 Felly, I welcome to the Justice Committee's ninth meeting of 2019. There are no apologies. Gend item one is consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses, Criminal Evidence Scotland Bill at stage two. I asked members to refer to their copy of the bill and to the marshaled list of amendments and groupings for the item. I welcome Hymza Yousef, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and his officials. Ca兜u eich bydd gylaethol mewn cyfiydd datblygu, ac yn arien, fan lawer, twążio ar y sol ond ni mewn cyfcommun tertydd ac mae yn roedd cod mechanism i amdano hi nhw. Fawn hi. Wrth gwrs, ynarn Gwildológ, rydw i'n credu fod i'n hemif whites i gael eu llei ar y dyfodol gyfleanu mae'n casydd gyfarfplantau chillyol sydd allteilig i ddunid JavaScript, eichenty cuerdi sefydling gyda gy 말고 taethion i swyd- viral ar gael ydych chi gael amgyrchau pre-recording is only subject to some narrowly drawn exceptions. The substantial change that this reform, if passed, will bring cannot be underestimated. This has been recognised by this committee with its support for a phased approach to implementation. I am very grateful to the committee for their understanding and consideration on this point to ensure that reforms are commenced in an appropriate and managed way that does not overwhelm the system. It is for this reason that the list of offences is intended to capture the most serious of cases, but it also has the power to add to, to amend or indeed to remove the list of offences. I do accept that it may be some time before it is appropriate to use this power, so I was very interested to hear the committee's view on the list that is currently set out in the bill, particularly whether it has struck the right balance in terms of the offences that were listed. I read the views of the committee in the stage 1 report with interest in the views of stakeholders who also raised this issue, including the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, Children First, Scottish Women's Aid, Barnardo Scotland and Assist. I am very grateful for them all for taking the time to set out their position on this important provision. In particular, powerful evidence was heard about giving evidence in domestic abuse cases and that that could be particularly distressing for children. I found this testimony to be very persuasive. I also listened carefully as members expressed their opinions during the stage 1 debate on why domestic abuse should be added to the list of offences that the rule applies to in solemn cases. I found many of your reasons for inclusion compelling and I was convinced that that was an addition that would strengthen the reforms in the bill. As indicated at the stage 1 debate, I had to be sure of the implications of widening the remit of pre-recording and the implications that it could have. This is not something that can be done lightly, as any widening of the rule remit is likely to have major practical and financial implications. I am very grateful that members showed that they understood why it was appropriate to carry out further work. Since the stage 1 evidence sessions, my officials have carried out detailed appraisals of the impact of such an amendment and consulted with justice stakeholders, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service to ensure that the implications are given due consideration. There is no denying that such an amendment could have substantial resource implications for the justice sector. I remember Daniel Johnson specifically asking and making a request during the debate for the number of cases in high court and sheriff and jury that may involve a child witness. We have projected that the number of cases that a child may be called involving a domestic abuse offence is likely to be approximately 43 cases in the high court and around 203 in sheriff and jury cases per year. Perhaps even more is that this can only be a rough estimate and, of course, we need to see what effect the new domestic abuse legislation will have on case numbers over the coming years. Indeed, it is very relevant that the committee is considering this amendment today, as we are now less than three weeks away from that new act commencing. However, despite the significant implications, it is important that we take progressive action to improve the experience of child witnesses in domestic abuse solemn cases. This addition is an ambitious step, but, as I said, many of you here today have put forward a compelling case for its inclusion. Once again, I want to put on the record my thanks to all of the members of committee for raising this issue, all the stakeholders who contributed and recommending as a committee what is a significant addition to the bill, but clearly a very important one. That is why I am very pleased to be able to bring forward this amendment and move amendment 1, in my name. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you very much to the cabinet secretary for his comments. I think that he's very fairly summed up the conclusion that the committee had got to. I think that we all recognise the resource implications, the pressures that this sort of amendment might place on the justice system. I think that I would be interested certainly in getting a bit of a better understanding where those pressures are likely to fall for additional resources. The Government may need to put in place to ensure that, as a result, there are not knock-on implications for other cases, but I very much welcome the move that the cabinet secretary has taken in bringing forward this amendment, and certainly we'll be supporting it. Daniel Johnson. I'll just be brief and again, I'd echo very much what Liam McArthur has just said. During the stage 1 debate, there was considerable discussion of the merits of extending those provisions at the act summary procedure, and I think that we all are very mindful of not overwhelming the system with going too far too quickly. With that in mind, and also given that those measures are open to be used under summary procedure, I'm just wondering if the