 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 17219, in the name of Graeme Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on the timetabling of amendments at stage 3 for the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence Scotland Bill. Can I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request-to-speak button now? No one has indicated a call in Graeme Day to move the motion minister. Moved, Presiding Officer. As no one has asked to speak against the motion, the question is that motion 17219 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence Scotland Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have. The bill is amended at stage 2. That is SP Bill 34A, the martial bliss, and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division in the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. I know that you are taking this all down and writing it all down, as I say it carefully, yes. Therefore, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. The members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the martial list of amendments, turning to amendments group 1, taking evidence by commissioner presiding over our ground rules, hearing, a call amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary, Humza Yousaf, group of amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6. I would ask the minister, Ash Denham, to move amendment 2 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please, minister. The amendments in this group are all of a technical nature. Section 5 of the bill makes provision for taking evidence by commissioner. It introduces the requirement for there to be a ground rules hearing before evidence is taken by commissioner. Depending on the circumstances, the ground rules hearing may be presided over by the commissioner or by another judge of the High Court or another sheriff. The amendments in this group do two things. Firstly, they improve the drafting by making it more precise. The references in section 5 to a judge are wide enough to include a sheriff, so it is not necessary to use the word sheriff as well as judge. Secondly, they ensure that, in a case where a ground rules hearing is not presided over by the commissioner, it is presided over by a judge of the court who appointed the commissioner. Amendment 2 removes the reference to a sheriff because a reference to a judge is sufficient to include a sheriff. It also clarifies that the judge who presides over a ground rules hearing is to be a judge of the court who appointed the commissioner. Amendments 3, 4 and 6 remove references to a sheriff because the references to a judge are sufficient to include a sheriff. Amendment 5 is a minor adjustment to improve the precision of the drafting. I move amendment 2. No other members indicated the way to speak. Minister, I take it over to wind up. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 3, 4, 5 and 6 only name the minister and all previous debate. I invite the minister to move amendments 3 to 6 on block. Formally moved. Does any member object to a single person a question being put on amendments 3 to 6? The question is that amendments 3 to 6 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 2 report on operation of sections 1 and 5. Amendment 1 in the name of Liam Kerr on its own. Liam Kerr please to move and speak to amendment 1. Members may recall that at stage 2 of this process, I lodged an amendment seeking to implement a review of the operation of this act. There was a good and incisive debate around this, which included the cabinet secretary not only making persuasive points but undertaking to work with me and other interested members to create something that would achieve the goals that we all felt were worthy. I am pleased to report that that engagement took place and I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and the Government staff for working collaboratively to put together the amendment today. It is a good amendment and I move it in my name. The purpose of amendment 1 is to require the Scottish ministers following consultation with key stakeholders to conduct a formal reporting review of the operation of the act. As drafted, there are two elements to the review. First, a qualitative review as to whether the pre-recording reforms in the legislation have helped witnesses to participate effectively in the criminal justice system. Secondly, certain data must be included to show how many child witnesses have benefited from the reforms. The review period covers the three years from the commencement of pre-recording for child witnesses under the act. By way of clarity, the draft implementation timetable indicated that pre-recording for child witnesses will start in January 2020. That should mean that the report of the review would be published by the end of 2023. Subsection 2 sets out the information that the report must include, but it does not prevent the provision of any additional data that might be appropriate, recognising the need to maintain the principles of the independence of our courts and the protection of sensitive details of individual cases. Finally, amendment 1 also requires ministers to set out the next steps for commencing the pre-recording rule to any purposes or groups through whom it has not yet been commenced—for example, to extend the rule to adult-deemed vulnerable witnesses. It is a good amendment, Presiding Officer, and I move it in my name. You moved it twice, but that is not a problem. That is fine. Daniel Johnson. I would just like to rise briefly to voice my support to amendment 1. What has been clear throughout the passage of the bill is that the bill is progress, but it is not the finished article. We must continue to make progress in all those regards in protecting vulnerable people as they interact with the criminal justice system. Therefore, I think that this review is an important step to ensuring that we see the progress that we all hope that the bill will bring. In particular, the points around recording qualitative evidence, around the actual effect and impact that those measures have on vulnerable witnesses in the court system are particularly useful. For all those reasons, we will be supporting it. Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not expect to be called back quickly. I just also want to rise in support of the amendment that was put forward by my colleague. It is something that he raised continually during the stage 2 proceedings, and it is credit to him that he has worked with the Government to bring forward an amendment that works. I believe that the review will demonstrate that a lot of children, young people and vulnerable others will be helped by the passage of the bill. I am grateful to Liam Kerr for bringing forward an important amendment. I know that, having the cabinet secretary leading the discussion here today, he would have wanted to place on the record his appreciation for having had the opportunity to work with him and others, as he mentioned, to ensure that the amendment appropriately reflects the strong views that were expressed on stage 2 for a mechanism to deliver a more formal review of the bill. I believe that we all recognise that we must be able to measure the extent to which the objectives of the bill have been delivered. Everyone impacted by the bill would expect nothing less. Being clear about our intent and how we are going to monitor and evaluate is absolutely fundamental to that goal. The Government is absolutely committed to a transparent process, and it is right that this Parliament should want to be kept fully updated as the reforms progress. I also acknowledge the fact that the provision has been drafted to ensure that it does not impact on the independence of our courts in relation to individual cases. I believe that amendment reflects how we have been able to be pragmatic and achieve consensus throughout the passage of the bill. On that positive point, I thank Liam Kerr for his amendment and I am happy to accept it. I thank our colleague Liam Kerr to wind up, please, Mr Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have nothing further to add other than to thank colleagues for their comments and to endorse what has been said. Press or withdraw? Press. Thank you. The question is, amendment 1, be agreed to or are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. We now move on to group 3, report on process for taking evidence from trial witness and criminal proceedings. I call amendment 7, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, on its own, Ms Mitchell, to move and to speak to amendment 7, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 7 focuses on ensuring progress towards Scotland moving closer to the Barnahouse model. In particular, it responds to and addresses the comments made by the Cabinet Secretary at stage 2, when I lodged a probing amendment on the same topic. Specifically, the amendment provides that three months after the bill has received royal assent, there must be a review of the Government's progress towards adopting the Barnahouse principles and six monthly intervals thereafter until the Parliament is satisfied that matters have been sufficiently progressed. Those matters to be progressed in taking evidence from child witnesses and criminal proceedings are listed as progress in accommodation, other than court buildings, that provides such other support to child witnesses, as is considered appropriate, in as few interviews as possible shorthand for moving towards the forensic interview. The committee in its stage 1 report made it crystal clear that it is essential to ensure that this issue and making progress towards a Scottish Barnahouse remains on the agenda for the Government in this session and crucially also at the start of the next parliamentary session for the incoming Government after 2021. The amendment also makes provision for the Parliament to remain informed about the development of the interview process and the progress being made towards achieving a one-forensic interview before the end of this Parliament. The minister will be aware that the Cabinet unanimously agreed on working towards implementing the Barnahouse principles. In our stage 1 report stage, the committee recognises that there is no single model of a Barnahouse and acknowledges that its implementation would have to be adapted in the context of Scotland's adversarial criminal justice system. However, the committee does not consider that that would prevent the Scottish Government from moving towards full implementation of the Barnahouse principles and, specifically, a one-forensic interview type approach. I therefore hope that members will support the amendment to ensure that progress to achieve this objective is monitored, reviewed and brought back to the Parliament in this parliamentary session and in the next one. I move amendment 7 in my name. I rise to speak against amendment 7 from Margaret Mitchell, which I believe is well