out GIIs or pre-recording evidence. The bill does not include taking pre-recorded evidence from the child accused. From our knowledge of adverse childhood experiences, we know that those children have many issues and are often extremely vulnerable. They are children, too. However, I understand that the right of the child accused to remain silent must be respected, and the issues surrounding pre-recording evidence before the trial has begun are complex. That is the decision about whether they give evidence at the trial has to be made in context of what the trial has been, which can only be made at the end of the trial, to take evidence beforehand that could prejudice their case or not be entirely accurate. However, the Lord Justice Clarke pointed out that there are special measures that can be put in place, such as giving evidence by a live television link, but they are currently underused. That is not acceptable. I urge defence counsel to consider all measures that could currently be used and to apply them in all cases to the child accused to minimise the trauma involved. Presiding Officer, can I say how pleased I am that the former Justice Minister, the Lord Justice Clarke and the legal profession generally are fully supportive of the Barnahouse model for children giving evidence? As the convener and others have said, the committee had the opportunity to visit Staten's Barnahouse in Oslo before Christmas, and we were totally impressed with our visit and the one forensic interview system being carried out in a child-friendly environment. Shortly after I was elected, I met with Mary Glasgow and Harry at Hall at Children first, who explained the benefits of the Barnahouse to me, and I was totally and utterly convinced that this should be Scotland's aim. I am delighted that we are making some progress towards that and that we will and hope that it will become reality in the not too distant future. The Justice Minister said during evidence that scoping arrangements for this would be made early in 2019, and I would welcome any update on that in the Justice Secretary's closing speech. Finally, Presiding Officer, this bill is a huge step forward in reducing the trauma faced by children in our justice system, and I recommend the principles to the chamber. Thank you very much. I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Fulton McGregor. Mr Corry, please. I welcome the stage 1 of the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill to the Parliament, and I thank the Justice Committee and the clerks for their helpful insight and scrutiny of this bill. It is crucial that witnesses come forward to participate in court cases. Their evidence is what makes up for robust and fair verdicts, but the quality of their participation, especially if they are deemed to be vulnerable witnesses, is at risk. We can all see that Scotland's current court process is far from perfect. For vulnerable witnesses and children in particular, the system can almost be overwhelming and without special care, and their questioning young witnesses can feel like they are reliving their experience all over again. It can be a sensitive balance to get right, pursuing a just and fair outcome without prejudices, but also ensuring that the witness is not placed in a distressing situation. We have seen the benefit of adopting more special measures in the courtroom, designed to help vulnerable witnesses, and indeed having a TV live link or the presence of supporters to sit with the witnesses as they give evidence have been very helpful methods that improve the process for young witnesses. That is especially true if they are more prone to feelings of anxiety and stress, but what the bill proposes is the pre-recording of evidence of some child witnesses outwith the courtroom is rightfully the next step to take. Excuseing exceptional circumstances, it means that these vulnerable witnesses can avoid the unnecessary trauma of being questioned in court. It removes the mental burden that is placed on child witnesses in the most serious of cases. For those children who have been the victim of human trafficking, sexual offences or abuse, there is no doubt that this change in law will more readily help to safeguard their interests. At the same time, it will also uphold the rights of those accused. Not only will those vulnerable witnesses benefit, but so will the quality of the proceedings and justice as a whole. Given all the evidence in advance of the trial, witnesses will be able to recall their experiences far more readily and with greater accuracy and clarity. Surely, that makes for a more informed verdict. It means that witnesses have the best chance to participate in the process as helpfully as possible. Moreover, it can be free from what is often a lengthy wait until the trial, so we see the pre-recorded evidence for witnesses as a way forward, but it would be a mistake to stop there. I know that the Scottish Government hopes to adopt a phased approach in implementing this new rule with the hope of expanding it to cover other vulnerable witnesses. Surely, that emphasis should start with the inclusion of child witnesses in domestic abuse cases. We have heard that this is what the committee suggested, and I believe that it was right to do so. The implications of domestic abuse are far-reaching, but often those most harmed are the children at the centre. For the young people who experience this abuse, they are in desperate need of the same readiness to support them through the criminal process. As the committee suggested, why does support mechanism for vulnerable witnesses are well worth exploring? Taking the time to resource special training would reduce the chances of harmful questioning of child witnesses. That can be treated sensitively and fairly, and, surely, offering that specialised and appropriate training would work well in tandem with implementing pre-recorded evidence. It is equally important that we understand better the timetable proposed for those changes. We need to make sure that the bill does not neglect the capacity, as it has to be as effective and impactful as it can be. To achieve that, it needs to be clear and structured for the phase implementation that it proposes. Only with clarity can we ensure that change will actually happen. Scotland's court system needs desperately to improve. It cannot expect reliable rock-solid evidence from children taking in traditional settings. We should neglect to recognise their needs. The bill offers some progress to break down the courtroom barriers, a way in which we should allow for more accurate evidence-giving in a safer environment. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, the bill will provide a welcome change. It gives some assurance that vulnerable child witnesses are involved in our court's processes in the most sensitive and appropriate way. It safeguards their mental health and, at the same time, ensures more stable and certain evidence. I hope that support for a wider reform will not go unnoticed both for the sake of other vulnerable witnesses and of Scotland's future criminal procedures. It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I do not think that I will be made with much objection from colleagues across the chamber when I say that it is legislation like this that we all come into politics for, because it is legislation that will have a positive effect in people's lives and will go some way to rectify discrepancies within our current system. For those reasons, I was privileged to be one of the members of the Justice Committee who scrutinised the legislation, and I, too, would like to join the convener and vice convener and others in putting on record my thanks to the clerking team for their work on this under immense pressure and in preparing the stage 1 report that I encourage anyone watching to check out. The main policy objective, as others have said, of the bill is to improve how children and vulnerable witnesses participate in the criminal justice system by enabling greater use of pre-recorded evidence. It is a bill and a law change that many have fought for for a long time, for example including the Moira Anderson Foundation, based near my constituency. In the vast majority of evidence from stakeholders that we heard, including Barnardo's and Children First, among many others, we are supportive of the need to reform and the introduction of a rule in ensuring that evidence from a child in the most serious of cases is taken pre-trial. There are many areas that the bill presiding off so that I could focus on in my limited time, but perhaps, no surprise to my committee colleagues, I will focus for a short period of time on the use of joint investigative interviews by the police and social work that is currently used during child protection measures. At this point, I will declare an interest as a registered social worker with the SSC. The committee heard how joint