 Good morning, and I welcome everyone to the 11th meeting in 2015 of the Justice Committee. I can ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as they interfere broadcasting and when they're switched to silent. Apologies, I'm received from Alison McKinnis and I welcome Jenny Marra to the committee. Now, I move to item one. I'm inviting you to agree to consider item three on our approach to stage one consideration of inquiries and to read laxants in sudden deaths. Scotland built an item four on our approach to stage one consideration of their apologies. Scotland built in private. Are you agreed? Thank you. Item two, this is the main item of business. Now, final evidence session on human trafficking and exploitation. Scotland built. Now, I welcome to the committee Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Officials, and Oxley, criminal law and licensing division. Is it Duggan or Duggan? Duggan. Child protection team leader and Kevin Gibson, directorate for legal services, understand that the cabinet secretary wants to make a brief opening statement. Cabinet secretary. I'm more than happy just to go straight to questions that assist the committee with its business. You're just being too wooing us too strong these days. We're getting suspicious. Questions, please. I'm looking. You see they're not awake. We've got John and then we've got Margaret and then we've got Roddy. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The relationship between immigration and the issues that we're dealing with here. I'm trying to establish about the pecking order. Have you had, for instance, discussions with the UK board or agency or any of the Home Office or anyone about your proposed legislation? About the proposed legislation. We've engaged with the Home Office around the whole issue of tackling human trafficking and exploitation. We've obviously been involved in discussions around the modern slavery bill, which was taken forward in the UK part. There's a considerable level of dialogue that's taken place between the Scottish Government and the UK Government and the approaches that we're taking. We've gone for a UK-based commissioner as well, which is provided for within the modern slavery bill with particular functions here in Scotland. The national federal mechanism continues to be a UK-based approach. We've engaged with them and we've had engagement around the provisions that we've got within our legislation. Do you have any concerns that, in decisions that are made as to whether someone is a trafficked individual or not, that immigration authorities have undue input to that decision-making? I'm not aware of any specific concerns. Obviously, if there were issues of concern around the way in which UK board or agency were dealing with particular issues that came about as a result of individuals that we had identified as possibly in trafficked within Scotland, then clearly we would explore that with them. I'm not aware of any specific concerns at this particular point, but we would certainly wish to pursue it with them if there were issues identified. With regard to the possibility of children being trafficked, are you content that the getting it right for every child approach captures all of that, or should there be something further? I think that the approach that we've tried to take is very much that children who are being trafficked are children first, and that is the whole basis that underpins Gyrffwick in making sure that children are treated as children first and get the right support and assistance that they require should they prove to be vulnerable. The approach that we've taken in the legislation is to have a single offence. It's the same offence whether it applies to a child or an adult. The reason why we've taken that approach is to avoid getting into the potential difficulty that can occur with individuals who have been trafficked and that they may not have documentation. You could get into a situation where it's unclear whether that person is 18 or over. If you have two different offences, one for a child and one for an adult, you then potentially get into the difficulty that prosecutors then have to prove the age of that individual, whereas having a single offence, we are in a position where we can prosecute whether it's a child or whether it's an adult if they have been trafficked. In that sense, it gives us greater opportunity to secure convictions and to prosecutions as a result. The provisions that we have in Scotland through the various bits of legislation that we have in protecting children, through the name person, through the child protection procedures, where social workers are appointed as well, provide a range of protections for children who may be identified as being trafficked or exploited, and the bill helps to support that. I think it's important that this co-operation within the United Kingdom and beyond, within the European Union and beyond, it seems to me that awareness is an important issue. What plans— I don't want to stop every day, but, for the sake of writing the report, you are going on to lots of topics. I quite like when you did the stuff on co-operation with the UK in immigration, and I quite like that nobody wants to get follow-on to that, but you have gone into children and now you are on to being aware of it. It's to follow through on one line for the sake of us being able to—I will go back to you, because you will open them up. You will end it with other things on immigration and NRM, so that we can get that all on one bat. Is that what your question is about, Roddy? That's what I'm trying to get at, so we keep to it. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Obviously, the Home Office received a report reviewing NRM and didn't deal with the position of children in Scotland, but I think that there were matters when you last appeared for the committee to talk about NRM, which is something that the Scottish Government would consider the impact of that review. Has thinking moved on in any way in terms of reviewing that recommendation, that the up-and-down recommendation is on the NRM? Well, the review took place last year, and it obviously highlighted a number of areas. There was a need for improvements in the way in which the national referral mechanism was operating. One of the aspects of that was the proposal to establish a Scottish panel, or what was viewed as being a regional panel, to consider cases that are referred to the NRM. We believe that that can help to give additional focus to particular Scottish cases. We believe that that will help to support the way in which NRM is operating. I am also very conscious that there are some stakeholders who would like to see a Scottish-only NRM. I am not opposed to that, but we would need to consider that in detail in terms of how it would operate and the potential impact that it would have as well. At this present stage, the establishment of, as was recommended from the Home Office review of regional panels and having a Scottish panel that would consider Scottish cases would be a helpful way of helping to give greater focus on how the NRM is operating in Scotland. But nothing is being currently agreed with the Home Office at the present time? We are still on discussions with them around that, and we will continue to be engaged with them around that. My understanding from the Home Office is that some of the areas of work that still have to be taken forward around the operation of the NRM. I would like to think that we can get those issues addressed and resolved, but I think that the specific Scottish panel may be a useful way of helping to make sure that it is operating more effectively in Scotland. Margaret, do you want to come in the NRM? A new two-question? I will follow up on that, cabinet secretary. Following the review, I think that there is going to be two panels set up or two pilots set up in West Yorkshire and South West ACPO region. To look at the regional difference, would it be a suggestion or helpful to suggest that Scotland was also included as a pilot to see how it was working regionally? I think that some of the concern was around the support services that are devolved here and making sure that there was a full understanding of how those work, just the same as in different areas of England. There will be different regional support. We are conscious of the two pilots that have been established by the Home Office. What we have asked is to be kept informed of how they are progressing and how they are developing and operating in order to inform how we move forward here in Scotland. That could include the possibility of having, as I say, a panel here in Scotland. My view is that I think that it would be useful. The Home Office has chosen, and it is for them to explain why they have chosen those particular areas for having the pilots established. We have asked to be kept informed so that that can help to assist us in looking at how we can make progress here in Scotland around how the NRM is operating. I am personally persuaded that a Scottish panel would be a helpful approach. Having said that, I am also open to the idea of whether there should be an NRM specifically operating in Scotland. At the very least, I would like to try the panel approach to see whether that helps to improve things sufficiently in Scotland once the pilots are being completed. It is not something that the Scottish Government would suggest that Scotland was included in as one of the pilots. I do not know whether you are able to say, Ann, if there was any specific discussion with them about establishing another pilot here in Scotland at the time when we are having dialogue, but I know that they decided on the two particular locations that they wanted to have, the NRM. I suspect that part of it is to do with numbers of individuals who have been identified in order to test out that process. We have been in discussion with Home Office officials, both Northern Ireland and ourselves, about the NRM. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland have small numbers of victims, so, in discussions with Home Office, they identified the areas and said that those were the two areas that they thought that they should test. What were the pilots around? Is it West York? What were the places that there were pilots? It is a sort of Cornwall area, which is the actual police-lead Sean Sawyer's area, and West Yorkshire is the other area. Yes, West Yorkshire. What is the difference in the figures between the West Yorkshire and the whole of Scotland? In Scotland, there were only 55 victims identified in 2014. West Yorkshire, what do we know? Offhand, I do not. No, I just wondered if it is a numbers game. No, it is not only a numbers game. There are also costs that come into it as well. In the length of time, the pilots are going to run, but there are two waves of pilots now. There is a second wave, which will start during the summer, and we are in discussions with Home Office just now over that second wave. Is it included in the second wave? Or is it not viable with our numbers? It is not viable with our numbers to actually do a pilot. What they proposed was a joint pilot with Northern Ireland, but it still does not increase the number of potential victims that could be found. It would be helpful to know the numbers in the regions that are pilots, so we see what kind of critical mass we are talking about. We can get some more details from the Home Office for you. It is principally an issue that is being taken forward by the Home Office, so we can certainly try to get some further information from them for you to assist you with that. I get the sense that the committee is quite interested in pursuing this, and it might be something that we can consider, and we will press further, but even in our report. You say that it is not a numbers game, but we are being told that it is numbers, and that is the criteria. I am not blaming you, but it is the point that you have made. I think that we would be looking at the fact that it is the delivery of services, and there are other issues with the NRM that came up in questioning that it tends to be tick box exercise and not victim centre. Do you know that there is culture, as well as delivery of services that was put to the committee? Christian, you wanted to come in there, I think. Yes, just to add into this, covenants are absolutely right that most of the evidence that we got, what does not work is there, and I am. I am quite encouraged about piloting in England, but I have not quite got the cabinet secretary answer on this. Would you go for the second round? Are you asking to have a piloting in Scotland only just to recognise the evidence that we received at the committee, and to recognise that the NRM has got big failures here in Scotland, as well? As you have heard, part of the challenge is the number of cases that we have in Scotland at the present moment for testing that out. I would, in the second wave of the discussion that we are going to be having, or we were having with the Home Office, is the scope for Scotland to host one of those pilots. There are issues around the number of cases that we have in being able to take a pilot forward. I understand that the Home Office has not finalised where the second wave will take place yet, and we will continue to have a discussion with them on that, to see whether there is scope to establish one in Scotland. However, as I said, the Home Office is taking this forward, and there are certain criteria that it has around that that we have to explore with them to see whether Scotland would be a suitable location for it. I will confirm that it is your intention that you want to have a piloting to happen in mid-summer. I would like to see at the very least a Scottish-based panel as it was recommended. Whether we are in a position to host one of the pilots is a matter for the Home Office because of the criteria that has been set around that. Given some of the concerns that have been raised about the national referendum mechanism and the recommendation of moving to regional panels, I think that having a regional panel here in Scotland would be useful and I would be supportive of that. It would be helpful to know what the full criteria is for the pilot, other than just numbers, if there are other criteria involved, than having a weight of numbers that makes it viable, if there is something else. John, can I come back to him? I would like to go back to children, and then I want to ask others to come in on the children issue so that we can collect things for the report in an orderly fashion. Thank you, convener. What I was going to ask, cabinet secretary, was about the summit in October 2012. I am from the policy memorandum here, and then there was a subsequent meeting of senior people in October last year. We are told about the anti-trafficking progress group and a series of 12 actions. I just wonder if it would be possible to get an update in writing on those actions, particularly relating to children. Make sure that we provide that to you, if that would assist you in the progress that is being made against those particular action points. Cat is probably able to give you a bit of an insight. Do you have some details around them? It is particularly awareness that I am interested in, because the whole issue is about the raising awareness. It is all very well if we go to legislation, but if people do not understand the signs and symptoms that would be. I am happy for us to provide that around the awareness stuff in particular. Right. Do you have any other questions on the way that the bill deals with the issue of children? I know that issues have been raised with us. Christian, then Elaine, then Jenny. Thank you. Thank you, convener, again. Just a quick one on this one. I know a lot of evidence received said that we wanted something specific for children, and I hear the answer that you gave. I just wanted to know if, at any point in the bill, you are thinking about doing something about children, would you think as well about adults with learning difficulties who could have the same problem or will need the same kind of support? We have seen that in our visits and the evidence that we took, but there are some others who are very vulnerable as well. Of course. I am more than happy to consider that. There are, of course, obligations on local authorities that if there is a vulnerable adult, including those who have a learning disability to make certain provisions available to them to provide them with the support and assistance as is required. As I mentioned in the approach that we have tried to take with the bill is to treat the children that are being trafficked as children first of all, and to make sure that the legislative responsibilities that local authorities have towards children are provided to those children who are being trafficked. That is the approach that we have sought to take with the bill and also having it as one single offence. However, I am certainly more than happy to explore whether there is anything further that might be necessary in order to address any concerns that are around the provisions in the bill. Further aspects that we believe can be pursued around children that might be best placed within the strategy that we will be taking forward around some of the requirements and expectations of local authorities in the existing legislative provisions that are there for vulnerable children and children that may need to be supported. I am more than happy to consider whether that might be another route that would be appropriate for those with a learning disability. On the issue of children, some witnesses felt that they would be married to referencing the support and assistance that is currently legally required to put that on to the face of the bill and cross-referencing what is required to be provided for children. Would you have any merit in doing that? Is there some clarity in putting that on to the bill? I am conscious that we have a whole range of legislation in place to help to support children that are already provided for. Although the bill does not make reference to that, if a child is found to be trafficked, there is a need for local authorities to provide support on the assistance cycle for a child that is vulnerable and that child protection procedures kick in and the process that operates off that. I do not think that there is a need to repeat what is already in legislation in that piece of legislation, but I am open to considering where there is a way in which it can provide further reassurance that that is what the intention is, that the child protection and child support provisions in legislation that we already have is what would be used for the purpose of a child to be in subject to trafficking. We have already had some discussions with stakeholders on what the infusion would be in that issue. I know that you have heard some evidence as a committee as well. I am open to considering that, although a large part of that would largely be dealt with within the actual strategy in itself, setting out much more clearly what would be expected of local authorities in these instances with the existing legislative provisions that we have in place for supporting vulnerable children. James Wolff, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, had a concern about the drafting of section 1, which seems to apply that it is Scottish ministers who have to secure for the adult the provision of such support and assistance as they consider necessary for the adult's needs. I think that he pointed out that other