intentioned. The committee fully supports the Barnahouse model of a child-friendly, one-forensic interview way of taking evidence from children being introduced in Scotland. Personally, I would like to see it happen tomorrow. However, amendment 7 is not helpful as part of this bill. It assumes an obligation to move towards a new model when no such obligation is introduced by the bill. Indeed, no evidence was taken from stakeholders who would implement that. The Scottish Government is currently taking forward work with stakeholders to consider how the model could operate in Scotland. The cabinet secretary wrote to the committee with a clear timeline of how the work would progress along with healthcare improvement Scotland and the care inspectorate. Commenting in the bill, children first said, we are pleased that the cabinet secretary has set out a clear timetable for the next stages of delivery of the Barnahouse approach in Scotland and the recognition of the need for a fully collaborative approach. We welcome the commitment made during stage 2 discussion of the bill to review the progress that has been made by the Government and Government agencies after the bill has received royal assent. There is no correlation between the subject of the reporting requirements set out in the amendment and the objective set out in the bill. It would introduce an onerous six months through reporting requirements with no clear end date. The amendment seeks that this duty would continue until Parliament was satisfied that sufficient progress had been made. It does not set out how any mechanism or threshold would allow Parliament to identify whether that had been achieved. Meeting that indefinite reporting requirement would divert Government resource away from work to progress the Barnahouse concept in Scotland, which is well under way. The amendment also specifies that ministers must consult with child witnesses in preparation of those repeated reports. Most important, in my view, is asking child witnesses to revisit their experiences, risk re-traumatising them and they would have no knowledge or experience of the new model that is the subject of the questions. Also, that obligation is likely to be practically difficult and perhaps legally impossible due to data protection issues associated with accessing and retaining details of child witnesses and contacting them without the consent of them and their carers. There is also a technical flaw in the definition of child witnesses as the amendment refers to the 1995 act, a term that is not defined in the amendment nor the bill. I conclude by thanking Margaret Mitchell as convener of the Justice Committee for her enthusiastic support of the Barnahouse model. Can I ask her not to move amendment 7 for the reasons that I have outlined? Well, she has moved it, so she cannot do that. I now call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Fulton McGregor, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am somewhat conflicted, as I rise to speak, because I agree with everything in terms of what Margaret Mitchell said. I think that she is absolutely correct in stating that we need to maintain focus on the development of the Barnahouse model and ensure that it is delivered as quickly as possible. However, I disagree with how she sets out to do so in her amendment. In particular, as Rona Mackay set out, the six-month reporting periods are unduly onerous and may indeed be counterproductive, just simply in terms of the effort that would be required in order to do that. While I understand the threshold applied in terms of the satisfaction of Parliament, I am not entirely clear precisely what would satisfy that in practical terms, potentially leading to future disputes, which I do not think would be helpful. For those reasons, we will be voting against the amendment, should the member choose to press it. However, what I would do is ask the Government to reaffirm its commitment to the model and perhaps provide further detail on how that work is progressing at the earliest available opportunity, either in response to the amendment or, indeed, through the course of the stage 3 debate. I am just to back up what Rona Mackay and Daniel Johnson have said. I also want to speak against the amendment. The Barnahouse concept was probably the most defining feature of taking the bill through and the committee's trip to Oslo was very valuable. Indeed, I know that we all want to get there and we all want to get to Barnahouse, but I think that that particular amendment puts on due pressure on the Government, who the Cabinet Secretary has written to the committee and outlined plans to get there, which includes tackling the various different legal challenges that we heard about. I know that the convener understands as well and has mentioned herself. I think that, just as Rona Mackay said, I will not overdo the point with the need to automatisation of children. I do not think that it is acceptable to vote for that today, given that that could be an outcome. I would also encourage colleagues to reject the amendment, but to not mistake that, it has not been supported by the Barnahouse concept that we all want to get to. I am grateful to Margaret Mitchell for her continued commitment to achieving progress in ensuring that children's evidence is taken in an appropriate setting where the right support is available. As the cabinet secretary has said to the Parliament throughout the passage of this bill, a Scottish version of the Barnahouse concept is the Scottish Government's intended destination. The bill is an important initial step towards that destination. We are committed to making progress towards a truly trauma-informed, recovery-focused response to child victims. However, although I understand the positive sentiments behind the amendment, I do not believe that the overarching reporting requirement that is set out by the amendment is the right way to deliver that progress. In order to meet the requirement as drafted in this amendment, resource would be focused on indefinite, repeated, short-term reporting to Parliament on where and how often children's evidence is being taken. We believe that resource would be better directed to delivering such improvements holistically in the context of the expertise of those interviewing children, but also the quality of the wraparound care and support provided to them and their families. The amendment as drafted would also introduce a statutory requirement for ministers to consult with child witnesses in the preparation of reports. Clearly, the voices of children and young people themselves are crucial in shaping how Barnahouse should operate in Scotland, but I am very concerned that introducing a statutory obligation to consult highly vulnerable child witnesses in the preparation of frequent, repeated reports could have some troubling consequences. We have heard clear evidence during the passage of this bill about re-traumatising the impact that repeated retelling of their experiences can have on vulnerable child witnesses. It is important that, wherever possible, we try to remove and not add to that burden. In addition, it is highly likely that data protection issues would pose a barrier to accessing details of child witnesses whose evidence had been pre-recorded. Even if it was possible, the amendment would require ministers to consult those vulnerable children who are currently going through giving evidence in our criminal courts about what they think about progress towards a different system. At such a difficult time in their lives, that does not seem at all appropriate. I am sure that that was not the intention behind Margaret Mitchell's amendment, but we believe that that would be its effect. I understand and commend the intention to ensure that children's voices are heard, but particular care is required in how we achieve that. I believe that the answer to develop our approach on Barnhouse in partnership with organisations that support children and their families every day, such as Children First. I want to let them tell us how best to engage with and include children's views. For that reason, we are providing funding to Children First to support work on participation and children's rights, which will help to shape our approach to Barnhouse. As the cabinet secretary set out in his letter to Margaret Mitchell last week, work is now under way by Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate to develop Scotland-specific standards that will set out the road map to Barnhouse. That work is now at the scoping stage. A stakeholder event will take place in summer this year, and we will be sharing draft standards for wide consultation at the end of the year. At stage 2 of the bill, the cabinet secretary committed to keeping Parliament up-to-date on progress on this work as requested by Daniel Johnson in his contribution just a moment ago, so I will repeat that commitment today. We will come back to Parliament on progress before the end of this parliamentary session, and that will be in addition to the regular updates that we will provide about the progress of the victims' task force, which will give Parliament a full picture of all the work under way to improve victims' journeys through the justice system. We have listened to the strong views of the justice committee on the benefits of the Barnhouse concept, and I am grateful for our consensus around the need to transform how we respond to child victims and witnesses. I do not believe that this amendment will achieve that transformation. Instead, it would mean that, rather than progress being made towards this important objective, resources would be focused on a constant cycle of consultation to prepare a report every six months, with the unintended consequence that this would take up the majority of time, so it would greatly reduce the actual real progress that could be made. What is needed now is careful work across justice, across child protection, health and the wider legal community, and we are beginning that work as we move towards a Scottish version of Barnhouse, starting with the improvements in this bill. I hope that what I have said today makes my commitment to that very clear, and on this basis I would ask Margaret Mitchell not to press her amendment. I thank all the members who have spoken for their comments. I have to say that I am somewhat puzzled with Rona Mackay's comments that Fulton McGregor supported in terms of stakeholders not being consulted on the Barnhouse model and the one forensic interview, as we took so much evidence, and I cannot think of anyone who took evidence that was not in favour of the forensic interview and was moving to a Scottish Barnhouse as soon as we possibly could. I note that the minister refers to the timetable that was set out by the cabinet secretary, but that only goes to summer next year and falls well short of even making sure that, before the end of the year, it means at the very end of 2001. Crucially, what