investigative interviews could be an integral part of the process and there was no scope for them to be used as evidence in chief, thereby limiting damage to child victims and witnesses and preventing their need to give evidence at trial. However, we also heard that, often, it was not always possible to use such interviews as evidence and it was also difficult for the committee to ascertain exact figures on how often those were used. I was involved in joint investigative interviews for around eight years and, although there is a lot of good and innovative practice, I do not think that any of my previous colleagues would mind. In fact, I think that they would expect the AMC saying that there is scope for change and improvement. For example, the specific GII training, while very intense, is only one week long. Following that, a worker's involvement in such interviews can be very sporadic, perhaps equating to a handful or even less a year. In this process, through the committee, I had my thinking myself of how many exactly had been involved in them. It is obviously not possible to say exactly. I am reasonably confident in stating that it was no more than 30 over an eight-year period. That obviously falls well short of the 100 to 150 hours that Mary Glasgow felt was required to gain an appropriate level of expertise. That is why I welcome Kate Rock from Social Work Scotland's evidence to the committee, where she talked about joint-up discussions going on with the police to expand the training to a year in the possibility of moving to a smaller group of workers who would be highly skilled in the interviews. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's response to the committee on the governance of working groups that have been set up and also note that, as Rona Mackay did, the training programme is expected to be finalised in March. Perhaps such a move would also fit into the principles of the barnhouse model, as everybody who has spoken has already said. The committee visited Oslo, and I think that it is fair to say that we are very impressed. Many of the principles of barnhouse models are already being made through her child-centred approach. However, we could do something relatively simple, such as having a one-stop for all services involved. That would save a child going from one place for an interview, then another for a medical assessment and then another possibly for therapeutic support. I think that the committee's conclusion sums it up best, as is relayed by the convener, Margaret Mitchell. Perhaps that could mean a specific venue in either a health board area or perhaps four areas across Scotland, or whatever the case may be, to allow us to bring that together. It would also allow the crucial issue of support to be addressed in this setting. Through evidence gathering, we heard lots of testimonies, and while gathering evidence for the criminal proceedings was very important. However, perhaps more significantly and more important was the need for continued support, both about the process after the process and any associated trauma that may come out for the child witness. I want to conclude with where I started. It is important to recognise that the bill has been brought forward as a result of real-life experiences of real people. I want to share an example from a constituent. What I am about to say has been agreed with the child's mother to protect anonymity. Last week, I had a parent in my office asking for help. Her child had been a key witness in a case that resulted in the accused serving her prison sentence. She told me that no one sat with the then nine-year-old or the parents to explain what was going on or how their statement would be used throughout the case. The accused played guilty, which did spare the young person the ordeal of having to testify before him in court, but they are fully aware that their evidence was a major part in securing the guilty plea. The child said to the mother at one point that it was scary that mum had to leave the room and that I had to speak to strangers. That has led to severe deterioration and the child's mental health, living in daily fear about what might happen when this individual was released from prison. The mother describes dealing with nightmares and self-harm. She also described to me the day that she found her child attempting suicide. Thankfully, the mother made a shocking discovery in time, but no victim should ever go through this. That is why it is so important that the provisions that are set out in the bill are put in place as quickly as possible. Although not all of the bill is relevant to this case, the principles are, and I know that this mother is watching proceedings today and, hopefully, that the start of changes has been made to the law that will mean so much to her and her family. It is real-life situations such as that that make the bill so important. It would also be fitting, given what I have mentioned to you, for stage 1 to pass on children's mental health week. I thank the Government, the current Cabinet Secretary and its predecessor, and others for bringing it forward. I commend to the chamber to vote for the general principles at stage 1. Thank you very much. I call Johann Lamont to call by Jenny Gilruth, Ms Lamont, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was not involved in the bill and its development. I found it very interesting to read the report and the briefings that we have secured. However, like many others in this chamber, I have direct experience of the constituents telling me about how they felt let down by the justice system. From the start of this Parliament, we have been trying to understand how people experience the justice system, trying to find ways to ensure that witnesses and victims felt that they get justice. From very early on in the Parliament, I can remember way back a woman who had been a victim of a serious sexual assault talking about feeling that the court system had compounded the terrible nature of her experience rather than giving her any sense of justice. I think that the bill is part of understanding that experience. Those voices are still there, and I say that Fulton MacGregor's very powerful description of a direct experience of a young person or of the system gives us all pause and should act as a spur to ensure that the journey of making the justice system fair continues. I believe that there is another step in wrestling with that challenge, how we ensure that they are accused as a fair trial, while those who give evidence are able to do so in a way that allows that evidence to be thorough and testable. I would argue that we have made progress in creating a fairer system, and things that we were told at the time were simply impossible because they would challenge the justice system and the protections within it are now part of accepted court process, and I expect that those two will be seen in that way in the future. We need to think about how we treat victims, witnesses and complainants in the context of understanding criminal behaviour in all its many forms and the particular impact of particular crimes on victims. I would reflect in my conversations with adult survivors of child sexual abuse, for example. Their vulnerability still lives with them every day, and we need a court system that understands that too. We need to think too about at the prosecution stage decisions about taking cases forward. Do they reflect the vulnerability of witnesses and victims when perhaps a victim is deemed not to be credible? A person with a learning disability told that they cannot take that case forward because their evidence would not be seen as credible. I think that those are also issues that we need to reflect on. It is a danger and a challenge for all of us that we do the easy bit—I have done less of it than people who have done a lot of work in committee—but the relatively easy bit of passing legislation and feeling pleased that we have got that right. In truth, legislation must be placed in the context of the need for it to be effective to ensure that it is enforced, that the changes are resourced properly, so that we do not just end up taking resource from one place to another to match the demands of that legislation. We then see that there are unintended consequences for one piece of legislation for another part of the system. We need to understand how we can prevent people becoming vulnerable to crime in the first place. How supported are they personally? If we look at children who are victims of domestic abuse and all that means for them, we need to look at the availability of safe places, the response of the school system, the housing system and the agencies around about the young person. Those supports will, in their own way, give help to a child who may find him or herself in a courtroom, which in reality can be the end point of what may have been a traumatic journey of conflict and