cabinet secretary had given any consideration to non-legislative measures that might be possible to extend, to encourage their use where appropriate, in particular in domestic abuse cases, but anywhere where there may be vulnerable witnesses giving evidence under summary procedure? John Finnie. I welcome this, and if I could make a general comment on that, I know that frustration often felt by Opposition MSPs in respect of legislation brought forward by the Government in the response, or sometimes felt a not particularly positive response to the stage 1 report. I think that this is a good example of the process working, and that's not intended in any way as a criticism of the Government, because when the cabinet secretary talks about the implications and the on-going consultation, which I think is important, it shows that we can make a recommendation but it can have wider implications, so I very much welcome this and will be supporting it. Fulton MacGregor. Good morning, cabinet secretary and panel. I'll be very brief as well, I just want to say that I am very much welcome to this amendment and its credit to the cabinet secretary and the Government for taking on board what was said by stakeholders and ourselves at the stage 1 level. I think that it's an absolutely fantastic amendment to put in place. I just wonder if the cabinet secretary could, in summing up, reflect if any of the research done by his officials highlighted anything around the numbers of children that might now go forward as a witness in a case as opposed to if the legislation hadn't been there. That's how it is. I think that we all very much welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has taken an account of her recommendation in the stage 1 report. The committee thought about this and we are on an agreement that should be extended to domestic abuse. In solemn cases, there is a way of still addressing the issue but managing it in a way that it wouldn't impact on the phased approach that was looking at getting it absolutely right at every stage of the process. Although the cabinet secretary has 43 high court cases and has 203 durian sheriffs, there is by no means any guarantee that there would be child witnesses within that. Foting McGregor's point is one that would be interesting to hear the cabinet's comments on. Cabinet secretary, to wind up. Thank you very much for the comments and the feedback. I don't have all the detail on the research behind the number that I quoted, the 43 cases in the high court and the 203 in sheriff and drudy, but I can come back to the committee with some detail if they are interested. It is important to say that those are projections and estimates as opposed to exact figures. Of course, I do make that really important caveat around the new domestic abuse offence. In terms of a couple of other comments that have been raised, the cost, again, I put the caveat on that this is an estimated cost, but the estimated cost of adding domestic abuse to a list of offences of solemn cases could increase the recurring cost of the bill of up to approximately £1.3 million per year. In terms of what that means for the finances of the bill, as is clear in the financial memorandum, those reforms are expensive to implement, but they are so important as the committee and stakeholders have already said that those costs can absolutely be justified. If the bill ultimately is passed, we will continue to monitor the financial implications of those changes and, of course, engage fully with our justice sector partners about funding requirements that they may have, particularly, as I suspect, on the Crown Procolary Fiscal Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. The on-going requirements arising out of the bill, of course, will be considered in the next spending review. Of course. I am very grateful, and that is a helpful clarification of it. I accept that it may be difficult to put precise figures on it, but can the cabinet secretary perhaps assure the committee that, ahead of stage 3, we may see our revised financial memorandum trying to form up some of those figures as far as it is possible at this stage? Yes, I would be happy to explore that. Of course, with any amendments coming forward at this stage, we will have to look at the financial implications of that and how that affects the financial memorandum. I think that the points that Daniel Johnson made, I do not have anything really to add other than that he is absolutely right. We know that the special measures that we have in place at the moment are not perhaps being used at the fullest, and there is a lot of work to be done to encourage the use of those special measures, particularly for our most vulnerable. Again, I am happy to take the conversation off line with Daniel Johnson or even formally with the committee, if they wish, on what more can be done that is not legislative to make sure that the pick-up of special measures is greater than is currently the case? The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, I agree. Amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 5, to move amendment 2 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you. The amendments in this group are both of a technical nature. I will lie to ask my officials a couple of times to go over the technical detail of them to fully grasp it. The amendment 2 is a technical amendment to ensure that two sets of provisions contained in the bill function properly in relation to each other. The new rule in favour of pre-recording and the simplified notification procedure for standard special measures. Section 271D of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 enables the court at any time up to and including when a vulnerable witness is giving evidence to review the arrangements for the giving of the evidence at the request of any party to the proceedings or of its own accord. The bill modifies the review provision for cases where the new pre-recording requirement applies. Those modifications are necessary so that the exercise of any review in such cases