it does not do is continue putting that on the agenda and ensuring that it is there for any incoming Government after the 2001 parliamentary elections. Fulton McGregor, I thank Margaret Mitchell for taking the intervention. I said earlier that everybody is supportive of the Barnhouse concept and I know that the stakeholders are as well, but is the member saying that all the stakeholders that are presented to the committee are in agreement with their amendment? I am just checking, I heard correctly. Was it 2001 or 2021, you said? It is 2021, I should have said it. I said 2001, we are going back in time, Deputy Presiding Officer. My amendment is looking for the one forensic interview to be introduced as the best way possible to ensure that children and other vulnerable witnesses are not retraumatised time and again by having to give evidence and moving towards the Barnhouse movement. All the stakeholders who gave in to evidence were in favour of that, so by extension, I contest that. Excuse me, I have made some progress on this point. By extension, it seems to me really important that the committee follows through on its commitment to make sure that it happens as soon as possible. Turning to Daniel Johnson's concerns about the consultation process twice a year does not, to me, seem unduly on a risk, given that consultations can take many forms. It is involving the Crown Office, Procurator Fiscal, people who are engaged in this whole process on a daily basis, Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts Tribunal service and vulnerable witnesses. I notice that people are saying that that would retraumatise vulnerable witnesses. I think that the people doing the consultation have to wait not to be making them talk about the experience before, but rather to move on to say how they found the experience of generally where the evidence was taken. I do not see that as being insurmountable. What I do see as a far bigger risk is that, as with so much legislation in this Parliament, it is very much resource intensive. There has already been passed legislation, which is not resourced at present. The danger is that, with so much other legislation, we make a provision, we do an excellent report and, very gradually, it slips off the agenda and is forgotten about. It is for that reason. To do the very best for vulnerable witnesses, children and all the others who may be phased into this that I intend to press my amendment today. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, the Parliament is suspended for five minutes. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 7. This is a 32nd division, so members should cast their votes now, please. The result of the division is that they have voted yes, 29 no, 82 no, there are no abstentions. Therefore, that amendment is not agreed, and that ends consideration of amendments. If you leave the chamber quietly, please. As members will be aware at this point in the proceedings, the Presiding Officer is required understanding orders to decide whether or not in his view any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer's view is that no provision of the vulnerable witnesses' criminal evidence in Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 17210, in the name of Ash Denham, on the vulnerable witnesses' criminal evidence Scotland Bill. I invite those members who wish to take part in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Ash Denham to speak to and move the motion minister, please. I am here today because the cabinet secretary's paternity leave started unexpectedly early. I know that the Parliament will want to join me in congratulating him and his wife on the birth of their daughter. The cabinet secretary has asked me on his behalf to thank the members and the clerks of the finance and constitution committee, the delegated powers and law reform committee and, in particular, the convener and members of the justice committee for their thoughtful and diligent consideration of this bill. As always, we are grateful to all organisations and individuals who gave evidence, both during the Government's consultation and laterally to the justice committee. That has been vital, and it has helped to shape not just this bill but other related non-legislative work. I would also like to thank our justice sector partners who worked closely with our officials to inform both the policy development and the practical implementation of the bill. The reforms in this bill will make important improvements to how children, initially in the most serious cases, are able to give evidence on often distressing and traumatic experiences. It will lead to many more now being able to record their evidence at an early stage and not having to await the actual trial. It is right that we support those witnesses to give their best evidence in appropriate surroundings, while ensuring that the interests of accused persons are also rightly protected. Those reforms do just that. I am grateful for the constructive scrutiny and support that those proposed changes have received from members of this Parliament as the bill progressed. I believe that it has been an excellent example of all parties working together on a consensus basis to make those proposals as effective as possible. It is also important to acknowledge again the impressive work that was carried out by Lord Lady Dorian and the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service in their evidence and procedure review. That work began in 2015, so it has been quite a journey to get to this point. However, it started what has been a vital debate on whether more could be done to utilise the existing special measures and technology to improve how we take evidence. As one of the review's immediate outputs, a new High Court practice note on evidence by a commissioner is already being shown to have a positive impact in practice. The Justice Committee's stage 1 report was very detailed and brought to the fore a number of important issues. First, while we are all keen to see the greater use of pre-recording rolled out as quickly as possible, it was helpful to reach an agreed understanding that, given the scale of those reforms, a phased implementation approach is sensible. The committee emphasised the need for careful monitoring and evaluation of each phase and to be kept informed of the outcomes of those evaluations and a more detailed implementation plan as they are developed. I know that the cabinet secretary is in full agreement with the importance of doing so and will keep the committee updated throughout the implementation of the reforms. Minister, I think that you are a very clear speaker, but according to broadcasting, if you move your microphone a little closer. Thank you very much. In terms of the phased implementation, the new pre-recording rule will apply to child witnesses in the most serious cases first, with the clear intention to extend to adult deemed vulnerable witnesses in the future. At introduction, the offences to which the new rule applied were quite significant, but the committee's in-depth scrutiny and the stage 1 debate made very persuasive arguments that the offence of domestic abuse should be added to the list. That major addition was made at stage 2, and I consider it has been a very important addition to the bill. The cabinet secretary thanks you all for making such a compelling case and for enhancing those reforms further. However, as with most criminal justice reforms, we must ensure that we get the right balance for victims, for witnesses and for accused persons. Concerns were raised by some in the legal sector that the reforms may prevent the cross-examination of child witnesses. That was never the intended effect of the bill's provisions, but it was an important issue, as we do not want any concerns to undermine the legal sector's support for those changes. The cabinet secretary was happy to propose an amendment to clarify the point at stage 2 and was grateful that it was supported in committee. The passage of the bill to date has also focused attention on the development of the Barnahus concept in Scotland. The cabinet secretary recently wrote to the justice committee updating on our work in this area, which I trust has been helpful. There is clearly much more to do, but I think that we now have a great basis for us all to work together to continue to progress the vital area of work. The bill marks a major milestone, of which I believe that we can all be proud. I move that the Parliament agrees that the vulnerable witnesses' criminal evidence Scotland bill be passed. I am very pleased to open for the Scottish Conservatives and more so to speak in favour of passing the vulnerable witnesses' criminal evidence Scotland bill. In short, the fundamental principles of the bill are ones that I think it is fair to say that all parties and members were able to unite behind. It was clear from the evidence that we heard throughout the process that the current system for taking evidence from children is less than ideal. Indeed, I recall in our committee report, children first, suggesting that the current system was Victorian. It certainly became clear from the evidence that too many victims and witnesses of crime find themselves retraumatised by the court's process and can often suffer greater trauma and harm. It became clear throughout that the provisions in this bill should reduce that distress and trauma caused to the child witnesses through given evidence, as well as improving the quality of justice. It does that because, at its core, the bill is about improving the experience and evidential strength of children and vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system. It will ensure that children only have to give evidence in court in exceptional cases and enables the greater use of pre-recorded evidence. It is key provision that, when a child witnesses to give evidence in serious criminal proceedings for one of a set list of offences, the court must enable all of the child witnesses' evidence to be given in advance of the hearing. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service described it as a critical step in improving both the experience of witnesses and the quality of justice. They clarified that to the committee by saying that justice will be best served if young and vulnerable witnesses could give evidence in a way that maximised the chances of it being comprehensive, reliable, accurate and minimised any potential further harm or traumatisation from the evidence-giving process itself. Let us note the Scottish Court Services Evidence and Procedure review that the minister talked about earlier, 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. Parliament will recall that, although the principles of the bill were sound, there were a number of areas that required review at stage 2. Parliament will be pleased to note that, as requested by the committee and many stakeholders, the cabinet secretary amended section 1 to include child witnesses in domestic abuse cases. I very much aligned myself with the minister's comments on that earlier. The cabinet secretary also amended a bill to put it beyond doubt that prior statements could be cross-examined. The amendment enables any party to the proceedings to have the court authorise the holding of a commission, which might be used where new evidence comes to light after the prior statement has been taken. As we have already heard today and agreed to, I have, by working collaboratively with the Government and colleagues across the chamber, secured an amendment that compels the Government to formally review the operation and extent of success of the act. I also sought at stage 2 to amend the bill to ensure that victims were given necessary support after the commission has taken place. I maintain that this is the right thing to do, but Parliament may be interested to know that Lady Dorian expressed concern in a letter to the committee that this should not be the role of the judiciary. It is a very fair comment and, following assurances from the cabinet secretary that the issue would be addressed by the victims task force, I decided not to press the amendment. It is absolutely a step in the right direction, but that is what it is, a step. There are further actions worth exploring that may be brought out in the debate today. First, I reiterate my colleague Annie Wells' call earlier this year to trial a one-sheriff system for domestic abuse victims. As it stands, the entirety of a domestic abuse case and related proceedings could be heard by various judges, especially if civil courts become involved in the event of a subsequent divorce or child residence arrangements. That has been successfully implemented in parts of the US and Australia, so steps should be taken to minimise what victims have to relive by requiring them to tell their story only once to a single judge. I know that many speakers today will not address the Barnahouse model. For those who are listening to the debate, who may be unaware in its simplest terms, as Margaret Mitchell pointed out earlier, there is no single model of Barnahouse. It is a child-friendly house that deals with criminal investigation, child protection, physical health, including forensic examination, mental health and wellbeing, recovery and support needs, including family support. The beauty is that this is a multidisciplinary approach, which means that all services are provided under one roof, with relevant professionals coming to the child. Perhaps the most important thing is that a key role of the Barnahouse is to produce valid evidence for judicial proceedings in a way that means that the child does not have to appear in court should the case be prosecuted. As I have made clear previously, I very much align myself with the committee's conclusion that there is a compelling case for the implementation of the Barnahouse principles in Scotland as the most appropriate model for taking the evidence of child witnesses. I note the cabinet secretary's assurance that that is the Scottish Government's preferred direction of travel. The chamber is called today to indicate its support for the vulnerable witnesses bill. It is clear that it is a start, but it is the right start. It is clear that pre-recording evidence of children and adult vulnerable witnesses reduces the stress that they go through and can help to ensure that the most accurate evidence is obtained. For those reasons and many other reasons that I look forward to hearing from colleagues throughout the chamber this afternoon, I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the passing of the vulnerable witnesses bill at decision time tonight. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. I now call in Daniel Johnson. Mr Johnson, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I, too, am very pleased to be rising in support of this bill. It is a good bill. It is a good start. At this point in time, as we mark the 20 years of this Parliament coming into being, I think that it is important to think about what things have been done under the devolved settlement. We need to remember that, up until devolution, judges were a matter of ministerial appointment. It was in 2002 that the judicial appointments board was established by the Labour, Lib Dem Administration and, I think, then further put on statute by the SNP Scottish Government. That was a positive step forward. I think that it is also important to emphasise that point at the moment, because I think that progress in these matters in criminal justice is important to recognise the importance of the judiciary. It is also important to recognise, as legislators, that we must work cooperatively with sentences to make sure that we have progress in our criminal justice system. I think that it is important to mark this to recognise where these changes have come from, because they have come from the courts and the judiciary. It is also important to recognise that, in some instances, progress will require that to be led by judges and, therefore, to respect their independence. That is in mind that I make my remarks about the bill. It is progress, because it will lead to better evidence being taken and less trauma being inflicted on those giving that evidence. Ultimately, justice must seek to defend and protect the vulnerable, and I think that the bill will do that. The way that we have arrived at where we are has been well set out, both by the minister and, indeed, by Liam Kerr. I would rather look at how we must move forward from this point. The bill makes a number of provisions that are sent, but we must be a starting point. The practice and ground rules hearings in particular I think that we need to focus on. Many members of the committee were struck by going up to Parliament House and seeing pre-recorded evidence. We were struck that it was a different environment. It was conducive to providing better evidence, but it still, at the end of the day, ended up with a child being cross-examined by two middle-aged men in a very alien environment. I think that, while we must respect the ground rules hearings for exactly the reasons that I set out at the beginning to respect judicial independence, we must look at how we can encourage better practice and ensure that the ground rules hearings and that evidence is given in the way that I think that we all hope that it will be. Likewise, much thought was given to extending this. I mean, I think that we must recognise that in Scotland that we are not necessarily at the forefront in terms of these sorts of measures, in terms of making a provision for vulnerable individuals to give evidence in court. I think that it's very welcome that the Government brought forward amendments to extend this to domestic abuse. Likewise, I note the provisions that it makes for extending this to other persons who are deemed vulnerable. However, we must make sure that those provisions are enacted and that they are done so in as effective and constructive a way as possible. Indeed, I believe that my colleague Jackie Baillie will speak further on that point. Likewise, I spoke much through stage 2 about extending that to other types of cases. The vast bulk of cases that go through our courts will go through sheriff courts. The sheriff courts will be unaffected by that. I did probe and test that. I understand that it would have been inappropriate, both in terms of the resource requirements but also the nature of trials at sheriff court, many of which would be delayed by the requirement for this. However, I would at least ask that we look at the special measures such as they exist in sheriff courts to make sure that they are as good as they possibly can be, that they are using the best technology and the best techniques possible. Finally, I would like to talk about Barnahus. Indeed, we need to be careful of buzzwords. Barnahus is an incredibly important concept, an important set of principles, but I think that sometimes some of us who are used to talking about these issues and these matters are maybe a little bit too comfortable in using it. In essence, it is not that complicated. What Barnahus means is about taking interviews as early as possible from vulnerable witnesses, that those interviews are taken by specialised individuals with an extensive degree of training, that those interviews are taken in a context that is comfortable for the individual, given that evidence and that it is sympathetic to them, and finally that that interview wherever possible is only given once. When you consider that joint investigative interviews can be taken as evidence in chief, I do not believe that we are that far away in Scotland from being able to deliver Barnahus through better training for JII, better investment to make sure that there are no technical problems with that evidence, which I believe that sometimes we can achieve that. So we must ensure that we have that progress and I think that we can through collective focus and effort. Finally, and in conclusion, I would just like to thank the minister for her letter, setting out much of what she also stated in terms of how the Government seeks to progress, in terms of the funding for children first who are based in my constituency, and indeed the other measures around consultation and bringing forward standards. I would like to thank Lady Dorian, among other people, for showing such leadership in this, and I look forward to voting for this bill this evening at decision time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson. I now call John Finnie. Mr Finnie, please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to say that the Scottish Green Party will be supporting the legislation at decision time tonight. I thank all the witnesses that we heard from, the clerks and all the people who have contributed by way of briefings, and I think that it was very detailed scrutiny. As I have said before in this chamber, this Parliament sits very best when committees are working on legislation and the detailed scrutiny. One of the briefings that I got was from children first who need no introduction, and I will just read exactly what they sent me in relation to a case study. Children first worked with a woman in the Highlands and her 15-year-old son. Her son was one of the witnesses when she was the victim of domestic abuse, she says. My son is still haunted by the fact that he had to sit in the court waiting room. He said that it was the worst day of his life. Even though there was a court case, my ex was still trying to harm us all the time. Our lives were very much in danger. My son was terrified that we would run into my ex at court. His anxiety was going through the roof. He could not cope going to college. He was too scared. He did not leave my side. He had really bad anxiety and did not sleep throughout the night. I did not think that he would ever recover, but things are getting better. Children first should be