 The next item of business is a statement by Jeane Freeman on transvaginal mesh update. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I am pleased to update members on the progress of our work in respect to transvaginal mesh. In doing so, I want to thank all those involved in the Scottish mesh survivors group for their tireless campaigning and members across the chamber who have supported them. In September 2018, I announced my decision to halt the use of transvaginal mesh in cases of both pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. I set out that I required high vigilance from boards to ensure that that was implemented and that such a halt would only be lifted if a restricted use protocol could be developed to my satisfaction. Our chief medical officer, Dr Katharine Calderwood, duly instructed health boards on this restriction to practice and, in compliance with my statement, established a group of board-accountable officers to consider aspects of service and care available to women suffering from stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. That group has met once, the minutes that are published on the Scottish Government website. To be as clear as possible, I can see no prospect of the halt that I instigated being lifted and I have not asked for any planning to lift that halt. I wrote to the chief executive of the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, on 31 October 2018 and the CMO has been in contact with its director of medical devices in November and in December, followed by a phone call in December. In those exchanges we have raised our concerns on their approvals process and I hope that we have not only been listened to but understood. MHRA has set out that they take those views extremely seriously and have invited NHS Scotland to join all cross-cutting initiatives, including in the work on the unique device identifier and the approved communication with patients on the potential outcomes from the use of all types of medical devices. MHRA says that it stands ready to support us and our healthcare system to ensure the safety of patients needing treatment. I am sure that members across the chamber will join me in ensuring that we hold them to that commitment. In March this year, following a member's debate, I and the CMO met with a group of women from the mesh survivors group. I am grateful to them for their time and for their courage and willingness to share their experiences with me. Following that meeting, I set in train the work that I had promised the women that I would. A mesh complications short-life group was set up to consider the following. The physical and psychological needs of the women who experience complications, what additional steps are needed to offer choice to women who are clinically suitable for and want mesh removal, review and identify areas of best practice wherever it happened, and determine how those can be provided in Scotland. In addition and again, in line with the commitment that I gave, I ensured that the voices of women would be heard in that short-life group's deliberations. Through the membership of Dr Will Agarra, who the mesh survivors group wanted to represent them, and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland. As members will be aware, detail on that has been set out by me in four Government-inspired questions on 8 March 6, 13 June and an update provided on 19 June. A key part of the mesh complications working group's actions is to ensure that the care and treatment provided for women affected is as good, if not better, than that offered in any other centre, either here in the UK or elsewhere around the world. That requires benchmarking processes and outcomes with other centres, as well as sharing experience and techniques with clinicians. In that context, Dr Veronikas' offer to come to Scotland to work is very welcome. I also recognise that a number of patients are eager for him to come here. As a result and in consultation with the service here in Scotland, I have asked that we look to bring Dr Veronikas to Scotland as soon as possible. The intention will be for him to work with the clinical service in a complementary fashion to provide treatment, expert advice and training. I want this to be a valued partnership that benefits patients now and over the long term. In saying all of this, it is important that we are all clear that such an arrangement is subject to agreement and regulatory approval. As regulation in this area is reserved, I have written to the UK Government's health secretary and to the general medical council to highlight this case and ask that, for their part, steps are taken forward as expeditiously as possible. I am pleased that the GMC has responded quickly and positively with an assurance that it will do all that it can to ensure that the important regulatory process is completed quickly and smoothly. With appropriate agreement and sponsorship by the service, I hope that Dr Veronikas can visit by the autumn. I await a response from the UK Government. The mesh complications working group has also been working to establish a national complex case review unit within NHS Scotland. The work to finalise the details and the important connections between this unit and the relevant health board is being taken forward through our service design processes with the intention that it is established by mid 2020. The working group has also taken forward a number of other measures designed to ensure that patients have choice and all the information that they need to exercise that choice, including establishing clear care pathways, including through primary care as well as in acute services that are