violence. We cannot separate what the process in court is from the budget and resources that must support victims under the new system. As an example of the challenge of that, I want to raise in particular the important role of the hearing system in the broader justice system. We know that the hearing system is symbolic of our understanding of the need to put the child at the centre of the justice system, but it is also the practical expression of how we make that support real. Despite the sterling work of volunteers and staff who are managing the hearing system, it is a system under pressure. With lack of social work support, for example, the inability to have social background reports produced, panels are unable to make certain disposals because the resource is simply not there to make it happen. The danger is that young people are being ill-served by a system that is overstretched and pressurised. The Scottish Government really needs to reflect on its choices in budgeting terms as well as policy terms. It is simply short-sighted, in my view, to target local government for budget cuts, given that many of the key supports for the justice system lie with schools, community safety, support groups and social work departments, most of which sit within local government itself. I support the bill, given the way in which it continues the journey to ensuring that victims are treated fairly in the justice system and that our justice system as a consequence serves society better too. However, I simply reflect that we should all take seriously not just the legislation, nor see it in isolation. We must look at what now must underpin it resources to deliver the process, but resources too for the broader support and protection for those who live with the trauma of abuse and crime day by day. I think that the points that were made by Fulton MacGregor in his conclusion are absolutely right, that it is not just in the moment of giving evidence a child or a vulnerable witness has to be supported. It is in them broadly before they give evidence and afterwards it will make this legislation real in the lives of young people and vulnerable witnesses. I begin by thanking the clerks to the Parliament's Justice Committee for all their work in pulling together our report ahead of today's stage 1 debate. Of course, today's legislation should not be considered in isolation for the Government. That is clearly part of a wider agenda focused on victims and witnesses' rights. However, if we consider that last year the Government designated 2018 the year of young people, it is nonetheless timely that we now reflect as a Parliament on how the justice system listens to the views of our young people when it really counts. Indeed, as John Finnie said, it is vital that we get this right. As has already been mentioned today, it is now nearly two years since the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorian, introduced the High Court practice note, the first step to improving the way our courts take evidence from children and vulnerable witnesses. Today, the provision to take evidence on commissions remains the main policy objective—greater use of prerecorded evidence for child witnesses in the most serious of cases. That original practice note in 2017 looked to build greater consistency in the application of taking evidence on commission, minimising the risk of trauma and taking practical decisions about location, for example, more sensitively. Section 5.4 of the bill now seeks to make changes to the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, which will allow for the possibility of pre-indictment commissions. I want to revisit why the provision is so important. ASIST is a domestic abuse advocacy and support service based in Glasgow, and it advises the committee that children's evidence should be taken in advance and as near to the instant as possible. Furthermore, we were told by Bernard Oes that we often find that statements are taken and the police investigation concludes years before the actual process takes place. Recently, we found ourselves chaffing the doors of young women who are now in their 20s, but who had given statements when they were aged 14 and 15. Their situation had moved on, yet we were going back and re-traumatising them saying, we have new evidence, are you willing to come forward? We do not know how long the process is going to take. Perhaps this was most powerfully illustrated by the evidence of Daljeet Dagon, who gave the example of a young person giving 27 statements to the police in total, and by the time the child went to court, she was deemed to be an unreliable witness. The original practice note encouraged the use of commissions for children and for the application for the commission at as early a stage as possible in high court proceedings. The Lord Justice clerk therefore welcomed the new provision in the bill for the possibility that a commission could take place before the service of an indictment as the committee heard. One of the committee's key recommendations is that section 1 of the bill is amended to include domestic abuse in the list of offences specifically covered by the rule requiring pre-recording, particularly due to the trauma that children can experience in such cases. As Scottish Women's Aid has argued, that is a crucial issue given the trauma that can be caused to children and young people experiencing domestic abuse. Given the numbers of children likely to come under the auspices of the new offence, it is imperative that the offence is included. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has previously indicated to the committee that he is willing to consider the extension, and there is an opportunity, in my view, certainly to join up legislation already passed in this Parliament on domestic abuse. I am glad again to hear the cabinet secretary reiterate that point today. The committee's visit to Norway to visit the Barnahouse model in action was, as has already been said today, a formative experience in terms of how we might seek to improve children's experiences of the justice system. A one-stop shop where services come to the child struck me that the Barnahouse model has much in common with our own girffec approach in Scotland, which is also child-centred. That legislation therefore has a propensity to be truly groundbreaking if we get it right. Although I note the investment in Glasgow in a dedicated child and vulnerable witness suite, perhaps there is an opportunity for the Government to pilot the Barnahouse model on a small scale in the first instance during this parliamentary session. Our experience, as Daniel Johnson alluded to in his comments, spoke of it at a siphoned-off room in the court buildings. That is not really what Barnahouse is about in our experience in visiting the Barnahouse in Norway. Although it is undoubtedly much that can be learned from the Norwegian approach, any Scottish equivalent would obviously have to be tailored to reflect our differing public services. I note that healthcare improvement Scotland and the health inspectorate here in Spectra are already involved in the development of Scotland's specific standards for Barnahouse. The Government's response to the committee advises that that will enable us to set out a road map for improvements. The Scotland-specific standards will be based on the European promise quality standards for Barnahouse. It is anticipated that the scoping stage will begin early this year. I note the cabinet secretary's commitment to meet with the committee to discuss the Barnahouse model in more detail, but I make a request to the cabinet secretary that both healthcare improvement Scotland and the care inspectorate collaborate with education colleagues in this work, to avoid duplication and to acknowledge the sound grounding of education policy already in this area, particularly in relation to trauma informed schools and the wider adverse childhood experiences agenda, as Rona Mackay mentioned. The strength of the Barnahouse model is that children are able to give evidence in as comfortable an environment as possible, thereby avoiding re-traumatisation. Taking evidence on commission is part of the answer for Scotland, but looking again at those practicalities of location and environment, as Lady Dorian specified in the original practice note, should be the next step to ensuring that level and consistency of provision across the country. That should be the focus of the legislation if we are to really improve children and vulnerable witnesses' experiences of the justice system. Indeed, as Lady Dorian herself said in 2017, in all aspects of the work being undertaken, we should never lose sight of the underlying aim. That is to secure a justice system that allows the guilt or innocence of an accused to be determined on the basis of the best quality of evidence available in a manner that does not cause undue distress or harm to any