brought in right away and still to the end of court. Children should always know that there is a lifeline. That indicates to me the trauma that some of us are only too familiar with due to the evidence that we have taken that people face victims of domestic abuse and the children who are involved. Everything requires to be child-centred. That is a very fine piece of legislation. Of course, it is probably not the finished article as to the direction of travel that we are going on will mean that there is more to come. It is very much to be welcomed that our stage 1 report was responded positively to by the Scottish Government, not least in respect of the domestic abuse aspect. What is the purpose of our justice system? Self-evidently, it is to deliver justice, and that is justice for everyone, including the accused. Sometimes that is forgotten about. Comment has been made about the ability to cross-examine, and that is very important. However, what we know is that, even in our adversarial system, the best evidence is delivered when an oral testimony is a vital part of that. It is best delivered when there is comfort. Of course, the reality is that court is stressful for everyone. As I said, we all respond best when the groundwork is being done. That is particularly the case with children and vulnerable people. The mention has been made of Lady Dorian, and I think that we cannot underestimate the importance of her intervention in 2015. The practice note, along with colleagues, we visited the High Court and we saw an example of how commissioning might take place. Those are all very positive. However, of course, people have rightly identified that there are very special measures in place. I have a mixed experience of dealing with constituents who have had cause to deal with them. It has not always been the case, and we did hear evidence, particularly again in domestic abuse cases, that things do not always work out. In one of the briefings that we received from the Law Society, it talks about a very simple thing—the administration of the process of cases and the early intimation that those additional measures are required, because sometimes it is the simple things. We can get the top-level stuff. It is sometimes the simple that is important. The adverse childhood experiences should be addressed by way of court. They should not be compounded by court attendance. I suppose that it is the extent to which that trauma that is ever present is going to be ameliorated by the legislation. I am being told that I can be generous. There you are. Do you want me to be generous, Mr Finlay? I always like to be generous. The key to the Barnhouse model is, in part, as my colleague Daniel Johnson already said, in play in Scotland. We have the joint investigative interviews that are undertaken by the police service and individual criminal justice social workers. We did hear about the challenges about compatibility, but we also heard—thanks to our friends in Norway for a very informative visit to see one of the houses—the forensic nature of the interview and the level of training that went into it. As with most things, it is very important that they are adequately resourced. Like many others, I took great pleasure in receiving the letter from the cabinet secretary on April explaining the next stages of the delivery of the Barnhouse model. I think that it is a welcome recognition of the collaborative approach that is going to have to take place involving the Scottish Courts and Tribunal service to take us where we all want to go. I am delighted, as I said before, that the domestic abuse cases are now covered. We know the pernicious effect of the coercive controlling behaviour that can be offset if we can get good evidence. That is what we want. We want the very best on our criminal justice system. That is progress, and there is work to go. Mr MacArthur, you are looking at me anxiously. I can be generous with you, too. Isn't that nice? You may come to regret that, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I congratulate Humza Yousaf and his wife, Nadi, on the birth of their daughter? Can I say how much I am looking forward to the 20-page commemorative pull-out in the national that must surely coincide with this event? I thank committee colleagues, spice clerks and all those who gave evidence to us through the consideration of the bill. I also put on record my thanks to the cabinet secretary and his officials for the constructive way in which they engage with the committee throughout that process. Needless to say, Scottish Liberal Democrats warmly welcome and strongly support the provisions of the legislation, giving children and young people, as well as vulnerable witnesses, greater protection within our criminal justice system. That is not simply in the interests of those victims and witnesses. It is also in the interests of achieving, as others have said, greater fairness and efficiency within the system as a whole. Of course, special measures already exist to enable children and vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence. However, there is a compelling case to extend and strengthen those measures. Indeed, I would argue that the longer-term objective should be to take children out of the courts, entirely a position supported by children first and many others. I will develop that point a little further in a minute, but I want first to acknowledge one of the key changes that the committee acting in unison, as others have said, managed to secure. The process of rolling out those reforms, enabling more extensive use of pre-recorded interviews, ground rules hearings and joint investigative interviews, will not be without its challenges. It will certainly put enormous pressure on almost every part of the justice system from those in the third sector through to our courts. Therefore, the phased approach in the bill, where different categories of cases will fall within the scope of the bill over time, is an entirely sensible one. Reflecting on experiencing and making sure that lessons are learnt were appropriate before embarking on the next phase makes sense. However, delaying the exclusion of child witnesses and giving evidence in domestic abuse cases was never an acceptable proposition. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary agreed to the committee's recommendation for such witnesses to be included in the first phase of the roll-out. Welcome, though those changes are, however, they do, as others have said, fall short of where ultimately we need to get to. Again, I want to record my gratitude to those who hosted our visit in Oslo last year to see first-hand how the Barnahouse principles are implied in Norway. I firmly believe that this genuinely child-centred and integrated approach to criminal justice is what we must aspire to hear in Scotland. I accept that the one forensic interview approach of Barnahouse may require a shift in legal culture and practice in this country, given our adversarial system. However, that is not an insurmountable obstacle. As NSPCC pointed out, integrating justice, healthcare and on-going therapeutic social services all under one roof 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 accounts of what has happened. Lady Dorian's contribution to this debate has been recognised rightly so by everybody. I wholeheartedly agree with her when she says that ways must be found to take evidence from children and other 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. Needless to say, I am particularly interested in how the model might be tailored to work in more rural and island areas. However, the fact that the model has been made such a success in a country such as Norway—obviously, a country with many many remote rural and island areas of its own—should, I think, give us confidence in that endeavour. I welcome the commitments made by the cabinet secretary at stage 2 and repeated by the minister again this afternoon to the adoption of a Scottish Barnahouse model and the review of progress being made towards that goal. That is something that the committee will take a great interest in and will, I think, keep ministers and other stakeholders' feet to the fire. Let me conclude as I did at stage 1 by quoting from children first. A joined-up approach to the care and justice needs of child victims and witnesses through a Barnahouse or a 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 the 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. The Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly endorse that sentiment and will continue to work with ministers and those across the chamber to make it a reality, hopefully sooner rather than later. However, for now, I look forward to voting for the bill later on at decision time. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate and the generosity just continues. All the members in the open debate or four of you can have five minutes each if you wish. That is major afternoon, Ms Bailey. I call Jenny Gilruth, followed by Maurice Corry. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's stage 3 debate, particularly given the legislation passed in this place only 48 hours ago. On Tuesday, we voted to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12, and this evening we will vote to protect child witnesses in the most serious of criminal proceedings. Those two pieces of legislation put children's needs at the heart of our criminal justice system. Contrast sat with children's first evidence, as previously cited today by Liam Kerr, who told the Justice Committee that Scotland's justice system was inherently Victorian and often caused children greater trauma and harm. So this legislation marks a hugely significant shift, epitomised in section 3 of the bill, which states that the court must enable all of the child witnesses' evidence to be given in advance of the hearing unless the court is satisfied that an exception is justified under subsection. That use of language is crucial because it denotes a shift in power from Scotland's court system, putting witnesses' needs first. As we have heard this afternoon, pre-recording evidence for vulnerable witnesses will reduce trauma. It will reduce distress, particularly for children. I am proud that the Scottish Government has now included domestic abuse specifically on the face of the bill. As the committee heard in evidence sessions, this is particularly important given the widening scope of what we now understand to constitute domestic abuse. Of course, pre-recording evidence is important to avoid re-traumatising vulnerable witnesses. Indeed, Lord Justice Clerk told the committee that when children are asked to give evidence at a time that is remote from the event, not only has their memory diminished but they are more likely to be confused by general questioning about the incident and in cross-examination might come across often wrongly as being shifty or unreliable. That is an important point. Pre-recording