consistent across Scotland. I want to repeat my thanks to the Scottish mesh survivors group. Their initial work and campaigning was to ensure that no other women in the future suffered the pain and life-changing effects of mesh use that they had and still do. The halt that I instructed last September responded directly to that. The women rightly saw the attention and care that they themselves are due. From all the correspondence that I have received from the representations made to me from members here and most importantly from the women themselves, I understood clearly the areas where the care and attention and choice that is offered could be improved. The update that I have provided today directly responds to that. Our health service is there to provide safe, effective and person-centred care. In this area and for those women who suffer complications from mesh, my intention is that what I have set out today takes us ever closer to providing that focused, safe and person-centred care. I commend this update to Parliament, Presiding Officer, and I am happy to take questions. As the cabinet secretary said, she will now take questions on a statement that we have got about 20 minutes for questions, and then we will move on to next item of business as usual, apart from two-front benches. I would ask other members to be crisp in their questions as far as possible. If that is the end, Miles Briggs will follow by Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement today. Like the Scottish Mesh Survivors Group, I believe that there is cross-party support for the development of a clinical service to provide treatment expert advice and training opportunities here in our country. The cabinet secretary will have the support of those benches in taking that work forward. What training budgets will be made available to help to take forward the training time and capacity that will be needed by Dr Veronica to take forward new techniques and technology that can finally offer and provide full mesh removal for women and patients here in Scotland? I thank Mr Briggs. I am grateful to him for the support of his benches for the work that was undertaken, and to Mr Carlaw, who has been one of the prominent members in pursuing the case for the mesh survivors and the women involved. Where we are at the moment is that we are in discussion with Dr Veronica. Part of what would sensibly be done is that the right group of our clinicians will go to the US shortly to speak with him, to see what he uses by way of equipment and so on, to discuss with him how they will work together and what they think their training needs are. He, I hope then, with due regulatory process completed and with the support of the GMC, that is very helpful, will then arrange to come to Scotland. There are limitations to the length of time over a time period that an external expert can come and practice in our country, but that will all be resolved and we will agree those arrangements with him. On the basis of all that, I will understand better what is needed by way of training in terms of our clinicians, his time, both when we visit him in the States and when he comes here and what additional funding might be made available. At that point, because of all those reasons, I cannot give you that figure, but what I can give you is my absolute commitment that we will ensure that what is needed is provided and that our clinicians, where it is appropriate, will be learning from him and exchanging good practice with him. Monica Lennon and Fulbae Alec Neill. I thank the cabinet secretary for advanced sites of her statements, the mesh injured women of Scotland continuing to live with the life-changing consequences of this medical scandal. The cabinet secretary says that she hopes that Dr Veronica's can visit by the autumn. However, Dr Veronica's offered to come to Scotland as far back as November 2018. A flurry of correspondence now to make this happen is a little disappointing, because autumn is no use to women like Claire Daisley, a mother of three from Greenock, who is set to lose her bow and her bladder next month. Claire's body is swelling up because of her mesh injuries, and she is basically trapped in her own home. Can the health secretary tell Claire Daisley and other women in her position if they will have surgery from Dr Veronica's before it is too late? Will the Scottish Government fund Claire to have her surgery in America where Dr Veronica's is based if that is what it takes? I am grateful to Ms Lennon for her question. I am disappointed though, however, I have to say at the prosimmonious nature of that. I will answer the question. Mr Findlay, there really is no need to shout at me if you want to ask me a question. I suggest that you press your button and get up in your pins. Can I say that if you understood how a health service works, you would understand that the important steps that you have to go through are to have those discussions with clinicians, to understand what their needs are, to have the further conversations and the due diligence done on any external expert that we wish to come here? That is why we are now fortunately in the situation that we are in. In terms of the situation with Ms Daisley, as I believe members may know, the CMO has had a conversation with Ms Daisley. It is a clinical decision as to whether anyone is suitable for full mesh removal. I am not going to discuss an individual case in this chamber. That will be for the board and Ms Daisley to take further. Any other matters that arise from that, I will of course look at it. The important point here is that, from the meeting that I had with the women representing the mesh survivors