is applied consistently with that pre-recording requirement. The bill also modifies 271D to allow the court to review the arrangements for taking a vulnerable witness's evidence where the arrangements were the result of the new simplified procedure for requesting standard special measures administratively, so that we are not authorised by a court order. That is what the subsection 4A referred to in this amendment does. However, the simplified notification procedure does not apply in cases to which the new pre-recording requirement applies. That is because taking evidence on commission requires a judge or sheriff to be appointed as a commissioner hearing to be set and a ground rules hearing to be set and conducted matters that need to be dealt with through court orders. I am proposing a simple technical amendment in order to remove the modification of the review provisions, which relate to the simplified notification procedure from the version of section 271D, which will apply to cases falling within the new pre-recording requirement. Turning to amendment 5, the amendment addresses anomaly, and the bill is introduced. As the committee is aware, even though standard special measures are an automatic entitlement for children and deemed vulnerable witnesses, the sheriff or judge still has to authorise the use of those measures. That is required even though the other party cannot object. Section 6 simplifies the procedure for seeking standard special measures for child witnesses or deemed vulnerable witnesses. I am grateful to the committee for welcoming the reforms to streamline the process in your stage 1 report. The policy intent was always that the simplified procedure should be available for all child witnesses entitled to standard special measures. That would have included the child accused, but the bill inadvertently did not contain appropriate technical modifications to facilitate that. The standard special measure for child accused is the live-TV link, a supporter but not screens. Amendment 5 provides for appropriate technical adjustments to ensure that the same administrative procedure for requesting standard special measures can apply seamlessly to a child accused in the future, as it will for other child and deemed vulnerable witnesses. The bill does not apply the pre-recording rule to the child accused, as that would raise complex issues about the interaction with the accused right to silence. There is, however, no justification for treating a child accused as an application for standard special measures any differently from that of any other child witness in a situation outside the new rule in terms of procedure. We consider that simplifying the procedure for standard special measures should also benefit a child accused would still be for the defence to consult with a client on the most appropriate special measure, if they choose to give evidence and I move amendment 2 in my name. Any comments from members? In that case, the question is amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Call of amendment 3 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group on its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 3. Thank you, convener. If any legislation proposing reforms to a criminal justice system, it is always important that we strike the right balance. The intention behind the bill is, of course, to support vulnerable witnesses better, both to reduce the potential impact upon them and help them to give their best evidence in the interests of justice. We are clear that this can and must be done while securing the right to a fair trial. That is why I have been keen to emphasise that it is not our intention that the provisions within the bill should limit or indeed prevent cross-examination. We do not consider the bill does this or affects the necessary safeguards. It simply but importantly requires that the evidence of many more of our most vulnerable witnesses to be pre-recorded in advance of trial. I have, however, listened to concerns expressed during stage 1 for many important voices, excuse me, in the legal sector, that the bill's reforms could potentially enable the use of a prior statement as a witness's only evidence in circumstances where other parties wish to cross-examine that witness. This could potentially have the effect, for example, of preventing a defence representative from questioning the witness. The committee quite rightly raised those concerns in its stage 1 report and asked what steps the Scottish Government intends to take to address those concerns. While we do not agree with the view expressed on the effect that the bill's provision could have in this regard, it is clear that there is a very genuine concern and therefore we need to do what we can to allay those concerns. We consider the best approach to put this matter beyond doubt in the bill. We could have added a clarifying provision to the bill to confirm that none of the bill's provisions preclude the right of the other party to cross-examine the witness, but there could have been an unintended consequence with that approach. As a right to cross-examine is not and has not needed to be set out in legislation, it has always been accepted that it is needed for a fair trial. Such an amendment could potentially have cast out in other areas where the right to cross-examine has simply been assumed and nothing explicit has ever been said about preserving it. Instead, the amendment proposes a slightly different approach, one that we consider has the same effect. It creates an appropriate mechanism that parties can use to require commission to be held in cases where the court had originally decided to solely admit a prior statement as that witness is evidence, so it enables any party to the proceedings to have the court authorise the holding of a commission. A party to the proceedings may have a commission set up for them to conduct the cross-examination of the witness. For example, take the situation where a child has already given evidence in the form of a prior statement and further evidence comes