agencies would obviously be involved in doing that. Do you feel that that is a problem with the drafting, or is there some way in which that wider requirement to provide support is actually encompassed? The list of provisions for dealing with the children are already in place. It may be that that is an issue that will be better addressed in the strategy. We are very clear about that and what the requirements for local authorities are at that particular point. As I say, I am not entirely clear where what benefit it would have in having something on the face of the bill itself because of the detail of what we intend to put in the strategy for local authorities. At this stage of the view that it would be better dealt with within the strategy rather than on the face of the bill. I think that he is concerned more about the support and guidance for adults, so it is not necessarily in legislation at the moment that the way in which that section is drafted implies that the Scottish ministers are required to provide that support and guidance rather than other agencies. Do you feel that that is a drafting issue? I am certainly happy to take that away and to consider that issue, but the general issue behind it is probably something that will be better dealt with within the actual strategy. On the issue of children, you have just said that Scotland has existing legislation. I think that you are possibly referring to the three main children acts, including the 95 act. There have been a lot of concerns right from the start of the process from all the stakeholders involved in trafficking that children are not on the face of the bill. Can you tell me precisely how those three pieces of legislation work together that gives you confidence that children should not be on the face of the bill, that those provisions are there? How does that work? Let us take, for example, if a child is identified as being—for example, under the most recent legislation that we have taken for the Children and Young People Act, a child has a entitlement to a named person to be appointed for them. If a child had been trafficked in Scotland, they would be entitled to having a named person to be appointed for them. If they are identified as being vulnerable, they would be in a position where the child protection procedures then operate and a social worker is appointed for that particular individual to have oversight of their needs and any measures that have to be taken forward. Those bits of legislation all make different provisions for children in particular sets of circumstances. I think that there may be some issues around operational aspects and how local authorities respond to some matters, but I think that the legislative provisions are quite clear in terms of the types of protections and supports that they would provide to children, whether it be a named person or whether it be a social worker being appointed if the individual is vulnerable, which, for a child who had been trafficked, would give them two individuals who would have a responsibility in looking at their needs and the support and assistance that they may require. I think that you would probably agree with me that named person is not nearly as strong as guardianship. The absence of guardianship is also concerning, especially given the fact that England, Wales and Northern Ireland have that provision as well. Does that not concern you? The difference is that, in England and Wales, we do not have an named person arrangement in the way in which we have in Scotland. The childcare arrangements that we have are not directly comparable. We have taken slightly different approaches to that. I am conscious that the Scottish Guardian Service provides a very important and supportive role, particularly to those children who are asylum seekers who arrive in Scotland on their own. I think that there are clearly some areas where that may be appropriate for children who have been trafficked as well. However, I am also conscious of that, if you have a named person and if they are vulnerable, that you have a social worker, that if you introduce a third person, there is a potential for conflict and there is a potential for confusion around who is going to lead responsibility in order to deal with that particular child's needs. I am open to looking at how we can strengthen provisions to make sure that children are getting the right type of support at the right time when they are vulnerable and if there is means in the bill in which to achieve that. In some cases, that might be that a guardian should be appointed, but in other cases it might not be because of the provisions that we already have in place. I am very open to exploring it and how we can improve on it, but I think that we have robust measures in place at the present time in Scotland, which are different from the approach that they have in England and Wales. You said that you do not want confusion, but you have already cited two people who would be involved, the named person and the social worker. I was keen to know if you thought that the named person arrangement was as strong as guardianship. I think that most of the stakeholders, most people who are involved with victims of human trafficking feel that it is not nearly as strong that victims of human trafficking who end up in our country under these horrific circumstances deserve the strongest support the state can give them, especially as children. Do you not agree? If they are vulnerable as well, they are also going to have social workers appointed to under a child protection—but not a guardian. Under a child protection, responsibilities and legislation have a clear responsibility in dealing with any support and assistance that that child may require. There are two individuals who have a clear role in meeting their needs and addressing their needs and co-ordinating services in order to meet their needs in particular for the named person to facilitate that particular role. Is your suggestion that we should remove the named person and it should be a guardian instead of a named person for someone who is trafficked? I think that a lot of the stakeholders preferred a guardianship model because it is more robust and gives children that better standard of protection through the ordeal. I think that that has been the general consensus. The evidence from COSLA's written submission seemed to suggest that there was a resource issue with that. I would be very concerned if the Scottish Government was stepping back from giving trafficked children a guardian because it was a matter of finance. Closer will not explain the room position in that matter. I think that what we would have to be very clear about is what would the guardian do different to what a named person or the social worker would do, what exactly different would they do, what would be the difference? I think that there is much more statutory. I presume that your civil servants have investigated that and you have decided that a named person— That is what I am seeing. My understanding of a named person is that it can be a head teacher or it can be somebody in a school. I think that people have enough to do a guardian as a specifically appointed person by the state to see this vulnerable person through their ordeal. It is worth keeping in mind that a named person for someone who is a trafficked child who has been identified is going to be someone who is relevant to the needs to meet that particular child's needs as well. However, I think that we would have to be very clear about if you were to introduce a third tier of support to that child, what specific added value would it provide for that particular child's needs. I am not saying that I am—I do not recognise in some instances that it might be the right thing to do. I think that applying universally might not be in particular circumstances but there may be particular children where a guardian might be the best choice and it may be for the named person and the social worker who is appointed if the child is vulnerable who would determine whether that is what should be done for that particular child in order to meet their needs. We just have to be careful that we do not get into a situation of saying, right, every child who has been trafficked must have a guardian appointed irrespective of circumstances. It may be that there is a need to consider in what circumstances that would be appropriate and the person who might be best to lead that would be the named person alongside the social worker who has been appointed to meet the child's needs. We just have to be careful if we make any additional provision that we do so that we have a clear added benefit in meeting the child's needs rather than doing it on the basis that a guardian sounds better than a named person. It is not that it sounds better but if the children's organisations were to make a detailed case to you, would you consider inserting it at stage 2? What can I say, Jenny? I think that we have had a full debate. I am not suppressing, because I know that this will come up at stage 2. There will be more debate. We have had your tested it fully, ministers have given his responses. I really want to get on to the bits of the bill, but the bit that has not been asked as well in dealing with children is a presumption of age on the face of the bill. James Wolf, QC Dean of Faculty, quoted because he seems to know back to front EU directors as he should. He said that, in member states, he will ensure that the age of a person subject to trafficking in human beings is uncertain and there are reasons to believe that the person is a child. That person is presumed to be a child in order to receive immediate access, and this is key to what has been raised before, assistance, support and protection in accordance with articles 14 and 