participant in the process and which is transparently fair, efficient and effective. Transparency, fairness and dignity to protect our vulnerable witnesses and to ensure that Scotland's children are spared the trauma of giving evidence in court—something that I am glad that every MSP can support. I am pleased to speak in this stage 1 debate today. Although I am not a member of the Justice Committee, I am aware of how important this bill is to victims and witnesses of crime. Too many people find themselves retraumatised by court processes and we all agree that that is not right. By supporting that reform, we are making a positive step in the right direction. However, there is still more to do, and I will stress that Scotland must become the gold standard for victim support. The vulnerable witnesses' bill aims to improve how children and vulnerable witnesses experience criminal trials by enabling greater use of peer recording of evidence. Significantly, the focus is on child witnesses in the most serious of cases, unless there is a significant prejudice to the fairness of the trial or if the child witnesses aged 12 and above and expresses a wish to give evidence in a way that would serve their best interests. Although the current methods of peer recording will continue to be used, the bill also aims to improve the process of taking evidence by commissioner in all cases, not just where the new rule applies. That is a welcome move. Children's groups have been clear that the justice system in its current form causes distress and trauma with charity children first liking it to what took place during the Victorian era. Not only should the introduction of peer recording reduce the trauma across the child witnesses, it should also improve the quality of justice. A review of the criminal procedures by the court services concluded that, for children particularly, traditional examinations and cross-examination techniques in court were more likely to produce inaccurate or unreliable accounts of their experiences. That was supported by the Lord Justice cleric who stated the importance of getting evidence from children as close to the event as possible. Confusion can arise from memory loss, also increasing the likelihood that they agree with the questioner when they cannot remember something. Importantly, in reassuring to those concerned about potential miscarriages of justice, research has shown that pre-recording does not make jurors more sympathetic and that the use of pre-recorded evidence by child witnesses has no significant effect on the outcome of the trial. There is, of course, always the need to put checks and balances in place, and that, too, we support. The faculty of advocates made this very point, stressing the requirements for sufficient safeguards to be put in place to enable the rule to operate fairly and so that any evidence could be tested on an informed basis. The bill, of course, gives ministers the power to expand the rule to add out vulnerable witnesses in cases such as rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse. In those cases, it is obvious why a victim giving evidence would not want to do so in the presence of the alleged perpetrator, whether in the courtroom itself or via a live TV link. Just think if it was you or a loved one, would you really wish to go through such hard-taking pain having to relive in there what happened over and over again? Sometimes this process can take years to come to an end, and it is no surprise that victims say that they are left traumatised going through the process. I, of course, appreciate that the process for applying for special measures will be simplified, and I also understand that the court system is under huge strain and that reforms need to be implemented in an effective and manageable way. Undeniably, however, it will, of course, be disappointing to victims affected by these heinous crimes that they have to wait until the mid-2020s to be offered the same reforms. Rape Crisis Scotland stated that the current approach to taking evidence from adult vulnerable witnesses causes significant distress and trauma, with frequent significant delays in cases coming to trial. Trials can be cancelled last minute, putting more strain and pressure on the witnesses. In looking further at potential changes to put victims at the heart of the justice system, I strongly support the introduction of the one-sheriff system for victims of rape and sexual assault, as the Scottish Conservatives have previously called for in cases of domestic abuse. As it stands, victims of these crimes can have their cases and related proceedings heard by various judges having to relive their stories over and over again. It is vital that we look at how such an approach has been trialled successfully elsewhere and what impact that would have on reducing re-traumatisation. Therefore, can I ask the cabinet secretary his thoughts on how a one-sheriff system could be implemented in such cases? To finish today, I reiterate my support for the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill at stage 1. To give evidence that a victim or witness is difficult enough in itself to do it as a child or someone who has been the victim of domestic violence, rape or sexual assault, even more so. It is fundamental that we support victims of crime and that the bill will play an important role in doing that. With that said, there is still much more to do and we must strive to reach a point in time where Scotland is the gold standard for victim support. I call Shona Robison to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Ms Robison is the penultimate speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much. As a member of the Justice Committee, I support the general principles of the bill and welcome the consensus that is demonstrated in the debate this afternoon. That forms part of a much wider and ambitious programme of work being undertaken to improve and modernise the experience of victims and witnesses in the justice system. The bill's objective is to improve how children and vulnerable witnesses participate in the criminal justice system with a greater use of pre-recorded evidence and applying in solemn cases such as those that other members have mentioned. As has also been said in this chamber, it can imagine for a young child already traumatised being interviewed sometimes multiple times or to relive harrowing events at a later date through the traditional processes for giving evidence. Therefore, the bill helps to remove any legislative obstacles having a detrimental effect on the greater use of pre-recorded evidence and includes the power for it to be extended to adults, deemed vulnerable witnesses in solemn cases. The bill is supported widely, supported by the judiciary and many third sector organisations. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is committed to looking at how the Scandinavian barnhouse principles could work in the context of Scotland's child protection health and justice system. I was the only member, unfortunately, of the committee not to be able to see that through life in Norway, as the other committee members did. I had a prior engagement, but, certainly from speaking to the other committee members, they were certainly very impressed with the potential of the model. It has been adopted because it was recognised that multiple agencies, information sharing and co-ordination, were poor and, therefore, it was introduced to overcome those challenges. Children were required to give multiple interviews previously to professionals from each agency, damaging the reliability of the evidence that they were able to provide and were being traumatised by having to give testimony in court. Consequently, few suspected perpetrators were charged and convicted and victims were not adequately supported to recover from the trauma of sexual abuse. The barnhouse model offers all services under one roof in a non-threatening and child-friendly environment. That is where a trauma-trained interview is with the victim and via a video link, a range of professionals, including the police, child protection, prosecutor and defence, to communicate with the interviewer via an earpiece that relates questions in a child-friendly manner, consistent with the principles of forensic interviewing. It is vital that the interview is carried out as quickly as possible to the alleged offence. The children's charity children first agree that it is in the best interests of the child to give their complete testimony as soon as possible. I believe that it minimises the anxiety felt by children and allows directed support networks to work with children in improving their welfare. Although I fully understand that some stakeholders involved in the consultation want quicker progress towards the barnhouse model, it is crucial to get it right and to take a phased approach. The Scottish Government's proposed phased