to light at a later stage. The remedy is for a party who needs to cross-examine the child witness to seek a review of the order authorising the use of that special measure of prior statement alone and to request a commission hearing. The amendment requires the court to authorise taking evidence by commissioner, which will enable the child to be cross-examined. I am grateful to all those who gave evidence in writing and to the committee on this issue and to the committee for its consideration. It is important that we continue to have wide support for the pre-recording rule and this proposed amendment should give the reassurance that it is necessary to deal with the concerns raised. Indeed, we have consulted with representatives of the Faculty of Advocates and they have confirmed that the faculty is content with the proposed amendment. Therefore, I move amendment 3 in my name. Do members have any comments? I looked around and I did not see anyone indicated, so I assumed not. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 2 to 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 4 in the name of Liam Kerr in a group on its own. Liam Kerr to move and speak to amendment 4. This amendment makes clear that the commissioner has power to take steps to protect vulnerable witnesses after the conclusion of proceedings. The effect of the amendment is that only where the special measure is presided over by a commissioner, the commissioner must consider whether the witness will participate in the proceedings more effectively if they are assured of protection after the conclusion of the proceedings. In my view, the justice system has to recognise that although the formal process of evidence may be over, victims and other vulnerable witnesses may require further protection and support going forward. My view on the amendment is that it is only adding to the powers available to commissioners if they deem that the steps could reasonably be taken, so it does not mandate action as such or place an overly burdensome duty upon them. Since filing the amendment, I have received the very helpful comments of Lady Dorian in regard to the other proposed amendments. If the cabinet secretary is opposed to the amendment, I would ask that, in replying, he set out what work the victims task force is taking to support and protect vulnerable witnesses after the conclusion of proceedings, including both their mental and physical wellbeing. I move amendment 4, in my name. Daniel Johnson I had a brief comment. I think that this is an interesting amendment, because while I think that there is broad agreement that the sections regarding taking evidence by commission and in terms of the requirements for that are measured and reasonable, I think that there are some concerns about whether or not a number of the provisions go far enough in terms of proactively seeking assurances that vulnerable witnesses are supported through the process, have continuity of contact and are supported in the way that they need to be. I bear in mind very much what Lady Dorian has said, but I wouldn't put it as significantly as concerns, but I certainly have question marks as to whether or not there is a requirement to maybe look at whether or not some of those requirements and considerations are put on a more proactive basis rather than a passive one. So, while I won't be supporting the amendment, I will be abstaining with the purpose or the hope that the Government does go and consider whether or not there is the possibility of improving some of those provisions. I am grateful to Liam Kerr for setting out the purpose behind the amendment. I think that he's absolutely right in terms of concerns that we heard through stage 1 in terms of that. Daniel Johnson put it at the continuity of contact. However, Lady Dorian makes a very important point about the suitability of such an amendment in the bill, so while I listen carefully to what the cabinet secretary says in terms of the work of the victims task force, which I think is probably where this is best addressed and addressed, it needs to be. I can't support the amendment as it currently stands for the reasons to set out by Lady Dorian. I have a great deal of sympathy for what Liam Kerr says. I would also adopt the same position as Liam MacArthur. I think that it's quite evident that throughout the process from engagement with the police and social work services through the court proceedings that there's a lot of support provided, I think that certainly from case work it's apparent that that can tail off and it is that there can be a lasting legacy, particularly in some communities, communities of interest or communities, geographic communities. Likewise, I'll be very keen to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about the victims task force. Thank you. Fulton MacGregor. Similar to what others have said, I won't be supporting the amendment but I do have some sympathy with it on stage 1. I raised the case of a child witness where there was a perceived lack of support but I don't think that the bill is the place to put this into legislation and I think it's more a practice thing. I think that even from the summon up remarks from the cabinet secretary and the stage 1 debate, I feel that that's something that will be moved forward. I too very much welcome the fact that Liam Kerr has tabled this amendment. It's a very real issue and the fact that there is support for the witness and their family prior to enduring trial but not after trial, where there can be very real precautions. I know that this is something the cabinet secretary recognises, especially in close communities or a rural setting. I'm pleased that this has been tabled to allow you to respond to this, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, convener. I thank Liam Kerr for raising this issue and bringing forward this amendment. The Government will be resisting it for many of the reasons that other members have mentioned here but, like all the other members here, we also really appreciate the intent behind the amendment that