15, whether they have a guardian, a pointer, a named person or whatever they are entitled to. Should we have, because evidence to the committee often is that people do not know themselves what age they are, they do not have documents, but should there be on the face of the bill a presumption of age clause that would assist those agencies to work with victims of trafficking? The present arrangements are that, for a local authority, they are unsure about the age of an individual, but they believe them to be a child, as they provide them with childcare services, and they should respond to their needs on that basis. That is the general approach that local authorities take at the present time for individuals who are uncertain about their age, but they believe that they may be a child, and that they should respond to the use of childcare provisions. There is a potential unintended consequence around the presumption element, that someone who we are unsure about their age may claim to be a child, is that he would then be placed in childcare services, which in some cases might not be the right thing to do if they claim, but they are not able to evidence that they are not a child, that if there was a presumption as well, which could potentially have risks to children. I am mindful of the evidence that you have received from the faculty in this particular issue, and what we are going to do is consider at stage 2 whether there are further measures that we can take to try to clarify the area further. However, there are some potential unintended consequences that we need to work through, first of all, in order to make sure that we have the right safeguards in place. Some of the evidence that I am looking at here from the Child Protection Committee chairs forum is that young people pretend to be older than they are quite often, rather than pretend to be younger. Are you saying that it would be counterproductive if there was a presumption that you are a child, that that might mean that people would play the game? It is part of the reason why, under GERFIC, the requirement is for local authorities where they believe that although they may claim to be over 18, if they suspect that they are under 18, it is to actually provide their services through their childcare approach as well. Part of the challenge is very often that individuals in these circumstances may not have documentation or documentation that is not reliable about their age as well. There is also the risk of those who are over 18 to claim that they are under 18. If local authorities say, for example, believe that they were over 18 but they were claiming that they weren't and they have no documentation to prove otherwise, they would be required to then start to meet their needs through childcare services if there was a presumption. That is why I think and there is a risk that that creates for children who are making use of these childcare provisions as well. That is why I think that considering this issue and the issues that have been raised by the faculty, we want to take a wee bit of time to work through some of those potential unintended consequences that could arise before considering putting in a presumption of age within the legislation itself. I am open to looking at it but we need to work through some of those potential unintended consequences first of all. Your mind is not closed though to it. I can see the benefits of it as well. We just want to work through some of the potential unintended consequences, which were the reason why we did not have it in the bill in the first place. Will there be some movement by the time we get to stage 2 on this issue, in terms of timing, or will we look at stage 3? I would certainly like to try and do so. Thank you. Elaine Margaret. John, what was your third? No, no, that was covered. Thank you. It was about getting clarification on these issues. Margaret, are you on a different issue than I am on Margaret? Strategy defence cabinet secretary, are you in favour of this going on the face of the bill to augment crucially not to replace the Lord Advocate's instruction on the basis that that would give added protection? On the basis, as I think James Wolff said, if we did not have it, it might leave a situation in Scotland where victims, including child victims of trafficking, were less well protected. I know that you had extensive evidence from Lord Advocate on this very issue last week. Having considered it, I thought he made a very strong case for the approach that we have set out in the bill and not having the statutory defence on the face of the bill. I think that he went as far as saying that he felt that taking an approach that had it on the face of the bill could potentially result in injustices taking place. I think that it is worth keeping in mind that, in creating the statutory defence, there is an obligation on the individual to demonstrate that they have been trafficked and that that has resulted in them committing the offence. The approach that we have tried to take is much more of a victim-centred approach, which is that there is no requirement for victims to self-identify or to highlight issues themselves. It allows us to and it allows prosecutors to be able to pursue cases where they believe that it is the right thing to do and that they can consider the evidence that led to the offence by the individual and to consider whether they have been trafficked. From what you heard from Lord Advocate, it gives us greater flexibility in being able to respond to those individual cases much more effectively and, as Evidence highlighted, it gives them the opportunity to look at abandoning cases and also to look at setting aside any particular sentences as we are to request that sensors set aside. I think that the approach that we have set out is one that is much more victim-centred. It does not place obligation on the victim to demonstrate to the court that they committed their offence on the basis of their status as being trafficked. Instead, it allows through the approach that we have set out for the Lord Advocate to issue guidance or instruction, as the committee raised with him last week, where it will take an intelligence-based approach that it will consider the information that they have received at the Crown, the policing from other parties about a given individual, and they can make a judgment on that basis about whether someone should then be prosecuted. In that sense, it gives us a much more, I believe, victim-centred approach and greater flexibility to address any concerns that there are that individuals have been trafficked as committed offences as a result. I am not suggesting that it is neither or, cabinet secretary. I think that the approach is excellent that the Lord Advocate is suggesting, but this is an additional protection, if you like, until in the box for those victims who, in the initial assessment, might not be looked at as trafficking. Therefore, they are less likely to come forward to the organisation, the Crown Procurator Viscal Service, that has said that we do not think that you were trafficked if they then are in possession of some information that might support their case. In fact, I think that when the Home Office looked at it in England, one of the reasons for giving the statutory defence is that it gave victims the confidence to come forward and give evidence against traffickers. This is on the back of, I think, the equality commission's follow-up report on trafficking, where victims' agency said that, despite guidance, they felt that people were still being prosecuted where they shouldn't be. I understand that. I think that the approach that has been set out by the Lord Advocate will also help to reduce the potential for injustices taking place, as he offered in his evidence to the committee last week. It provides a level of flexibility in individual circumstances for the Crown not to pursue cases, to abandon them and to look at setting aside convictions. It provides that level of flexibility, which is much more victim-focused. The other part that I look at at this is that it places obligation on the victim to then demonstrate not just to the Crown but to the court that the purpose for which they committed their offences is because of the circumstances in which they found themselves being trafficked. That would obviously have to be done and made known prior to the case going to court. Whereas the approach that we intend to take is one in which the Crown, along with others, could look at the intelligence that they have relating to particular individual circumstances and make a judgment based on that. In the evidence to you last week, the Lord Advocate is open to the idea as to whether that should be instructions rather than guidance, so that there is a stronger emphasis to that. However, I think that it is a pragmatic approach to it and a much more victim-centred approach to it than having it a statutory defence on the face of the bill. If there was some merit in added protection, is that something that could be looked at at stage 2, providing the statutory defence, given that for some people, even though there is an emphasis on them, that might be their preferred way to give some confidence to come forward? Of course, it is not to anyone to bring forward an amendment to deliver a statutory defence. I think that the approach that we believe is the most appropriate route is the approach that was set out in the bill and that you heard from the Lord Advocate last week on. Is it something that you would rule out completely? I believe that the approach that was set out is what I think is the favourite approach from my perspective and from the Scottish Government's perspective. However, I am open to the issue of looking at moving it towards instruction rather than guidance, as the