approach could, initially, potentially be in the form of a pilot scheme, but a phased approach would allow the system to absorb change while minimising risks to both the system and, importantly, to individual cases, because, obviously, our justice system is not identical to that of the justice systems in Scandinavia, and we have to recognise that. I welcome the Scottish Government's commissioning of Healthcare Improvement Scotland, together with the Care Inspectorate, to develop Scotland-specific standards for barnhouse. I hope that that is the right way to proceed a specific standard that would balance a child's right to recovery with the right to access justice in a child-centred way, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and getting it right for every child. I am sure that progress can be made towards adopting the best elements of that system here in Scotland, and I look forward to the progress being made on that in the foreseeable future. Thank you very much, and I call on Ruda Grant, as our panel, our ultimate speaker. I, like other speakers, welcome this bill because anything that makes giving evidence by children and vulnerable witnesses easier has to be welcomed. As others have said, the bill is geared towards children, but it must be wider to recognise the nature of the crime and how that can make witnesses vulnerable. I speak about domestic abuse as many people have done this afternoon. I welcome the minister's comments about considering amending the bill to ensure that this process is available to cases of domestic abuse in which children are giving evidence. That is the right thing to do, rather than to have it introduced at some later date. The trauma that is attached to domestic abuse is well understood for adults, but it is not so well understood for children. That is a long-lasting effect on their future development, so it is really important that, where possible, we limit the trauma of that as much as possible. If you even imagine the case where a child would be in court giving evidence against their parent having that person in the same room, it really makes that evidence given very difficult. That is serious. Quite often, the justice system does not treat domestic abuse as serious. As we see the point made by Daniel Johnstone about most cases being summary cases, NSPCC noted that a tiny minority of domestic abuse cases are heard by solemn court procedures. Therefore, I said that limiting the first phase of reform solely to the solemn cases means that a very large number of vulnerable children, potentially giving evidence of domestic abuse cases, will not benefit and be protected under the system. It is important that that is extended to all domestic abuse cases, regardless of the court that it is heard in. Indeed, to all child witnesses, if we think that very young children are giving evidence, a court case can take sometimes one or two years to come to court, young children would forget the evidence that they were giving. If that was recorded at the time, there would be much better witnesses, although the incident was very fresh in their minds. It is important that children in all court cases should be protected, but most especially in domestic abuse cases. That goes for adults in victims especially of domestic abuse. Domestic abuse really relies on coercion and control. Therefore, coming face to face with your abuser in a court case can have a devastating impact on the victim if they are giving evidence in that case. I suggest not only for children but for adults, too, that that be considered. The bill rightly focuses on children and they need our protection. However, it must be extended to adults, as I have said in domestic abuse cases, but also for vulnerable adults, people with learning difficulties, people with poor physical or mental health. I think that they should be afforded the same protections, because I think that the way that they would give evidence in the future could be compromised if they were not afforded the same protections as children. It is very briefly to the point of clarification that, as things stand, there can be an application towards this particular special measure of giving evidence by commission. We are moving towards a presumption, and we will phase implement that towards an adult cases of deemed vulnerable adults. However, it is important to say that there can be a case at the moment where evidence can be taken by commission for adults if it is on application. Ruth Grant I would certainly hope that the legislation makes that the norm that that be applied for when we have vulnerable witnesses. Others have talked about rape and sexual abuse cases, and that is another area where we need to extend that to. The crime leaves victims extremely vulnerable. We have heard stories in the past in debates in this chamber about victims who said that the process of going through the courts was worse than the damage done by the original crime. That is unacceptable in our court system. We need to protect people. I have constituents in the Highlands because rape and sexual abuse crime is tried in the High Court, that is not local. That means going to Glasgow. Those cases can be cancelled at very short notice. Women have had to arrange child-mind and cover for their jobs. They have had to arrange somewhere to stay in Glasgow and somewhere to stay for those who are giving them support, which is not always covered. They then have that cancelled at the last minute. Had their evidence been recorded, that would not have happened. If I can, Presiding Officer, I am not sure of time, but I might abuse my position in this debate slightly. I flag up to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice the issue of custody for domestic abuse, children suffering domestic abuse. Custody is given to an abusive partner. I know that the Scottish Government is looking at this, and the legislation is not the right place to look at it, but I do not believe that an abusive partner should automatically get custody of their child. In fact, the very opposite should be the case until they can prove to the courts and, indeed, the victims of that abuse that they will not harm that child or use that custody to promote their abuse any further. In conclusion, the bill is welcome. It is overdue, and it is striking that children first talked about the court process as an adverse childhood experience rather than the crime that they suffered themselves. Justice should be cathartic, not abusive, and, hopefully, the bill will be a step in that direction. Thank you very much, and that brings us to concluding remarks and to wind up for the Labour Party, Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that this has been a useful and clear, a very consensual debate. I think that the touchstone of this and has been raised by many speakers is the trauma and time that this seeks to eliminate. I think that both the convener and the deputy convener from the Justice Committee and others such as John Finnie have really brought to life the importance that we arreduce trauma, but we also reduce the amount of time that it takes from the point of the events that are being witnessed to and the actual gathering of that evidence, because reliability is absolutely key. I think that many speakers through this afternoon have reflected on the fact that our courts reflect a Victorian way of doing things. I think that this is an important step that we seek to modernise our courts and our justice system. It is also important to look at the reliability of what is being proposed. In that regard, I thank Annie Wells for reminding us that this is a sound way of taking evidence. I think that it is very easy in those consensual debates for us all to leap to the conclusions, but it is important to bear witness to the fact that the evidence is that pre-recording evidence is reliable and that it does not unduly sway juries one way or another. That is important. What is also important is to reflect on context. In that regard, I really thank my colleague Joanne Lamont. I think that it is really important that we do not look at those measures in isolation, that we must view them in context, that we must view them in the context of the wider services that we have and that the wider situation and circumstances that people find themselves in. In that regard, I would particularly like to thank my colleague Fulton McGregor for his remarks, because he provided some of that context. I thought that the example that he gave to the child and the clear trauma that providing evidence gave that individual brings to life just the importance of delivering it and delivering it as quickly and as efficiently as we possibly can. I would also like to thank him for going into some of the technical detail of the joint investigative interviews, which was one of the points that I was not able to cover off in my introduction remarks. I think that we examine