group in March, everything that I undertook with them, I would do, I have now done. Can I welcome the statement by the cabinet secretary and congratulate her on the work that she is doing to rectify a long-lasting injustice to those women? Can I ask her with respect to the mesh complications working group, if it is yet in a position to estimate the number of women who could benefit from the establishment of this group? Can I ask if, meantime, because clearly it will take probably up to about the middle of next year to fully establish such a unit, if I can ask what the interim arrangements are for women with complications that require urgent treatment? As I am grateful to Mr Neil for the question, in terms of estimating the number of women who are experiencing mesh complications, the detailed planning for the development of the complexification unit will be able to take forward more rigorous estimation of demand at the moment. The work that is going on is estimating those figures from our current knowledge and using estimates from NHS England. All that we will put together in terms of the planning process once it is finalised. As Mr Neil will know, part of the difficulty was the work that I referred to is now being taken forward, thanks to our intervention with the MHRA, which is to have that unique device identifier and to have that registry, which I announced back in September. That registry in Scotland and across the UK developed, which will give us much better data in that regard. The work is under way, but we are not yet in a position to be completely confident that our estimate of the numbers is as accurate as we would wish it to be. The point that Mr Neil wants to make has made about, in anticipation of the complex case review unit being established, what is the situation. I have set out for individual cases, where people have been in touch with me exactly what the process is in terms of the choice and how you can exercise that choice. In addition, the short-life group that we set up to look at those matters following my meeting with the women in the beginning of March is clearly establishing a pathway with each relevant health board so that they know and can respond quickly to requests for second opinions and to requests for choice about where mesh removal might be undertaken. Whatever differences there might be over the overall shape of healthcare, can I congratulate the cabinet secretary on a series of actions that she has taken in her year as health secretary, in contrast to the years of frustration that mesh sufferers experienced in the years previous to that? I have had women in tears having campaigned to stop mesh as a future condition, now in real expectation that there is something that can be done for them. In consequence, expectations are sky high. How confident is she that the discussions that are under way with Dr Veronica's will lead to a successful conclusion? What can Scottish Conservatives do to assist regarding any support that is required to achieve objectives with the UK Government? I thank Jackson Carlaw for his kind comments and for his support. As I said earlier, for the work that he and others have undertaken to raise and consistently raise the issue, I am confident that the current discussions will lead to a successful conclusion in terms of Dr Veronica's coming here. I am very clear that I want that to be in terms of his expert advice, the treatment of patients and training, so that any skills and techniques that he has that would usefully be acquired by our clinicians are passed on. We look at long-term training for clinicians and not just the immediate situation. In terms of anything that the Scottish Conservatives can do to assist us, I am very grateful for that offer. I await a reply from the Secretary of State for Health and Sport. I understand that there are other things happening in terms of the UK Government at this point. I am not trying to make anything other than a statement of fact. If I think that that is taking a wee bit too long, I would certainly call on Mr Carlaw and others to give the nudge in the appropriate direction. Perhaps even at this point they can simply raise with the Secretary of State that we have had a very speedy reply from the GMC, and it would be good to get a positive reply from the UK Government. I remind the chamber that we are only having this statement because Labour demanded it, but I warmly welcome the progress on bringing in Dr Veronica's to Scotland. It appears that campaigning and pressure works and that is a very good thing, but something does not stack up with that. In 20 June, I asked the Cabinet Secretary about any plans to bring back mesh. She said in her answer, and I quote, I have not instructed any planning to consider lifting that halt, and the Scottish Government has undertaken no work to that effect. Minutes from the accountable officer's group of 22 February say that, with the publication of key guidance later in the year, it will be helpful to look at how the reintroduction of the surgical service will work in practice, and later that primary mesh operations could be undertaken in individual boards. The cabinet secretary has either lied to the women in Scotland, lied to this Parliament, or she has not a clue what the chief medical officer is doing on her path. Which one is it? Mr Findlay, there is a certain amount of language that you can use in this chamber, and lying is not a term that we allow, so please withdraw the remark and ask your question in a polite way to the cabinet secretary without using that term. I would have thought that the person exposing the mistruths and lies that have been told would be protected and