Lord Advocate said last week. Disappointing, cabinet secretary. Roddick, Christian and Jenny. Just a couple of brief points on that. It is fair to say that the Lord Advocate last week drew attention to problems with statutory defence in terms of the principle of fair notice being given to the Crown in terms of the defence that was being lodged by the ledge victim, so that there was a downside to the statutory defence point and also a feeling that it should not be overregged even in the modern slavery bill when it is exempted from about 130 offences. He also referred to the fact that he was not aware that there were any prosecution guidelines in relation to trafficking in England and Wales. Is that your understanding, too, that there are no guidelines? Will we talk about possibly having both, that in England and Wales there are no guidelines? Will that still be the case? I do not know. We would have to check for you to see whether that remains the case. On that particular point about the obligation of people to defend their case, I would just want a clarification on that. If you put it on the face of the bill, the statutory defence, will there be automatically an obligation for the victim to do it? Yes. Automatically. It would then be required to demonstrate that statutory defence. When we are talking about putting in both, does not avoid that fact if you have it in the guidelines or instructions and as well on the face of the bill, it does not avoid that fact, but there is still an obligation on that. The guidelines that would be issued by the Lord Advocate would have to be consistent with what was in the face of the bill. There is no way that we can dump in that idea. Could you otherwise create confusion if you have a provision for a statutory defence in the face of the bill and then you produce Lord Advocate guidelines that say otherwise that prosecutors would then be left? What is it? Is it the Lord Advocate's guidance or is it the statutory defence? If you put it in the face of the bill, you would have to have any guidance that was issued by the Lord Advocate that would be consistent with that. I was just trying to find a way to explore the way, but we could have it in both ways. We vote having the obligation, but with any of you, you cannot see how it can be done. As I said, the purpose behind the approach that we have set out is that it would be an intelligence-based approach that would be used by the Crown in determining whether they were going to prosecute someone who had been traffied and who had committed an offence as a result. They would be able to consider that information and make a decision based on that. Even during the course of the trial, if information came to their knowledge that they could at that point then decide based on that, we are going to abandon the case. I think that there have been cases where that has happened, where the Crown has abandoned cases as a result of information that has been brought to them. The difference with the statutory offence is that the obligation would be on the individual themselves prior to the case getting into court to set that down and for that then to be taken forward in the court. They would have to demonstrate that the obligation is then on them rather than on the Crown having a flexibility to determine that as to whether they prosecute the individual. I wonder if that will have an effect on the time scales as well. The timeline will be a lot longer as a result if it was not statutory. If there was a statutory offence. Well, in terms of timescale, I understand that in legal processes there would be a requirement on the victim or the accused to lodge that defence prior to the case proceeding in court. There would be a requirement at that particular point and that would have to be addressed at the stage prior to it. It is difficult to say where it would add time to it or not, but it would be a requirement in terms of the process that has to be lodged prior to the case starting in court. I just think my way through this because I have found Lord Advocate persuasive, but I am still not fixed. If you are saying that the statutory offence on the face of the bill would be mandatory, if you are going to use it, you have got to use it. You cannot. I decide to not use the statutory offence because I do not use it and I am taken to court in the criminal case. During the course of the criminal case, I realise or the prosecution realises that I am a victim of trafficking, but I have not used the statutory offence. How does that impact on the trial? I will get Kevin Mayby just to explain that to him. I just need to know how it works. The second one is that I use the statutory offence. I decide to use it, but during the course of the trial it turns out that I am not a victim at all. I just need to know how those two things operate because the issue that we are making is can you have both? If you had both, how would they cause huge problems in a practical terms in the course of a trial? The first is that I do not use it and then we find out that I am a victim. I do not think that it is correct to say that the defence is mandatory in the sense that if you are a victim you must avail yourself of the defence. I think that what we are saying is that— It is not mandatory, that is the first thing. No. If you wish to use the defence, the obligation is on the accused, the victim— I understand that bit. Yes, to raise some sort of evidential basis and then it is for the Crown essentially to disprove the accused's case on that point. Yes. During the course of the criminal proceedings, which I am no longer party because I have used my statutory offence, it turns out that, in fact, my statutory offence was allowed wrongly and misguided. What happens? It would be for the jury to determine whether your defence is, on the basis of the evidence, has been led by the Crown, whether the defence is rebutted or not. I understand that bit. It has been rebutted and they have said that they have got this defence, you were a victim, you are not going to be part of it. However, during other parts of a trial it turns out that I am actually a baddie as well. What happens then? I am not a victim. Is this if you have used— We are going to be prosecuted along with others, let's say. You use the statutory defence that you are a victim of trafficking. The Crown is to prove that I understand that I have got to rebut it, but the jury then says, no, we think that this person is not a victim, so we are not prosecuting. We cannot be part of it. However, later, during the course of proceedings against others, it turns out that I am in fact—so, do I take it that then I could be prosecuted? Whether the Crown can appeal our conviction, so that that rate would be open to them. I am in a muddle. I am in a total muddle about how this work can practice. I have got a lot of hands up. I have muddled everybody else up now. That's quite interesting. If I can just add on that particular thing, you would just say, convener, that was very interesting. If it's not mudditary, do you think that the consequences of putting it at the statutory defence, which means that the victim should be less likely to ask for defence when, if it wasn't the guidelines, there would be a lot freer to do it or not? Will that, in fact, have the contrary effect? If you don't use a statutory defence, does this prejudice shoot in any way? If it is sitting there in the face of the bill and you haven't used it, and during the course of the trial, it turns out that, well, it's apparent to the Crown that this person is, in fact, a victim and shouldn't be up there on trial. Does that make it harder or easier or whatever? Will it be a matter for the Crown to determine whether or not to abandon the prosecution on the basis of the new evidence that comes from it? So it doesn't matter that they haven't used a statutory defence. No, no, no. Jenny, I'll let Jenny in next and we'll get the rest in on this. On this as well, convener, it's my understanding, perhaps you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that England, Wales and Northern Ireland have both guidelines, but they also have a statutory defence. It's also my understanding that our Crown Office in Scotland took the CPS's guidelines. I want to ask you, cabinet secretary, if there are other jurisdictions across the islands and we need to work in a joint approach on that, felt that both guidelines and a statutory defence were needed. Why have we decided that the guidelines are sufficient themselves? We're going to clarify in terms of the guidance that has been issued by the director of public prosecution in England for offences being considered. We've tried to take an approach that is very much victim-centred. It's also worth stating as well as that. We're trying to take an approach that is very much victim-centred to try and we're very conscious that those are individuals who will not be most rightly to self-report and to self-identify because of the very difficult circumstances in which they may find themselves and to take an approach that draws away some of the added burden that is then caused by having a statutory defence provision within the actual legislation and allowing that to be dealt with in a much more flexible way by the Crown, along with the other agencies, to consider that individual's circumstances and whether they choose to prosecute or not. We are seeking to try and take a more victim-centred approach and not to place added burden and pressure to an individual who may find themselves in a very difficult set of circumstances from which they've just been found. Your argument is that having a more victim-centred approach in Scotland results in not giving them a statutory defence? I think what it does do is it gives more flexibility for the Crown to consider