what will take place in terms of that initial contact that a child or a vulnerable person may have with the authorities, that integrated approach between social work and the police, the training and the focus that is happening. I think that, most importantly, among those measures is the proposal about how we promote that evidence being used as evidence in chief in the courts. That means that direct evidence given witness is not required by those individuals who have been through that. I think that we begin to see some of those next steps that we can take when we are looking at the issues that we are looking at here. I think that, in particular, when you compare and contrast that with the Barnhurst model, both generally and specifically within Norway—I thank my colleagues Jenny Gilruth, Rona Mackay and Shona Robison for describing the Barnhurst that we bore with this tape, which, in the interests of timing, I do not have to. However, if you compare that with the Joint Investigator interview, with the single interview, an integrated facility where other forensic procedures can take place, the training that goes in—I think that we must contrast the year that we are just proposing, not even delivering in terms of the training that the people undertake, Joint Investigator interviews will be required to. However, the three years that the police officers who are responsible for doing the same things in the Barnhurst in Norway have to take this, they take a bachelor's degree through that training. I think that we can see both in terms of where we can get to. I think that we can see how a Joint Investigator interview could conform with the Barnhurst model and how it could deliver much of what we seek in that Barnhurst model through the Joint Investigator interview, and it would urge the Government to look at how that can be done. Particularly, much is made of the ability to test evidence and cross-examination. Again, in Norway, the fact that a second interview can be requested shows how we could deliver that testing of the evidence that is so important to our legal system, so I would urge the Government to look at that. More widely, I think that— John Finnie. John Finnie, I am very good for the member who is taking the intervention. When the member recounts as I did that, although there was the facility to request a second interview, such was the efficiency of the initial one that was very rarely called upon by the defence. Daniel Johnson. I thank my colleague for that intervention. Indeed, I was struck by that point, too. I think that it points to the place that we could arrive at if we are so minded. However, I think that the key point, the overall point of this, and the one that many speakers have made, is that we must make sure that we do not see this as an end point, that we push to go further. I think that the points that have been made about domestic abuse cases and, indeed, acknowledged by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice point to the fact that we must strive to go as far as we possibly can. I would just reflect on this. I think that, while that is a good bill, there is a danger contained within some of its logic that vulnerability is defined by the charge or where the court that the individual is giving witness to. That is clearly not the case. If you are the individual who is giving that evidence, you do not know to be traumatised because you are giving evidence for a particular charge or giving evidence to a particular court. You feel traumatised because of the experience that you had and the fact that you are having to recount it. I think that we must look to make sure that we expand the possibilities of those measures as widely as possible and that we seek to make them the norm, so that it just becomes self-evidently the next step to take by expanding them to other areas, to other courts and to other types of charge. With that, I will conclude that this is a good bill, but it has to be the first step in this journey, not the last step. Thank you very much. I call on Gordon Lindhurst to conclude for the Conservative Party. Presiding Officer, there has been very interesting discussion today across the chamber and much agreement has been evident from the speeches that we have heard. In particular, this bill could not only improve the experience of the justice system but also the quality of the evidence, something that is not just in the interests of witnesses and victims, but also that of justice itself. Put quite simply, it is better to have evidence taken closer to the time of events while memories are still fresh. I say that from direct past experience as an advocate in many, many criminal trials before our courts. On that level, video evidence taken at the time can be of more value than evidence taken from a witness directly when it has done many months, if not years later, as other colleagues have commented on. On that point, of course, the obvious answer on one level would be that court proceedings should take place more quickly. Indeed, that is something that was raised by the faculty of advocates during evidence. Presiding Officer, there has been reference to our court system as Victorian. I am not sure that I recognise that as an accurate description of where we are, and I say that as someone having dealt with child witnesses in a courtroom setting, and indeed victims of sexual offences aged as young as three at the time of the commission of the offence. Changes have been made over the course of the past 40 years or more in Scotland, including the standard special measures that are already available and outlined in the committee report. For example, the live television video links allowing evidence to be taken from outside a courtroom. However, there is always—and there is no doubt about this—room for improvement. As Liam Kerr pointed out in his opening comments, the bill is effectively an extension of the protections that are already in place and can be viewed as taking sensible next steps. Trying to best ensure that the participation of witnesses, especially vulnerable people, is vital to the effective pursuit of justice. Maurice Corry rightly referred to the need to bear in mind the difficult balancing act that must take place to obtain a just and fair outcome, while at the same time seeking to ensure that no witness unnecessarily suffers distress in the process. In trying to strike that balance, it is critically important that we get it right for all the parties involved in criminal proceedings. As well as reducing the stress that is often felt by vulnerable witnesses and, as such, improving the evidence that is available from them, Annie Wells pointed to the safeguards that are needed to prevent miscarriages of justice. There is, of course, no single one and only consideration when it comes to dealing with justice and crime, but an honest desire to find out the truth of what happened does need to be one of the overriding considerations, and there was evidence on this before the committee. That is particularly pertinent, as the success of this legislation will depend on the evidence of the child being tested sufficiently and on an informed basis, including full disclosure of evidence at an early stage. In pursuing this legislation, it is important that the concerns voiced regarding current trends on late disclosure be addressed. Late disclosure can, of course, result in a need to revisit evidence later with a witness, thus defeating the purpose of this bill. Presiding Officer, if we are to get things right, the answers may not be entirely simple and straightforward, so changes may need to be informed by the experience that follows the bill. That is why I welcome the cabinet secretary for justice's commitment to taking a careful approach to those changes, as well as to the timetable for implementation, including reaching out further to all children giving evidence and also adult vulnerable witnesses. As Annie Wells pointed to in her speech, we need, I think, a more detailed timetable with thought given to which groups of people could benefit through those measures. As the committee report highlights, it is partly a matter of resources, and I would say that it is a false economy to starve the justice system and the courts of the resources that they need in any country, and that applies as much to Scotland as anywhere else. The risk, as has already been mentioned, is that we can overwhelm the system, meaning procedures such as commissions do not operate as they should, and the aims of the bill in the interests of vulnerable witnesses and of justice are not met as a result. That would be counterproductive and could defeat the good intentions behind the desire to immediately include all the vulnerable groups. Like Liam Kerr, I hope that the evaluation evidence will be shared with the committee, as promised, so that sufficient parliamentary scrutiny can be applied to any considered further extension of the provisions of the bill. That could help to facilitate speedy implementation of extension of the provisions, as and when appropriate, to other witnesses. Along with my colleagues, I look forward to developments going forward and the justice secretaries for their careful consideration of the matters. Thank you, and I call on the cabinet secretary. How am I used to have to conclude our debate? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This has been an excellent debate, very constructive and insightful. At times, it is extraordinarily powerful as well. I think that it is worth just taking a bit of a step back. I think that every single one of us, despite our various differences on a number of policy areas, we are in politics to make a difference to the most vulnerable people across Scotland. The bill aims very much to do that. I will just pick up on a point that Liam McArthur made in the beginning about consensus, which is good in this bill. I will make two points. One, I can say, having been in front of committee, that there is no lack of scrutiny, which is good in terms of this bill. I have every faith in my opposition colleagues to scrutinise and robustly scrutinise this bill, but the second point is that consensus that we have has not come by accident. It has come through a lot of reflection, taking various people on the journey with us. It is great that we have a number of very progressively minded people in the legal institutions that we put our faith in, from the Lord Advocate, the Lord President, the Lord Justice Clerk and many others in between all of that as well. It is great that we are at this position where we can have this consensus, but it certainly has not come by any stretch of the imagination. I will try to pick up on many of the points that were raised in the debate, if I can. In terms of the suggestion from many members—almost every single political party—that the Government considers extending the offence list to include domestic abuse, I will reiterate what I have said already that I am not already giving that serious consideration. It is the direction of travel of which the Government will move. I have to take consideration of the implications of that, to highlight some of the numbers. 4 per cent of domestic abuse cases were marked in the share of court and indictment, and 0.9 per cent were marked for trial and high court. Those numbers are small as a percentage, but we are talking about 150 high court cases and 710 share of injury cases. Not all of them will have necessarily a child witness if that is the phased implementation by which we are going by, but, nonetheless, I have to take those considerations into account, notwithstanding all of that, I am quite confident that we can get to a position where we will hopefully extend that offence list. I give way to Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson, I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I wonder if it may be worth inquiring in terms of the actual numbers of those cases that involve children. Therefore, we could actually get an idea of the resources that might be required to implement that. Cabinet secretary, I am doing that as part of my consideration on this issue, but, as I say, despite that, I mean that this is the direction that the Government should absolutely be going in that I will be taking the Government in, if I can. In terms of another issue that was raised by almost again every single political party, I think that, by all of them, it was Barnahouse and Scotland getting to adopting fully the Barnahouse concept. It is absolutely the Scottish Government's intention that we implement Barnahouse, but, of course, it is really important that we have recognition that we are making improvements and that we are making our way towards that concept. Clearly, for us to get there, we will have to, not just as a Government, but we will have to take other sectors, including legal institutions, with us along the way. I notice in John Finnie's intervention to Daniel Johnson in his closing speech that he made the point about secondary interviews not often being taken up. I thought that it was a very good point, but the other point that I would make to this, and I know that John Finnie recognises it, is that our system is very different to the inquisitorial system. We have an adversarial system, which is not decades-old, but centuries-old, in terms of legal tradition. That is not to be scoffed at by any stretch of the imagination that it served us well, but it does present an inherent difficulty, not insurmountable. I take the point from Lady Dorian that, in the long term, we should get ourselves to a position of one forensic interviewer. Thank you. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. That is correct. Of course, there has also been mentioned, made of the joint investigative interview, and often it is the quality of that. That is not critical of the practitioner's bit. If we can enhance the quality of any system, then we are likely to reduce the trauma or the requirement for a revisiting interview. John Finnie makes the point very well, and I will come to joint investigative interviews just shortly. I want to finish on Barnahus at a point that Rona Mackay made. There is significant work under way to explore the Barnahus concept, and I would be happy to update the Justice Committee on the work to develop Scotland's specific standards for Barnahus, hopefully by April of this year. I will be going back to the Justice Committee to give further detail of how we are getting on towards that. Liam McArthur. I am very grateful and very encouraged by what he has to say. Would he accept that, by making it absolutely explicit that not only is the direction of travel, but ultimately the objective is to put in place the Barnahus concept, those who may have concerns about how that is achieved will have absolute certainty about where we are going, and therefore we can work on the solutions to those problems, rather than get overly vexed about the problems themselves. I am more than happy to put that absolutely in record that that is the destination, that is where we want to go, is to have a Barnahus or a Verne's house or whatever you wish to call it, but that is absolutely where we want to go. I just make that point again, that in the number of countries that the Barnahus concept has been adopted is different in each jurisdiction, depending on that legal framework. I think that that is a point not to be lost. Just on joint investigative interviews, I think that again members have made very valid points. I have heard from Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General, many in the legal profession around the quality are sometimes lack thereof in terms of joint investigative interviews. That is why members will probably know that the evidence and procedure review joint investigative interviews workstream report made 33 recommendations on how the current model for GIIs could be strengthened. The recommendations are now being taken forward by the relevant organisations, the multi-agency working groups have been established, the Scottish Government has committed more than £300,000 to a joint project led by Police Scotland and Social Work Scotland, which creates a revised model for GIIs and develops an approach to investigative interviewing for children, which is both trauma-informed and achieves best evidence through more robust planning and interview techniques. I was struck by what Jenny Gilruth had to say about partners that are wider than just the legal systems in terms of education, health improvements, so I will reflect on that point and see how we can include them in some of the work that we do. I thank the committee and all members that spoke for recognition, I think important recognition of the fact that we have to have a phased implementation approach. We of course all want to get to a place, but everybody who is vulnerable, child or adult, has not just the opportunity to give evidence by commission because they do on applications as things stand, but the presumption is absolutely in favour of them giving evidence in a trauma-informed way and pre-recorded evidence by commission. Equally, John Finnie made the point that we cannot afford to overwhelm the system. We must get it right as opposed to get it rushed. The members across the chamber are of course right to press the Government on for the detail on that implementation plan. Once we have that, I will share that with members right across the chamber. On a couple of other points that were made, Daniel Johnson and other members spoke about the ground rules hearing. I reiterate perhaps what I said in my opening remarks. There may be benefit for questions to be lodged in advance, but I have warned against any suggestions that adding that requirement should be done in primary legislation. I was quite struck by what Lady Dorian Dill said