evidence should expedite the process and avoid the need for evidence to be repeatedly taken from witnesses. The example that always stuck with me was that given to the committee bill by Daljeet Dagon from Oxfam, who told us of the example of a witness having to give evidence 27 times to the police in total. By the time the trial went to court, she was deemed to be an unreliable witness. That is another reason why the legislation is of such importance, providing better quality evidence. The Scottish Government is taking a phase approach to rolling out the implementation of the pre-recording of evidence, and that indeed is the approach that is supported by the legal profession. At the beginning, the rule will only apply to certain child witnesses giving evidence in the most serious cases in the High Court. That will allow for those who are most vulnerable to be supported swiftly. That is not simply about installing video recording equipment. It is about challenging and enshrined culture in the legal system, and one that historically has not always put witnesses, and in particular the needs of children at its heart. Indeed, as the Crown Office told us, phasing will allow the system to absorb change while minimising risk both to the system and to individual cases. In my contribution to the stage 2 debate, I raised the link between the Scottish Government's getting it right for every child policy, or GERFIC, which is the foundation stone of our education system in Scotland. I compared the Barnahouse model, a one-stop shop, where services come to the child to our own GERFIC approach, which is also child-focused. Many schools in Scotland now have a focus on being trauma-informed. In Glenrothes, our police officers are embracing the trauma-terry scheme, which provides children with reassurance during or after distressing events. In the cabinet secretary's letter to the committee last month, he points to the Government commissioning of healthcare improvement Scotland in partnership with the Care Inspectorate to develop Scotland-specific standards. I was also glad to hear the minister mention that in her speech earlier on, and her commitment to that as well. It is welcome to see the commitment to concrete action, but I again encourage the Government to look at the links between our child-focused education system in Scotland and to ensure that education partners are linked into the development of those standards, because that cannot just be about the justice system if we are to get it right for every child. Let us use the expertise that we have in Scotland to build a system that truly supports and protects child witnesses to get the best evidence. I very much hope that that is exactly what our own Scottish standards for Barnahouse will do in the future. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank everybody involved in bringing the bill to this stage, and particularly the clerks team. I welcome stage 3 of this bill to the chamber. What the bill puts forward, being the prerecording of evidence of some child witnesses outwith the courtroom, is, rightfully, an important step to take. For the sake of those witnesses, many of whom are victims of atrocious crimes, it is vital that those proposed changes are as effective and sensitive as possible. This bill is a positive move forward, and I join my colleagues in supporting it. I found the findings of the committee to be very sound in its helpful analysis of the bill, and I think it right that some of its recommendations have been listened to and will be adopted. It is this scrutiny that strengthens the possibility of real change to Scotland's justice system. As was generally agreed at stage 1, the bill deserves a gradual and careful implementation. It would do no good to overload the courts process without consideration of the detailed planning and resources needed to secure meaningful and effective change, one that balances a fair outcome for the perpetrator with the respect and support owed to the witness. Of course, we have to be mindful of the different proceedings that are required and the vulnerable witnesses at the heart of those cases. On a wider scale, the bill has encouraged us to take steps back to consider the best way to take evidence from child witnesses. None of us can condone the risk of vulnerable witnesses feeling targeted or traumatised by the courts process. As I have said in the chamber before, the quality of our participation is vital to the outcome of the verdict, so ensuring that evidence is pre-recorded in those cases will allow children of different ages and abilities to a process that offers them the best chance of giving accurate and informative evidence. As the children's charity Bernardus highlighted, I quote, the better the support that the witness has, the better the evidence they will be giving. But surely, the bill should encourage us to look to future transformations that can go further. With that goal in mind, I support the committee's recommendation to explore the case for establishing a Barnahouse approach in future, which would take into account the importance of having the right services provided to support young witnesses in a child-friendly setting. There is a persuasive argument to say that this pathway may be better equipped than a court process in handling children of what can be an intimidating and traumatic experience. While appreciating that this concept would take time to establish, I welcome the Government's commitment to provide progress on what a Scottish approach to the Barnahouse-inspired principles would look like in future. Moreover, I am pleased to see that child witnesses in domestic abuse cases will now be included as a result of the stage 2 amendment put forward by the Justice Committee. The addition to the bill was much needed, especially given the introduction of the domestic abuse Scotland bill in 2018, as the service assist highlighted in its evidence, which was most insightful. Under the new law, we are expected to see a rise in the number of children called to give evidence under solemn procedure, a thought which can weigh heavy on the mental health of those witnesses. With that in mind, the expansion of the provision to include domestic abuse cases is absolutely right and vital. Further to this, I believe that in future it is worth exploring a one-sheriff system for these victims of domestic abuse. Indeed, if we are looking to stop the re-traumatisation for witnesses, surely they would benefit from only relaying their account to one single judge. We have seen how that can work in Australia and the United States, for example. The fact that it might also promote greater efficiency is also worthy of note. Perhaps following the bill, a trial of this system should be the next step, for that is how we can make Scotland's justice system work even better for victims. To conclude, Scotland needs its courts to be of the highest standard possible. For that to happen, we need to restore confidence in the justice process. We cannot lose the scope. We have for wider reform that this bill will encourage. Indeed, we all want this bill to target some of the gaps and the creaks in our court system. With careful implementation and a clear view for the future, steps must be taken, and I believe that they can. Jackie Baillie, followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and you and the previous occupant of that chair are nothing if not generous with time. I welcome the bill and its intention to ensure that there is support for children and the most vulnerable in our society at what can be an extremely difficult and often distressing time for them, but it is all about giving the best possible evidence. I understand the immediate focus on children and I also welcome the amendments made at stage 2 to include domestic abuse victims, but I want to speak specifically about section 3, as this is the part of the bill that deals with other categories of vulnerable witnesses. The criteria, the timing is entirely in the gift of ministers. I have not heard any indication of a timetable to enact this aspect of the legislation, but I believe that this must not be left to gather dust on a shelf. I would be particularly keen to hear from the minister in her summing up when she will extend measures to other vulnerable witnesses. I am afraid that I am slightly less patient than many of my other colleagues in the chamber today. I want to focus on people with learning disabilities as vulnerable witnesses. As convener of the cross-party group on learning disability, I am particularly keen to ensure that their voice is heard in every aspect of society and that includes our criminal justice system. The debate has largely focused on children and I want to ensure that their views are not overlooked or somehow othered in discussions surrounding the bill. After all, according to the Scottish Government's own survey, learning disabled people in Scotland were more likely to be victims of a crime in 2016-17 than non-disabled people. It is a fact that the heightened level of vulnerability that comes with having a learning disability makes some prime targets for criminal acts—anything ranging from small-scale theft to indeed even sexual abuse and rape. It is vitally important therefore that their experiences of the criminal justice system are heard. I would urge the Scottish Government and the Minister to do so when considering the implementation of the bill. The reform that is central to this bill, which essentially mandates child witness statements for serious cases to be given in advance, is absolutely right but must be extended to those with learning difficulties as soon as possible. Day-to-day tasks that may seem easy and even mundane to you and I can be hugely stressful and testing for many with a learning disability. We know that some learning disabilities create real barriers to people feeling comfortable when talking to others or going to new unknown places. Just imagine for a moment the potential trauma that can occur from asking an individual with a learning disability to not only be the centre of attention in a courtroom but to then relive over and over again a horrific crime that they are a witness to whilst being asked often very personal questions by a stranger. The equality and human rights commission stated that people with learning disabilities can find the court environment very challenging and often do not understand what is being said or what is happening. Prior statement giving completely removes that situation and will allow for everyone to feel as comfortable as possible given the circumstances. The Government's policy statement says that extending provisions to other vulnerable witnesses represents a major change and I agree. They say that it will take time but it would be useful for us to know just how much time, what is the target for implementation and an assurance that it will not be left on the shelf. Finally, I want to mention the appropriate adult scheme. It