all of the circumstances and to take an intelligence-based approach to making a decision about whether a prosecution should take place or not. Are you confident that the guidelines are not resulting in miscarriages of justice? The Lord Advocate has indicated that he's prepared to take that to the point of it being instructions rather than guidance as well, so that it's very clear about what should happen in particular circumstances within the Crown. It's about trying to take some of the pressure away from the individual who's been identified as a victim or being an accused individual who may, because of the circumstances that you'll know very well, may not be inclined to identify who was at the root cause of the particular circumstances for committing that offence. To draw some of that away and to create some flexibility around making that decision, and that's why we've tried to take a much more victim-centred approach. As the Lord Advocate has said last week, he believes that not taking an approach, which is based on guidance on instruction, will potentially lead to injustices taking place. He did say that, but he said immediately after that, we would take our lead from Parliament as to the extent of any defence that was placed on the face of the Bill, so it's my understanding that the Lord Advocate may still be open to a statutory defence. Of course, they're going to implement what's in legislation. That's not what he's saying, that if the Parliament's decision is that you should have a statutory defence, we'll have to operate that, but what he's clearly... Spin, Jenny, the Lord Advocate. Lord Advocate, we're very, very cabinet secretary. A wee bit of a spin, I think we all appreciate the Lord Advocate has to have temper laws laid down in Parliament. I wouldn't be surprised if a Lord Advocate chooses to respond to that particular point to the committee, because what he is saying is that if you take a statutory defence approach, he believes that there is a potential for injustices to take place. By having guidance or instructions, he believes that greater flexibility, but of course, and I think you'd be keen to make sure that's the case, the Lord Advocate will implement whatever Parliament decides. Yes, absolutely. And I'm sure that's what you agree he said to the committee last week. Yes, cabinet secretary, can I do... Can I just... I'm sure you agree that's what he said to the committee last week. I agree with what I just read out. I think it's important we just clarify. Miss Marra, I think it's important we don't... Sorry, both of you? Both of you? Yeah. I get quite on both. I think we must accept, Miss Marra, that what the Lord Advocate said was, he will be whatever we pass in Parliament in statute. That end, obviously, says so. It's not a case of he's sitting there open to it. He put a very... Whether you agree with it or not, we agree with it, he put a very persuasive argument from his point of view about the position that he wanted to have, which was discretion and so on. Right. Can we move on? Just a final point, sir. Others still want to come in, bear with me. Are you all want... Do you still want to come in on this? Yeah, just for the record. No, not this minute. Finish and then we'll come to you, Roddy. So there, finish a bit, Jenny, and then we'll come to you, right? Cabinet secretary, finally on this. What's to ask about? Are you confident that the guidelines are sufficient? Because I asked you a written parliamentary question on this just a few weeks ago and you said that you didn't hold any records on these elements. Secondly, are you confident that the other jurisdictions on these islands have taken evidence at length as well as we have and have decided that guidelines, which are exactly the same as ours, I believe that Scotland and England have exactly the same guidelines, but they have decided they need that statutory defence as well. Are you confident that the guidelines alone are going to be sufficient given that other jurisdictions have gone for both? Well, I'll go back to the point that I made earlier, and that is we're going to check in terms of the actual guidance that's been issued in England and Wales, because as Roderick Campbell raised, there's issues about whether they have actually issued guidance in that particular point. Of course, look... Cabinet secretary, I've got a committee member here who's about to explode, and I don't want to explode him here. So Roderick Campbell... I pray for the cabinet secretary for checking the position, but the Lord Advocate said last week that he wasn't aware of any yet in terms of guidelines, so I think some clarity on the position rather than... So I thought we were talking about instructions. So the point I'm making is we're going to check for the committee if there are any guidelines that have been issued as well. Of course, different jurisdictions in the UK with different legal systems take different approaches dealing with a variety of issues on an on-going basis. That's not to say we're not trying to work together to achieve the same aim, but taking an approach which is distinctive to our own legal system here in Scotland. What I am confident of is that the approach that we've set out in Scotland is very much victim-centred. It's about trying to remove some of that onus and burden that's placed on victims who may have committed an offence as a result of the situation that they find themselves in. As I've already indicated, the Lord Advocate is prepared to step that guidance up from being guidance to instruction if that gives further assurance in terms of the approach that the Crown Office will take in this matter. So there's much greater certainty that this is not something where they have a choice around. It's a clear instruction about what should happen in particular sets of circumstances. I think that that's pretty exhaustive. I'm being exhaustive, but Margaret, I'll let you do a short final one on this as you raised it. Just to be absolutely clear, I totally understand that you favour the child-centred report and the issue of instructions, but can we be clear that putting a statutory defence on the face of the bill is not mutually exclusive? We could have both if the committee so decided and Parliament so decided. You're correct to say that they're not mutually exclusive. And we could have both, yeah. If we decided. We've agreed that they're not mutually exclusive. You've got your answer. I want to move on. There's lots of bits of the bill to be explored. Elaine? Yes. With the issues of definitions, because the definition of trafficking in the bill differs from that set out in the EU directive. We've had evidence that the definition should coincide with what the EU directive says. I wondered why the EU definition hadn't been included in the bill. Well, the definition we've set out for the new offences one that I mentioned earlier on will apply to both children and adults and is designed in such a way as to cover all forms of potential exploitation. We've tried to also draft the offence in such a way as to ensure that trafficking activities which have been set out in the various international agreements including the EU directive are covered in the way in which we have drafted our particular offence and also to do so in a way that can assist us in bringing forward prosecutions as well. It's worth keeping in mind that the three elements that are often set out in international treaties about pursuing issues around human trafficking, about the act, the means and the purpose. What we have done with our definition is that where the means can't be demonstrated to a sufficiently high enough level within a court of law that allows us to continue to take forward a prosecution where both the act and the purpose can be demonstrated in that sense, that definition goes slightly wider than some of the international treaties and the EU directive, which is very much about the three elements having to be demonstrated. So we have tried to take an approach that encapsulates, well doesn't encapsulate, both adults and children, but at the same time allows us to where we can't demonstrate the means that's officially in court still to be able to take forward a prosecution. So it goes slightly wider than some of the provisions that are recommended within international treaties. There was a particular concern about the use of the word travel because there are individuals involved in the trafficking chain who don't actually facilitate or arrange travel but are still part of the trafficking process, if you like. Do you have a view on that, that that actually could exclude some of the offenders by its concentration on facilitation of travel? Yeah, I'm conscious of some of the evidence that the committee has received on this and I'm sure that the committee will also recognise that there is a level of flexibility for member states and how they actually define offences and take forward the provisions within the, that they set out in the EU obligations and that's why we've got the provision around travelling. It's worth keeping in mind in section one of the bill the provision of travelling isn't about criminalising travelling in itself but it's about the arrangements and the facilitation of travel and that doesn't have to be cross-border in any way. There's a subtle difference to that which again allows us to consider where there are individuals who have been involved in the arrangement or the facilitation to be prosecuted as well. So it's about trying to give a bit wider scope around how we, those individuals that we can prosecute in the whole traveller, the whole traveller pathway if you like, the traffic pathway if you like in order to give us the greater flexibility and scope to prosecute those individuals. For example if somebody was not, was