was brought forward by Liam Kerr. I mentioned on the 8th of January when the issue was raised by the convener to me that we often talk about through-care for the prisoner. It struck me early on in the role of the cabinet secretary of justice that it's really important that we also consider through-care for victims and others because, from John Finneas' experience in a previous role, with all the engagement that I have had with victims and I don't doubt that members on this table have had with victims, they often feel that at the end of a trial, if they have to go through that difficult ordeal, the level of support available to them really does tail off. That is not the end of the experience for them by any stretch of the imagination. Sometimes the shock of receiving, for example, a letter telling them that the person who was accused and committed a crime will be on the first grant of temporary release or indeed will have a parole hearing can come quite a number of years after a trial took place and therefore the need for support is vitally important. I also acknowledge what you say, convener, and John Finneas made this point too, that there are real issues around closed communities as well as the differences in urban versus rural geographies and settings as well. A lot of the work that we've done on supporting victims is underpinned by the Victim and Witnesses Act 2014. They include, of course, the right of the victim to be protected during and importantly after criminal investigation and the requirement for the police to carry out an individual assessment of a victim's need in terms of a variety of factors, including the risk of repeat victimisation and intimidation that are set out in the victim's code. However, members are absolutely right that one of the core remits of the victim's task force will be looking at this very issue to improve support, advice and information for victims and witnesses of a crime at all stages of the criminal justice system. That also includes what happens, for example, if somebody has to go through a trial process. That will include looking at the information support that is available to both child and vulnerable witnesses. The victim task force will also look at how we can improve end-to-end support for victims and witnesses throughout the entire criminal justice system and, as I say, beyond. That will include ensuring that victims and witnesses feel safe from any threat of harassment, victimisation or intimidation, for example, after the conclusion of a trial or when an offender is due to be released from prison bearing in mind that this could be years after the initial trial has taken place. A key focus for the victim's task force is to drive forward work to develop a new victim or single-point-of-contact approach to support victims and witnesses at every stage, because we know that many victims have told us that retelling their story is effectively re-traumatising them. That work will be led by Victim Support Scotland in collaboration with task force members. A report setting out further details of the victim-centred approach will be published this spring, and we can ensure that it is sent to the committee more widely. I will not rehearse the objections to the amendment, because Lady Dorian, who has been referenced by many members here, can articulate that far better than I can. Everybody recognises, including Lady Dorian in her letter The Good Intent, that the bill would not be the right place for it, and it would not be the remit necessarily of the course to look at that end-to-end support. All that being said, I reiterate once again that Liam Kerr's amendment, although I am not supporting it, raises some very important issues. However, I can give him and the wider committee hope some reassurances that this is an absolute core part of the remit of what the victim's task force will be looking into. I am grateful to all members for their persuasive arguments on that. As the cabinet secretary rightly points out, I think that we can all agree with the principle behind the amendment. In that regard, I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary's reassurances, and I would hope that we visibly see evidence of the victim's task force taking it on. I am certainly grateful to him for the reassurance that he has made. Lady Dorian's argument is, of course, well-reasoned and persuasive, and for all those reasons, unless a committee is particularly minded to vote on it, I would withdraw the amendment. Is the committee content that this amendment is withdrawn? I call amendment 6. In my name, in a group on its own, I will move and speak to amendment 6, which seeks to amend the bill to ensure that parties involved in the taking of evidence by commission must comply with training requirements relating to questioning vulnerable people. It follows the evidence that the Justice Committee heard about the importance of and need for appropriate training for all involved in the process of taking evidence by commissioner. That should include training judges and sheriffs, as well as prosecution and defence solicitors and advocates involved in both ground rules, hearings and subsequent commission. Amendment 6 is lodged as a probing amendment to facilitate a discussion on what would be required to ensure that appropriate training takes place. Here, the committee has, in addition to her formal evidence, received very helpful new comments from Lady Dorian, explaining, for example, that the training cannot and should not be regulated through court rules in an act of a journal. That is because it would interfere with section 24 of the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provision Scotland Act, which governs the rights of audience of qualified practitioners. Furthermore, to seek to introduce this would have far-reaching consequences for Scott's legal practice. More significantly, in terms of this bill, it would be contrary to the collaborative process adopted by the evidence and procedure review group, where professions were fully invested and willing participants. For