is not directly connected with the bill but the Scottish Government consulted on this last year and it is referred to in the policy memorandum. Indeed, the Government made a commitment to launch it this year. When is it going to be launched? In this and in the implementation of the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill, it is essential that progress is made to ensure that the most vulnerable people in Scotland have the protection that they need and deserve and that it is not put off for another day. The last of the open debate contributions from Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just like it was at stage 1, it really is a great pleasure to speak in this debate as we stand on the verge of making it law here at stage 3. I hear what others have said in the chamber today about it being a start and I totally agree with that, especially on the back of Jackie Baillie's main theme of her speech there. However, it is a very significant start because this is real and proper legislation that will have a positive effect in people's lives and will go some way to rectify the discrepancies in our current system. Like, for example, the constituent that I mentioned in my stage 1 speech and I highlighted their situation again to the cabinet secretary through portfolio questions just a couple of weeks ago, those are the sort of real-life situations that are moving forward that will be helped by the passing of this bill. I know that, for example, they are continuing to monitor proceedings. I was also, as you know, Presiding Officer, a member of the Justice Committee, and I think that the argument for this bill and its progression was very much one-out at stage 1, and I think that you can see that reflected here today in the chamber. The majority of evidence that we heard from stakeholders, including Barnardo's and Children's First, for example, and many others, was the need to reform and the introduction of a rule ensuring that, in the most serious of cases, evidence from a child is taken pre-trial. I think that it is also worth mentioning that I think that this bill passing today, if that is the decision, which seems very likely, is that there are opportunities for children from BME backgrounds who we know can possibly face additional challenges when going through criminal and court proceedings. Presiding Officer, colleagues will know that I was particularly pleased that the whole process of this bill, moving through the Parliament, gave a good airing to the subject of joint investigative interviews, something that Daniel Johnson focused on. Several years back, a social worker carried out those interviews after sitting through some of those and speaking with colleagues afterwards and sharing their frustrations. Never in 100 years would I have thought that I would have had the opportunity to talk about it here today in our national parliament where changes can be made. That is why, through the process of this bill, I have welcomed the steps that have been taken to allow for joint investigative interviews to be used as evidence-in-chief, such as the expanding of training and increasing the number of interviews carried out by an individual practitioner. There are two areas where we heard that there were difficulties and that are possibly leading to going down the road of specialised expertise, if you like. That is something that will get a lot of support for practitioners, police and social work out there. I would also like to comment on the issue that is perhaps the most prominent in the bill's passage, and that is Scotland moving to a Barnhouse model, as we heard during the amendments section of the debate. I have said before that, even using my own experience, I feel that we could certainly move to such a model, at least on a practice level, if not a legal one that is relatively straightforward. A point to Daniel Johnson that I noticed that I was nodding eagerly when he was making it. We could interview children, offer support to families and provide health investigations in a one-stop, child-friendly environment, rather than the current situation, which is a bit patchy up and down the country and needing to deal with health professionals and social working at all happening at different points. I think that everybody accepts that it is not in the best interests of children. That brings me to Margaret Mitchell's amendment. I want to say that although I voted against her amendment and spoke against it, I want to know that I think that it is really honourable that she has been a champion for the Barnhouse, but I think that her amendment today was a wee bit out of place and I couldn't support that. There was no reflection given at the various legal and technicality issues that I think the Cabinet Secretary and the Government need to look at, which are going to be complex, even if I said earlier that the practice ones might not be so complex. Most importantly, the potential for re-tomatisation of children through that amendment was not something that I could vote for, but I still want to credit the convener of the Justice Committee nonetheless for her passion in this area. I think that she has been very much taken on by what she has seen in Oslo, as we all were. I welcome the letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the committee outlining that there will be a scoping report as early as June this year and final standards expected by 2020. That is moving really quickly, Presiding Officer, to my mind. I think that that has got to be a welcome. It allows for a collaborative approach, as he says in his letter to between Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate, bringing in other partners as well about how we can manage or deal with the difficulties in that area, such as pre-recording, for example. I would just like to end by commending the spell at stage today. I now move to the closing speeches, and I call Daniel Johnson. I can give you up to five minutes, Mr Johnson. One of the advantages of closing as well as opening a debate is that you get to say the things in closing that you either ran out of time or forgot to say. Importantly, I would just like to mark my congratulations to Mr Yusif for all the reasons to not be present in the chamber. His is a pretty good one, but I also acknowledge that Ash Denham has been left holding this legislative baby while Humza goes off to hold an actual baby, and I think that she has done very well, because this is a technical bill and one that has very much taken everyone into a great deal of detail, but I think that she has done very well. Most importantly, and I think that one of the key things that I would like to highlight is that the bill does not stand in isolation. Other members have mentioned the age of criminal responsibility, but we also have the management of offenders bill, which is going through. It is a bill that can mark progress, but it will only do so if it does in conjunction with others, but not just in conjunction with other legislation but other measures. If you look at commitments to reducing short sentencing towards moving towards community justice, it is vital that that measure sits alongside those other measures, but it also receives the resource that it needs, resource and investment into the technology and facilities that we need, but above all else, it enjoys the confidence of sentences and legislatures. When we look at the use of community justice sentences in particular, there is undoubtedly an issue around the confidence from sentences and using those measures. We need to have a holistic focus to ensure that the measures in the bill gain and enjoy the confidence that it seeks to provide them. Above all else, to touch on what Liam McArthur said, I thought that he put it very well, we must aim towards taking children out of the courts. It is not a place for children. It is a place that is only going to serve to traumatise them, and I think that, under the very things that I said earlier, we should ensure that the justice system seeks to do in terms of protecting it. Indeed, many members from the Justice Committee have highlighted our very useful and informative trip to also. It did help us to bust the jargon around Barnhurst. What struck me, as clearly struck Fulton MacGregor, was that we are not so terribly far away in taking what we have in terms of joint investigative interviews and in terms of special measures. We see a context in Oslo where they have an adversarial system and they have the Barnhurst system. The point that we will need to reflect on enables them to protect their adversarial system is the possibility of a secondary interview. One that I understand is not all that often used because of the confidence and, indeed, the professionalism with which those interviews take place within the Barnhurst system in Norway. That is what we ought to aim towards—a system that can incorporate the important adversarial aspects of our justice system but does so with the confidence of all those who participate in it, which requires investment but involves training. I think that the other point from that experience was the fact that those police officers—and it is police that undertake those interviews and run the Barnhurst system—have a three-year degree to get them to the specialised training that they require to them. That is what we have to aim towards in Scotland, and I fully believe that. I think that the other key point raised in the debate, raised by John Finnie and Jackie Baillie, is that that is fundamentally about experience and improving experience. Vulnerable people do not know to be traumatised based on where they are or the nature of the crime that might have been committed against them. If there is one possible flaw—certainly one that I reflected on through the past fingers—this bill does, and I understand why, but it defines vulnerable people by the type of crime. A child does not know to be traumatised because they are giving evidence under summary or solemn proceedings. That is clearly not right, so we need to take those principles forward and make sure that they are applied so that we ensure that those experiences are avoided, so that giving evidence is not the worst experience of a child's life, as John Finnie put it. Likewise, vulnerability is not defined by age, either. Jackie Baillie's contribution was extremely powerful. Adults with learning disabilities have every possibility, and perhaps in some ways more so, of being traumatised by the experience of court. We must ensure that we extend those measures to vulnerable people as quickly as possible. Likewise, we must make sure that all those people are supported. We must make sure that those active supports are in place. Above all else, that is about taking people with us. That is about progress, but we must ensure that sentences, legislatures and wider society are taken with us so that we can achieve the benefits and progress that we all hope will be established by the passing