involved for example in the incarceration of people who were being trafficked wasn't actually involving them being transported either cross-borders or within a country but actually was involved in imprisoning the person for example or exploiting them some other way would they be captured by this definition appropriately? As in facilitating or arranging that would give us the scope to be able to do so. It would give us the scope to be able to do so, yes. So again it takes it in a slightly wider basis which increases the opportunity for individuals to be prosecuted. I think that the concern is that the word travel dominates that section. And while you know we're aware obviously from evidence and when we went out and the numb people go across many countries sometimes for years but I think there's also the point we made when my colleague here is that you can be in a flat and trafficked and you don't move anywhere from that flat. And I think while we accept that you've got transferring or exchange control of the person it's the fact that the word travel occurs so often that it in a way blurs the fact that there is trafficking without any movement of a person from a particular house even and if there would be another way of it being perhaps I think under the European directive it makes it plain that these things can happen as well rather than the way it's drafted, right? That's the issue. I'm also conscious in your evidence you heard from Lord Advocate last week can you address the issue of travel and how that would actually be set around the dictionary definition of travel from one place to another? The provisions within the bill though around the three different elements both the act and also the purpose for which we'll still allow for individuals to be prosecuted. I'm more than happy to consider where there are ways in which you feel that it could be clarified but I don't think having the term travel in there unduly causes will make prosecutions any more difficult but I'm more than happy to explore where the committee feels there's a way in which it could be expressed or provided for within the bill in a way that would help to address some of the concerns that you've received about it. I think generally the committee for me says I think you've all got concerns about the way it's drafted and the definition from not only the evidence we've had throughout is that it distorts in a way what is happening to some people unintentionally I think and be very much welcome a pretty strong review of that by, revising of that by the cabinet secretary and his officials to show that it isn't just the travel that does encompass a lot of things that happen to people within here and it's still trafficking and there's no travel involved whatsoever. Yeah, of course these individuals are still being exploited so cases can be pursued as well but I'm more than happy to explore that to see where there's a way in which I'm interested in hearing the views of the committee on that I think he's pretty unanimous whether you feel that should be expressed or not happy with this. Christian, do you want to say anything? I'm a particular over travel I think pretty unanimous and personally I don't mind the word travel being there but if you could have a canvas which says that it's not only able to travel will be great I want you to add something as a definition of the bill but maybe wait If you're coming to another definition yes I just want to deal with this particular section first John Thank you too I shared these concerns about travel I have to say that we're very largely set aside last week with what the Lord Advocate said and I wonder if that could indeed be covered by some instruction as well because he certainly said read it out paraphrased if you like as a lawyer would interpret it a prosecutor would interpret it and that took some of my concerns away but of course he might not he will not be there for all time so if that could be included in instructions some of that again Surely not you're already reading the crystal ball about the life's fan of the Lord Advocate or his professional life's fan I should just add can you be having been charged on why we've taken a different approach around a stash of defence in this particular bill is that in the modern slavery bill we have the provision of our own travel okay well we've expressed it there's another you wanted to come in is this the same thing or a different section more or less more it's just more or less more it's just a very quick point on section 4 we cabinet secretary we heard evidence last week I think from the factive advocates obviously which I'm a member should refer to my Mr of interest in that also from Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate that they thought the question of consent should be included at section 4 do you agree with them on that point I do and we're going to introduce that within stage 2 yeah thank you well you're getting a tick from us here for that not a ticking off but a tick it makes a change next one would be Christian are you still on to consent this is on consent no I'm still on the definition of the of the of the of the of the of the of the on the bill definition of just a little point the point about Police Scotland argue that a reference to false criminality should be inserted as a separate definition oh yeah please do a facet with that run on that yes okay you know Police Scotland they tell us that we would want something to be separate and to be added which was a reference to forced criminality and I just wanted to have your views on that yeah we're more than happy to look at Wells away in which we can address that at stage 2 going forward and I think there's a reasonable point being made by them on this issue but we're looking to see whether we can address those concerns and put it on the face of the bill and to make provisions that would help to address that in terms of the exact detail of it we're still working through or considering but I we're certainly prepared to look at that for stage 2 we'll come back to us on that thank you just to now because we're all getting a bit excited I think so I've got Cam I've got Gil Roderick then Elaine on new questions new lines so Gil you're first thanks very much convener Cabinet Secretary we've heard that criminalisation of the purchase of sex would reduce the numbers of people trafficked but we've also heard from other people that because the complexities of the two issues trafficking and the purchase of sex are so complex that they shouldn't be combined I wonder what you've used on that matter right Well I'm conscious that this is a very complex area both human trafficking and also issues around prostitution and I've agreed to meet with stakeholders who are on differing sides of the particular the particular debate on this this matter I think I'm also mindful that to make a provision like this in the bill would require a very careful consideration and would also require a lot of what I considered a need for detailed scrutiny as well so I'm at the stage I want to listen to both the sets of stakeholders before coming to a final decision on this matter but I'm conscious of the complexities around this matter and they need to be very cautious on how you would take any of these or how you would take this the any proposal forward I'm also conscious that there are those stakeholders who have written to me who are not keen on having a provision like this within this particular piece of legislation as well irrespective as to whether you agree with the issue or not they just don't believe that this bill is the right place for that to be dealt with so before coming to a final decision on that I want to listen to both the different groups of stakeholders and then come to a position to prior to stage 2 in the matter One of the issues that many people have fears about is if and it's on the principle of the purchase of sex rather than what it should be and out the bill and I hope that you take into consideration I certainly have fears that by bringing it into this bill what actually happens the opposite from what we're designing that we in effect are trying to protect those that are and discover those that are trafficked but if you criminalise the purchase of sex then what you do is drive it underground and find it very very difficult to reach people Gil, can I halt you there? That's a statement of your views which is fine but you don't gain evidence to the committee it's not a question In any event the cabinet secretary's given a view as I understand it that you are considering it but that it may not be appropriate to be whether or not on its merits within this bill at this time it's not if you just clarify I'm prepared to listen to that and I've agreed to meet with both sets of stakeholders in order to hear their views but I'm also very mindful of the fact that even if you were minded to do it there is a there is a a significant level of opposition to being provided for within this bill because of the change in focus it would have on this particular piece of legislation so I'm mindful of all of these issues and we as a government will come to a decision in that for stage 2 and I hope that that will allow those stakeholders who are meeting with me to be assured that we haven't come to a final position on the matter as yet Now do you really need to ask anyone I think that on this point because the cabinet secretary has made its position I thought you'd be reassured from the cabinet secretary but whatever happened you'd come back to committee and making sure that there would be proper consultation about what was going on Well it's awesome you're going to say about stage 2 right I'm moving on to Roddy it's a separate question I trust excellent Cabinet secretary we heard evidence from