the person who has done it would be thrown out. Mr Findlay, the word is not acceptable in this chamber. You cannot make personal accusations across the chamber. In the meantime, we will move on to the next question. Can the cabinet secretary expand on how the voices of mesh survivors have been heard during the process of establishing the complex case unit? Can she reassure them that they will remain involved in the process? I am grateful to Ms Mackay for the question. As I said in the statement, after the meeting on 5 March with the women, I said that I would do what I then did, which was to set up that short-life working group. I asked the Scottish mesh survivors who they would wish to have represented them on that, if they wished to be represented directly, or if they wanted that done through a third party. Their response to me was that they wished Dr Agour to do that for them. He is a member. I have also involved the Scottish Care Alliance to ensure that there is a wider perspective as well in terms of patients. They are both involved. They have been involved so that those women's voices have been heard in the work that that group has developed, including the complex case review unit, which will be established as quickly as we possibly can. They will continue to be involved to ensure that the work that we have said that we will deliver, that we actually do deliver that, and that we deliver that as timeously as possible. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's assurances that there are no plans to lift the halt on the use of transvaginal mesh. However, I am concerned by her statement that such a halt would only be lifted if a restricted use protocol could be developed. Given that the Scottish independent review of the use of transvaginal mesh reported in March 2017, in the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, current evidence does not indicate any additional benefit from the use of transvaginal implants over native tissue repair. Knowing what we know now, cabinet secretary, why is a reintroduction of mesh operations even being considered? I am grateful to Ms Johnson for her question. If she will recall what I said in this statement in that regard, that is exactly what I said in September when I announced my decision to halt the use of mesh in those procedures. Also, if she will recall, the reason I wrote to the MHRA is that it is responsible for determining whether any device that is used is safe, and I wanted to question the degree to which it undertakes that process with any rigor and with any real evidence base. I am simply being consistent with what I said in September and what I have said again to be clear. I think that I have now said this three times in this chamber, as well as in answers to members and in Government-inspired questions. I can foresee no circumstance in which I will approve the reintroduction of the use of mesh. I am just waiting for you to calm down and regain some measure of control over your emotions. I understand how emotive the subject is. I understand that members feel very strongly about that. However, I cannot tolerate people shouting accusations across the chamber. I will return to you in a second to ask you to withdraw the mark. In the meantime, please do not barric the cabinet secretary in the middle of other members' questions. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start by welcoming today's statement and the hope that it offers all those mesh survivors known to us in this chamber. The cabinet secretary will recall the case of my constituent that I raised with her at a previous statement on that issue, which is suffering not from transvaginal mesh complications but from hernia mesh complications. Can she clarify whether the same considerations in today's statement will be extended to those sufferers who have experienced complications as a result from mesh in other parts of their body? I am grateful to Mr Cole-Hamilton for his support and for his question. In terms of that particular case and the example that he gives, certainly the complex case unit will be there to look at complex cases arising from complications where mesh has been used. That is wider than the particular group of women and procedures that we are talking about at this point. In terms of follow-up treatment for an individual in those circumstances, then, of course, their starting point is with their own clinician and with that clinician's decision as to whether or not it is clinically suitable to undertake those procedures. I would anticipate that the training and the learning and the benefit that we gain from the experience of Dr Veronikus and, indeed, elsewhere in Europe where our clinicians are currently looking, as I have asked them to do, that that will assist in future position of NHS Scotland to deal with complications in that regard. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Annie Wells. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the statement, and I would like to ask the Cabinet Secretary to outline how the accountable officers will work with the primary care services to ensure that the individual cases of mesh survivors are addressed. Thank you to Mr McMillan for his question. A primary care health professional has become a member of the short-life working group and will canvas opinions and views from professionals in primary care. Those working together on the self-evaluation tool that has been completed by health boards for Healthcare Improvement Scotland's transvaginal mesh oversight group provide information on any additional needs to strengthen the primary care services and pathways. That is what I referred to in my statement about making sure that the pathway for individuals in those circumstances is clear to them, is clear to all the clinicians who might be involved in various stages across it and is consistent across Scotland so that, no matter where a person lives, they can expect the same response from healthcare professionals in their area. Annie Wells, to be followed by Emma Harper. My thanks also go to the Scottish mesh survivors group for their hard work campaigning on the issue and to the cabinet secretary for her update. I am also pleased to see that there is scope for Dr Veronica's to come to Scotland. What reflections has the cabinet secretary had on the lessons learned? I am grateful to Ms Wells for her question and it is an important question. I think that there are two main reflections. One is that we need to pursue the work that we are now undertaking with MHRA in terms of the rigour with which devices are approved for use in our healthcare system. Those are devices across the piece, whether it is mesh or whether it is a hip joint or whatever, to ensure that we have a comparable rigour in that area as we do in terms of drug trials and approved drug use in our health service. The other reflection that I take is the importance of a consistent pathway and making sure that our patients, whatever the circumstances, whatever the condition, have the maximum amount of information in order that they can make an informed decision, an informed choice. That indeed is reflected in the citizens panel that the chief medical officer has run. I am sure that you have seen the report from that about the importance of shared decision making. For shared decision making to be genuinely shared, the individual patient has to have all the information that they need and has to have the opportunity to question and to return to those questions. Those are the two main reflections that apply wider in our health service than simply on this issue. Emma Harper will be followed by David Stewart. Can the cabinet secretary further clarify whether it is her intention that clinicians in Scotland will learn from Dr Varonicus and that the sharing of that learning will be supported and monitored, such as using a peer-reviewed approach? Yes, I can. The whole approach, as Ms Harper says and I am sure well knows, given her background of peer-review and consistent learning and exchange of experience and skills and ideas, is central to our health service and is undertaken right across the board. I understand from the conversations that have already been had with Dr Varonicus that that is his expectation too, so I think that that will be a fruitful partnership. David Stewart is followed by David Torrance. I also praise the work of the mesh survivors group. Can the cabinet secretary outline what work has been done to assess the number of women who would need specialist mesh removal operations? If a clinical case can be made for mesh damaged patients to have removal by Dr Varonicus in the United States, can that be funded by Scottish Government or NHS boards? In terms of understanding the numbers that we may be dealing with, I answered that already in terms of the work that is already under way to estimate that. Our data is not as good as we would want it to be primarily because that level of detail is not routinely gathered on procedures and we do not yet have the individual identifier, product identifier that we are working with MHRA on. The fact that MHRA is working on that is largely to the credit of some of the areas that we have pursued them on in terms of the way that they approach their work. In terms of whether or not an individual can benefit from the particular treatment that Dr Varonicus offers here in Scotland or elsewhere, part of the discussions that will go on in advance of him coming to Scotland—as I said, I hope that that will happen by the autumn of this year—will be how he will undertake clinical assessments, his access to patient records and so on, which is why we need the regulatory process to be put in place so that he is properly registered to do that and to have access to that information. We have not discussed with him yet any possibility of patients travelling to the United States, but my answer remains as it was to an earlier question. That is an individual clinical decision. Should that be something that clinicians think is required within the timeframe and in advance, then we would certainly look at that, but individual cases, I am sure that the member understands, are not something that I would discuss in the chamber. David Torrance Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary provide further details of what activities Dr Varonicus will undertake whilst here, as well as the activities of Scottish surgeons when he travelled to the USA? I am grateful to Mr Torrance for that question. The areas of work have already been indicated in part in my statement. They include joint treatment, jointly delivered treatment, expert advice and training. The details will be further developed in the discussions that my officials and clinicians are having with Dr Varonicus, and I am happy again to ensure that members are updated on that once those conclusions are reached. The key point for me is not only treatment but also training, so that we are building something now, not only for the current patient cohort, but for any future. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Mr Findlay, I appreciate that you feel very passionately about the subject. However, the outburst earlier was not acceptable. I have given you a few minutes to calm down and to reflect. I would ask you to withdraw the remarks that you made and the accusations that you made earlier. I have great respect for you in the office. I have great respect for the women who have been injured by mesh, but they have made a similar statement in the media two weeks ago as to the one that I made. The cabinet secretary has to be held to account for her actions. I am very sorry, but I cannot withdraw the comment. I am sorry, Mr Findlay. That is not acceptable. I am afraid that I will have to ask you to leave the chamber. Thank you very much, colleagues. We are going to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 17922, in the name of Aileen Campbell, on appointments to the Poverty and Inequality Commission. I call on Aileen Campbell to move the motion. The question will be put at decision time. The next item is consideration of business motion 17937, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion. No member has asked to speak of this motion. The question is that motion 17937 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Where is Richard Lyle, may I ask? The next item of business is consideration of business motion 17938, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the stage 1 timetable of a bill. I call on Graeme Dey to move this motion. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. No one has asked to speak against this motion. The question is that motion 17938 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. The next item is consideration of six Parliamentary Bureau motions. I can ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Bureau, to move motions 1739, 17940 and 17941 on designation of a lead committee, 17942 on a committee remit, 17943 on parliamentary recess dates and 17944 on the office of the clerk. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Our next item is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I can ask Graeme Dey to move motion 17945 on approval of an SSI. Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved. I believe that Liam Kerr would like to speak against this motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak against this SSI. The measure will bring in a presumption against courts imposing prison sentences of 12 months or less on criminals unless there is no alternative. The underlying rationale is that Scotland has the highest prison population in Western Europe and that community-based sentences are more likely to reduce reconvictions. The Justice Committee heard data on populations subject to imprisonment or community sentences, their circumstances and which intervention succeeded is sorely lacking. The conclusion that community sentences inexorably lead to lower reconviction rates is, according to Professor Tata Dodgy. The Scottish Sentencing Council were clear that it does not automatically follow that offenders who are given community sentences in lieu of three months imprisonment will show similar reconviction rates to those who would otherwise get 12 months imprisonment. Furthermore, the presumption aims to substantially increase the numbers of criminals entering a system in which a third of sentences and two thirds of drug treatment orders are not completed, in which a quarter do not involve work or meaningful activity, in which a third take longer than mandated to commence, and that in a context in which the funding and resources to community sentences are challenging. The Howard League said that we must avoid a situation in which courts are discouraged from imposing custodial sentences, but effective community-based alternatives are unavailable. There are better ways to reduce the reconviction rate and increase rehabilitation without the risks. We could adequately resource prisons, ensure all prisoners have access to rehabilitation and perhaps look at proper housing and work upon release. We could examine the Howard League's suggestions around women in prison. We could review the use of remand. We could properly collect data on what works, why and for whom, but we haven't. Instead, the SSI imposes on an independent judiciary. Our judges are experienced, well-trained and knowledgeable in determining the appropriate sentence, yet the SSI will impose without any of the individual facts of a case a requirement on how to dispose of a sentence, having failed to ensure that sentences have trust in the alternatives and that there is a more uniform provision across Scotland. I foresee the SSI going one of two ways. Either sentences will continue to hand out the sentences that they think are appropriate and the prison population will stay static or, ironically, increase due to up-tariffing, in which case we have wasted time and resource whilst ignoring the real challenges and blockers to rehabilitation in the system, such as lack of resources and data analysis. Or, according to the Government's own predictions, sentences will feel pressured to put criminals whom they would otherwise have put in prison out into the community. I fear that the Scottish Government is taking a risk with the safety of the public and particularly, as Scottish women's aid have said, the victims of domestic abuse. I worry that, as we have heard from victims groups, victims and the public have little faith in community sentencing, and I am certain that there are better, safer and more considered ways to achieve what Parliament desires. Therefore, I urge Parliament to vote against this SSI. I want a smarter justice system that reduces repeat crime by providing robust community alternatives to ineffective short-prison sentences, supporting offenders to turn away from crime for good. If we can find effective alternative to short sentences, it is not a question of pursuing a soft justice approach, but rather