of the bill this evening. The Justice Committee's scrutiny of the vulnerable witnesses criminal evidence Scotland bill has proved an excellent example of a parliamentary committee united in its support for and working together to improve legislation. I thank all committee members for their constructive contributions and pay tribute to all the organisations and witnesses who gave invaluable evidence to the committee. As always, the Justice Clerks have given the committee superb support, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Scottish Tribunal Service and Lady Dorian for arranging a visit to the High Court to see how evidence is currently prerecorded. The committee visited Barnhouse in Norway and saw first-hand the benefits of providing child witnesses with a dedicated child-friendly facility away from the court with a range of support services under one roof, and the one-forensic interview approach that delivers best evidence, reduces and helps recovery from trauma. The committee is extremely grateful to all the staff at Barnhouse Oslo for their warm welcome and for the time spent answering questions and explaining how the Barnhouse approach secures the best evidence from children to help to secure a prosecution. The bill's main policy objective is to improve how children and vulnerable witnesses participate in the criminal justice system through greater use of prerecording their evidence in advance of a criminal trial. A new rule provision in the bill generally requires the most serious cases for all a child's evidence to be prerecorded. That new rule has major implications for our adversarial criminal justice system and requires a major shift in both legal practice and culture. In view of that, the Scottish Government's phased approach to the rules implementation makes sense, as does the requirement for detailed analysis of each phase, with the initial phase focusing on child witnesses. That is why Liam Kerr's amendment table today is so important. As a result of an amendment at stage 2, which the entire committee supported, as have all speakers in today's debate, phase 1 will now also include child witnesses in solemn domestic abuse cases. There were various issues raised by the committee at stage 1 report and at stages 2 and 3. Those included the importance of and necessity for effective interview technique training and the requirement for that to be monitored. To quote the mental welfare commission, a bad interview done earlier is no better than a bad interview done at a trial. In other words, as both Daniel Johnson and John Finnie effectively argued, the significance of training for those involved in the joint investigative interview of a child and other vulnerable witnesses cannot be overstated. There is also the need for measures to support and protect witnesses against harassment or further victimisation throughout the evidence giving process and, crucially, including after giving evidence. Here, the continuing work of the Government's new victims task force is looking at ways to improve the experience of victims and witnesses who give evidence is extremely welcome. It is essential not only to protect them from harm but to ensure that witnesses are not deterred from giving evidence. Finally, the committee emphasised its commitment to move as soon as possible to a Scottish Barnahus model. I welcome the cabinet secretary's letter updating the committee on what is planned up to summer 2020. It falls short of providing a timetable of reviews on the face of the bill that continues to the end of this parliamentary session and continues into the new parliamentary session. I thank Fulton MacGregor for his kind remarks but concur with Jackie Baillie's comments about the necessity for progress and the timetable for implementation. In conclusion, I ask the Scottish Government to commit today to providing substantial resources for new technology necessary to achieve a Scottish Barnahus. In the meantime, the Scottish Conservatives have much pleasure in voting for the vulnerable witnesses Scotland bill this evening. I now call Ash Denham to wind up in this debate and up to six minutes will take us to decision time please, minister. I want to begin my closing remarks by thanking again the very many stakeholders and individuals who have given evidence to the committee on this bill and particularly on the benefits that pre-recording evidence can bring. I suspect that many of them may be looking on to see the conclusion of this debate today. I also thank everyone who has contributed to what has been a very constructive and well informed debate this afternoon. It is clear that we are all committed to the key principles that are underpinning the bill. I consider that this positive approach has been the hallmark of the entire bill process and a true reflection of the professionalism and the integrity of the justice committee as is its vigorous examination of the bill and also the amendments. I believe that we now have a bill that has broad and indeed significant cross-party support from which we can lay the foundations for further protection of our most vulnerable victims and witnesses. It does for me reflect a positive template for managing legislation for the future. That said, we do not doubt the scale of the challenge and the appetite for rapid and early momentum. This legislation prefers the foundations and now is the time for clear progress to deliver the reforms. We will continue to work closely with our justice sector partners and stakeholders to ensure that the reforms work well in practice and benefit those vulnerable child witnesses. At this juncture, I should put on record again the welcome and support to the sentiment behind the review amendment lodged from Liam Kerr. I believe that this provides a suitable and sensible mechanism from which we will be able to determine how successful the measures that are detailed within the bill have been in their delivery. We need to learn from both our successes and from where there is evidence what we could do better. I am pleased that others in the Parliament today have also seen fit to support his amendment. I regret that we were unable to support the amendment from Margaret Mitchell, as we believe that it would have placed an unnecessary and potentially inhibiting legislative burden on to the Scottish Government. I hope that what I have said today reassures the Parliament that we are committed to developing a truly trauma informed child-centred response to child victims. I believe that we have consensus on that and it will take careful work across justice, health and child protection in the coming months. We will continue to communicate with Parliament and the committee about progress on Barnahus and Key Milestones. I am happy to make that commitment again today. I will now address some of the points and the common themes that have emerged from contributions this afternoon. A number of members made mention of Barnahus, as you would expect, including Liam Kerr and others across the chamber. I note the strong interest in moving towards that as a destination, but also the idea of keeping up the momentum. I note that that came across strongly from the chamber this afternoon. Barnahus, of course, is more than just criminal justice. It is healthcare, it is child protection, it involves the legal profession, so it is right that we take the time both across Government and also with our key stakeholders to develop that Scottish version of the Barnahus model. We have set out a clear timetable to develop those standards for Scotland, and I hope that that reassures the chamber today that we are committed to keeping up that momentum. Daniel Johnson made a number of points, the first of which that bill was echoed by others across the chamber today. That bill is a really good starting point, and I thank him for that. He also made a point about the ground drill hearings and developing them potentially further in the future. Obviously, he will be aware of the latest High Court practice note that sets out a general approach for things such as preparing questions in advance for child witnesses, for instance. Obviously, the practice note can be updated over time, and that does offer an appropriate level of flexibility there. Another point that he raised was the point about greater use of special measures. It is important that vulnerable witnesses in general are aware of the special measures that are available to them, and that is an important point. The Crown Office is now beginning a process of reviewing all the correspondence that is issued by VIA and reviewing the information leaflets and so on to make sure that it is understandable and clear as possible so that people have the right information. The Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service also have a rolling programme of upgrades planned across the estate, and that is to help to ensure that technology, which was another point that Daniel Johnson raised, technology and equipment both within the courtrooms and also in the live-link TV rooms, can help to keep pace with on-going improvements. I will turn now to address a couple of points made by Jackie Baillie. Changing the way that evidence is being taken for so many needs to obviously be done in a controlled and careful way. First, for child witnesses in the most serious cases, but as noted, the bill does have a framework for extension to other vulnerable witnesses so that over time it can cover more deemed vulnerable witnesses. However, it is important that that is done in a managed way, and I am sure that Jackie Baillie would understand this. The draft implementation plan sets out the Government's plan for this. Unfortunately, I will not be able to give any commitment beyond that today. I will move on to Jenny Gilruth, who in her speech made a mention of a child witness who was made to give evidence 27 times. I think that this example alone shows us why the bill will be transformative and lead to a better quality of evidence. In closing, I am delighted to have been able to speak to the bill at stage 3, as it is clear how important those changes will be. The legislation is a major milestone in ensuring that many more children are able to pre-record their evidence in advance of the actual criminal trial. I hope that all of us here in the chamber today can support those reforms, and we will pass the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill. Thank you very much, and that concludes this afternoon's debate. We are going to turn straight to decision time, and there is one question this afternoon. That is that motion 17210, in the name of Ashtenham, on the Vulnerable Witnesses Scotland Bill, be agreed. Members should cast their votes now, as this is an act of parliament. The result of the vote on motion 17210, in the name of Ashtenham, is yes, 112. There were no votes against. There were no abstentions. The motion is agreed, and the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.