when giving her evidence at stage 1 that the flexibility that would be maintained by having those recommendations on the ground rules hearing set out in the practice note would be much more beneficial if they were trying to put those into primary legislation, which would be much more difficult to change. As I say, I am pleased that it seems that the committee is minded in the same manner. Just on other issues that were raised, many members made a very valid point about the fact that, although we are focused on solemn cases and for right reasons and good reasons, that is understandable, because they are the most serious cases. There is no doubt that witnesses and complainers will be vulnerable even in summary cases, and Rhoda Grant made this point in relation to domestic abuse cases, the majority of which go through a summary proceeding. That is a very valid point, a point again that the Government will reflect on. There are, of course, serious implications, resource and otherwise, when it comes to perhaps the extension of the summary. That is why we are taking the approach of solemn first and then perhaps looking towards some of the cases. However, the point is not lost. It is well made by members right across this chamber in terms of vulnerability. Also, the point that Daniel Johnson made around measurements of vulnerability is perhaps something more for us to reflect on. There are a number of other points made during the debate. I will try to reflect on that. I thought that Annie Wells made a very powerful speech, and others did around the holistic approach that we take to victim support. From the moment that I was appointed to this position, I have made sure that we look to strengthen the support that we can give to victims. Victim support at Scotland is a key player in that, as are a number of other organisations such as Rakeprices Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and many others. The victim's task force will be key. The Justice Committee has already asked me to come back to future meetings and to update the Parliament on the work of the victim's task force. I will agree to do that. However, if any other member that is out with the Justice Committee wants that update, wants that briefing on what the victim's task force is doing, the difference that we are making and the issues that we should be considering, I extend that to Annie Wells and any other member that has an interest in that. She asked my opinion on the one-sheriff system, and in certain cases I will note what she says. I will reflect on what she says. I would just make the point—I know that she is aware of that, obviously—but the court programming, including the scheduling, judges very much a matter for the Lord President. I am always very wary of stepping on to the Lord President's territory, but it may be something that Annie Wells wants to raise directly if she has not already done so with the Lord President. I thought that, in terms of other points that were made, substantial points were made around the need for trauma-informed training, and Jenny Gilruth made that point very well, as did other members across the chamber, Shona Robison, as well. It is so important that we do that in a way that is absolutely joined up. I know that the Deputy First Minister, on my right-hand side, he and I are often in meetings together talking about that trauma-informed approach in overlapping governmental responsibilities, the ACEs agenda, as well as developing an adversity in trauma-informed workforce, including implementing national trauma training, is a programme for government commitment. In June of last year, the Deputy First Minister announced £1.35 million of investment to launch a national trauma training programme. The training is consistent with transforming psychological trauma. Specific lead projects would identify to raise awareness of handling trauma and adverse childhood experiences among medical professionals and those in the criminal justice system. On 30 January this year, the judicial institute for Scotland announced plans to provide new refresher training for all sheriffs and judges ahead of the new domestic abuse offence coming into force. The Scottish Government plans to host a round table in early 2019 for NHS Education Scotland and the Law Society for Scotland and many other stakeholders from the legal profession to discuss opportunities to develop a bespoke trauma-informed training resource for solicitors to count towards continued professional development. We take those points very seriously around the trauma-informed approach and trauma-informed training. I thank Fulton MacGregor in particular for a very powerful account that he gave from his constituent in relation to the impact that going through a court process can have on a vulnerable individual and particularly on a child. That is the reason why we are doing what we are doing, not just Government, but all of us here that support this bill. I want to thank all the members for their detailed scrutiny of the bill and many suggestions for the Government to reflect on. I am pleased to say that we will do that with an absolute open mind. I have enjoyed this stage 1 debate greatly. I look forward to stage 2 looking at the amendments and working with members right across the chamber to make sure that we get it right in terms of a criminal justice system for the most vulnerable in our society. I am delighted to move the bill in my name. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes our debate on the vulnerable witnesses criminal evidence Scotland bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 15227 on the financial resolution for the vulnerable witnesses criminal evidence Scotland bill. Could I call on Humza Yousaf to move that motion? The next item is consideration of business motion 15724 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. It is setting out changes to this week's business. Could I call on Graham Day to move that motion? Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question therefore is that motion 15724 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to decision time. Presiding Officer, I would like to raise a point of order under rule 8.17. In response to my question today on the failure of Scottish Enterprise to provide a loan to McGill that would have saved 450 jobs, the minister said that McGill, and I quote, did not provide the required financial information in time for the appropriate due diligence to be undertaken. I understand this to be completely false. The minister said today that Scottish Enterprise asked for a business plan on 18 December. That was the day that KPMG issued its report, but there was no request for anything from McGill that day. McGill was asked by Scottish Enterprise at a meeting on 14 January to provide a two-year financial model, a turnaround plan and a strategic review, which he provided four days later on 18 January, and I have that email. The minister hides behind bureaucratic timescales because he has been negligent in his duty to save 450 jobs with a £2 million loan. Yesterday, we heard that the Scottish Government has put together a £15 million funding package to prevent the loss of 300 jobs at Texas Instruments in Inverclyde. Why a much lesser amount of £2 million could not be found to save 450 jobs is a disgrace and will be a source of real frustration to the workers and the people who tried to save this company. I hope that the minister will correct the record. I am only bitterly disappointed that he did not act to save the company. Thank you very much to Ms Marra and thank you for a few minutes' notice of the point of order. I would make a couple of remarks. First of all, all members have an obligation to be truthful and accurate in their contributions in the chamber. I would also remind members that all members should treat each other with respect in the chamber. In the light of those comments, I would suggest that Ms Marra can pursue that point either through intervening on the minister in parliamentary questions, through putting down a written question or a normal question, or through writing to the minister if she disputes the accuracy of his reply. I hope that the member will consider those appropriate routes. On that note, if we can turn to decision time, the first question is that motion 15699, in the name of Hamza Yousaf, on the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence, Scotland Bill be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 15277, in the name of Mitt Dermakai, on the financial resolution for the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence, Scotland Bill be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. That concludes decision time. We are going to move shortly to members' business in the name of Emma Harper on World Cancer Day 2019. We will just take a few moments for the member and the minister and other members to change seats.