a case of pursuing smart justice that is effective at reducing re-offending and crime. Not my words, Presiding Officer. The words of the UK Government's justice secretary and Tory justice secretary, David Gotk. There is a disconnect between what Conservative spokespeople up here say in Scotland and the policies being pursued by the Conservative colleagues in the UK Government. The reason for that disconnect is not frankly that I believe that Liam Kerr has the interests and the concerns of victims in mind. Frankly, he is concerned about his next daily mail column, and that is just about it. He references the Howard League throughout his remarks. Of course, the Howard League are in support of this presumption against short sentences of 12 months. I welcomed the committee's scrutiny of this. Of course, the committee voted overwhelmingly seven to two in favour of the order, with only, of course, the Conservative members opposing it. Not only that, of course, we have increased the resources. We have protected the criminal justice social work budget of £100 million. We have increased the funding for community alternatives. What I would say to Liam Kerr and to others who are listening that have any skepticism about the presumption is that it is a presumption, not a ban. Of course, the UK Government wants to introduce a ban on sentences of six months. We are suggesting a presumption, which means that sheriffs will have discretion in sentences. Therefore, if there are any concerns about those who commit offences of domestic abuse, sheriffs will still have the ability to put those people behind bars, if that is what they wish to do. That is why, of course, we waited until the training had been completed in the effect that the new domestic abuse offence came into force before introducing the order. Secondly, the point to make is that all the research shows that community alternatives are far more effective in rehabilitation than damaging short sentences. Yes, for some people, it would be absolutely correct that the only place for them and the right place for them at that time is prison and sheriffs will have that discretion. For the vast majority, we know that short sentences disrupt family connections, disrupt their tenancy, disrupt employment opportunities, and all those things, of course, mean that they are more likely therefore to re-offend. If they are more likely to re-offend, then, of course, there will be more victims of crime. If there are more victims of crime, then, of course, we have a very serious problem. In fact, all of us here in this chamber, I think, are on the side of victims here, so we want to see less victims of crime and less crime being committed. On the last point, I would like to focus on, instead of paying my attention to the naked opportunism of the Conservatives, to say how delighted I am that we are in a Parliament where the vast overwhelming majority of us from Labour Party, the SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats can come together, can look at the facts, can look at the data, can look at the evidence in front of us and can bring forward and support collectively progressive justice reforms that will make us all safer as a country, as a society, and hopefully, by passing this order, we will have less victims of crime, which is a win-win for everybody involved. Thank you very much, and the question on that particular motion will be the last one at decision time to which we are now about to come. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would be grateful for your advice on how we clarify the assertion made by Mr Finlay that I misled this Parliament by making clear that part of the minutes of that meeting of the 22nd of February that Mr Finlay did not read out states, it was agreed that when the future nature of the service is more certain, it will be helpful to get clear direction and guidance from the Scottish Government. Presiding Officer, I have given that clear direction and guidance, the halt will not be lifted and I can see no circumstances in which it will. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. The point of order did give you the opportunity to put that on the record. Unfortunately, because the member used the wrong language, used very inappropriate language, he was expelled, which did not allow you to make the response during the procedure that you should not have been allowed to do. I would urge the member who is not here to reflect on his behaviour because it does not do the argument to any favours whatsoever. We turn to decision time. The first question this evening is that motion 17892 in the name of Kevin Stewart on the working group on tenement maintenance be agreed are well agreed. We are agreed. The next question is that motion 17922 in the name of Aileen Campbell on appointments to the poverty and inequality commission be agreed are well agreed. We are agreed. I propose to ask a single question on the six parliamentary bureau motions. Does anyone object? No, that's good. The question therefore is that motions 17939 to 17944 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the bureau be agreed are well agreed. We are agreed. The final question is that motion 17945 in the name of Graham Day on approval of an SSI be agreed are well agreed. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17945 in the name of Graham Day is yes, 83, no, 26, there were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We're going to move on shortly to members' business in the name of Keith Brown on the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights report but we'll just take a few moments for members and the minister to change