James Wolff the Faculty of Advocates last week kind of expanding on their faculties written submissions Can I remind members that I don't allow electronic devices in here to be used just in case anybody has one on Roddy on you go please Yeah it's just into technical point raised in a particularly in relation to section 10 no grant specified in the bill other than the provisions of security on which an innocent owner can regain possession of property the faculties seem to be suggesting that sheriff should have a wee bit more discretion seems to protect the rights of innocent owners is this something that the government will consider further Well the approach of taking the bill we feel there are sufficient safeguards in place so for example the provision of security we see has been an important safeguard in order to for issues that may require forfeiture at some point so it's going to be a level of security that will be required for that to be assured for example of its property that may be being served for forfeiture if there's no security then there's a danger that the court wouldn't be able to then pursue forfeiture if that's what was agreed there's also provisions where an individual who would say for example they have property rights that again these are matters that would have to be considered with the court so there's the sheriff would have discretion around these matters and also when it gets to the point of forfeiture there's also a requirement for the sheriff to hear anyone who is claiming a right to do so before they come to a decision on the matter so there's a requirement for a sheriff to ensure that that happens so I think the security element is important and the court will obviously determine that in individual circumstances where it considers being appropriate in the way of security and there's also provision that if for those who have or who are claiming to have rights on a particular element of property to be able to make representation to the sheriff and for that to be considered and also if it's going to forfeiture there's a requirement for the sheriff to to hear any further claims that are coming from individuals who may wish to challenge that as well so I'm you know I think the issue of security is important in order for this provision to be effective and I think there's enough discretion there for sheriff to be able to determine those what's appropriate in individual circumstances thank you for that answer yes sorry we're having a little debate here we think the DPLR committees made a mistake with one of the references because we've got a wiskit here that's spotted it so you might want to ask about it now that you've spotted it it's section 8 to B and I think it's one rather than two though the DPLR committee said two there you are you see she's got it in for them there's a they're suggesting that the regulations refer to in that section should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure I wondered if your view on that would be well I won't fall out over an eye but we're more than able to cut and more than half can is sick he's not very often that anybody gets to catch the DPLR committee they're always catching government so that's very true but we're more than content to take for what's been recommended by the by the delegated pills committee and we'll to make provisions at stage 2 to achieve that that's important as well thank you the other issue as well was there are surrounding some of the general questions of the financial implications of the legislation and the allocation of funds and monitoring costs incurred by bodies who may be a lot of both public sector and third sector organisations providing support and assistance and there will be the need for things like joint training when it's raising materials and so on have you further information you can outline there as to how you would allocate funds and so on? okay well I think there are a couple of aspects to this the first aspect around the funding provisions as we've reflected in the financial memorandum we do expect costs to rise as more victims are identified as well and part of that will be as a result of the role of the reflection and recovery period to help adult victims and one of the things that we're going to do is be monitoring how that is that moves forward to see what additional resource may be required in order to meet any increase in demand that occurs as a result so that's an area we do expect there to be an increase in demand and we'll monitor it in order to to keep that under to keep that with a normal view as well about whether there's a need for any further resource to help to support those who are meaning this increased demand and the second provision is around the second point you made was around material and training et cetera as well there's already training taking place with Police Scotland and NHS Scotland so there's already some materials and provisions in place I know that some of the training toolkit that was developed by Police Scotland is also now being utilised by local authorities for their training purposes with staff and I would exceed and I would anticipate more of that taking place a part of the strategy will also be about that whole issue about training information and looking at how we can support more of that work and there's a within the memorandum the financial memorandum we estimate that there will be additional costs of between £100,000 to £250,000 on that area of activity going forward with the strategy so we do expect there to be a need for further financial resource to assist in that being rolled out more across the public sector and also within the third sector as well but how that will be done will be largely for an area that will be covered within the strategy itself Cabinet Secretary, I'm mindful of the discussions that took place as the Children and Young Pupils Bill went through the Parliament there was lots of discussions about resources I'm talking about finance still and the particular concerns about the numbers of health visitors and teachers in terms of delivering the name person function and you referred earlier to the role that that name person function is going to have in taking forward this legislation so I probably should know this but do you think the finance committee has looked at that about whether other legislation other financial memorandum have been reviewed in the context of this legislation? I'm not aware of whether the finance committee have looked at that I'm afraid we can check but I'm not sure whether the finance committee have considered that but we can certainly check and come back to the committee Is it something that you're mindful of as we go forward? About the need for further resource for health visitors and for teachers around the the name person, yeah Yeah, well I'm conscious I'm starting to strut out with my portfolio responsibilities and the cabinet secretary for education and he'll have something to say about that but when I was a health minister I recognised the additional responsibilities that go with being a name person and the role that health visitors have to play in that and that's why the worst additional resources provided to increase the number of health visitors in Scotland to assist in taking forward some of that work I think it's important that when provisions are made is that we continue to monitor them to see what impact they're actually having both in practical terms but also if there's financial consequences coming about as a result of that and for government to try and respond to that in as supportive a way as it could be on those two specific elements they would be for my colleagues in health and education That was very important Thank you Gil, last question Yes, a quick one in line, convener it's with regards to the commissioner we've had lots of concerns in regards to the fact that the commissioners and the role of the commissioner is not in the face of the bill do you have the powers to legislate in that regard since it's a reserved matter? Well, we've taken an approach where we're having a UK-wide commissioner which is provided for within the modern slavery bill when there was an LCM agreed by Parliament for that particular provision there are elements within it in terms of Scottish ministers being part of the decision making process for the appointment of the commissioner which is appointed by the Home Secretary and there is also specific provisions for the commissioner to work in Scotland I've met with the commissioner to discuss some of those issues one of the areas I was keen to see happening and I put to him is to be engaging with third sector organisations and public sector organisations here in Scotland I think there is a body of work that the commissioner can take forward in that area and he accepts that and recognises the need to do so I'm also very conscious that there is a danger that in establishing a new commission is that they can become overly focused in a particular area so it's important that the way in which they balance their workload and the approach that they've got recognises the role that they play here in Scotland as well and I've had that discussion with them about working to make sure that there is a balanced approach to the way in which the commissioner and his staff operate and he was keen to work with stakeholders here in Scotland and look at how they can develop that further Okay, that's fine Well, that's Grant, thank you very much Cabinet Secretary and other witnesses and thank you for your attendance until the committee will do a draft stage 1 report on the bill at our next meeting on 21 April and we've now agreed we move into private session and I'll have a little five minute comfort break for everyone before we start looking at the rest of the business Thank you