the purpose of today's discussion and in order to focus on the best possible training measures, it should be recognised and accepted that Scottish ministers will be responsible for the determination and delivery of these matters. Here, the Justice Committee's evidence highlighted the importance of ensuring that the training process was tailored to individual needs. In order that witness questioning was carried out appropriately, children first stated that all the professionals involved in the forensic interview of children should have the skills and knowledge and sensitivity to elicit best practice without re-traumatisation of the witness. Children first, Social Work Scotland, Police Scotland, NHS Scotland, Psychology Directorate and Victim Support Scotland all emphasised the following. They need for training to be trauma-informed, and they need for this training to be sufficiently resourced. I should be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would address both those crucially important points. Finally, academic research has suggested that best practice to improve the quality of investigative interviewing of children would be to adopt the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, HICHD protocol training system, rather than the traditional structure of focus on the current model that is used in Scotland. I should therefore be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would comment on that protocol and its key recommendations, which are that, one, recording interviews is the best way to preserve evidence. Two, it should be explained to children before the substantive interview phase of communication that they are in control of the interview. If they do not know the answer to or do not understand the question, they should say so. Suggestibility 3 and misleading questions should be avoided. Four, an unconnected topic practice interview would help to establish a rapport with the child and provide the opportunity to practice open-ended prompts such as describe, how, where, and five, monitoring and assessment of training should be carried out periodically well in advance of, say, a two-year deadline for review to allow improvements to be factored in as training continues and progresses. I look forward to the cabinet secretary and other members' comments on those proposals and move amendment 6 in my name. John Finnie Thank you, convener. I have a great deal of sympathy for what you said. We recently visited the court of session to see the training that is available. I have often been critical of the training that is delivered and the relevance. Particularly with regard to this aspect, this is very challenging for the very reasons that you laid out in detail about leading questions. We know from our visit to Norway that all the factors that are considered in terms of the appropriateness of engagement with children at different levels, different ages and different abilities seems to me to be quite a complex issue to put it in there. I think that it very much is an important issue and a foundation stone of whether that is going to be successful. However, Lady Doraun lay out some of the reasons why she feels that this is not the vehicle on which to do it, but it is still very much the case that these matters have to be picked up, so I will listen intently to what the cabinet secretary has to say in them. Thank you, convener. I thank you for bringing forward this probing amendment, because I think that it does get to the heart of what is of fundamental importance is that the way in which children are questioned and their evidence is obtained is at the very heart of this. While those measures in the bill are very welcome, they will come down to the way in which advocates and judges put those questions to children. Indeed, I think that the comment that you made towards the end of your opening statement about the need to monitor and encourage best practice is extremely well-made. Given the proposal in other amendments to have reviews on whether there are not some monitoring and promotion of best practice, it might be a way that this could be taken forward in an amendment at stage 3. I very much welcome the issue that it raises its sentiment, and I do hope that that will lead to further developments at stage 3. Thank you, convener. I agree with the comments that have gone before. It is a very well-intentioned amendment, but for the reasons that Lady Dorian outlined, I do not think that it is going to be practical, but it is really important that training has to be atop of the agenda, so I look forward to the cabinet secretary's remarks on that. Leigh MacArthur? Just finally to add, I think that we have all put down probing amendments to bills in the past. I think that this one serves a useful function in terms of underscoring the issue that came through loud and clear, not just from the visit to now. The other evidence that we took to this bill will only be as good as the way in which it is delivered by well-trained professionals, and I think that it provides an opportunity for the cabinet secretary, hopefully, to underscore that. We set out measures that can be taken to ensure that that training does take place as the bills roll down. I agree with all the sentiments that have been expressed by other members. It is very important that any questioning of vulnerable witnesses is carried out to the highest standard. Training is clearly a key element in achieving that outcome. Therefore, I very much welcome the fact that you have raised the issue through your probing amendment. That allowed us to focus on the important role that training has in the questioning of witnesses. Unfortunately, in the case of this amendment, we cannot support and will resist it for the very good reasons that have been mentioned already by Lady Dorian and other members across the committee. The last meeting that we had of the Victim's Task Force was hosted by the Judicial Institute, the agency tasked with training judges and sheriffs. Just to give you a further reassurance that this is a live issue, the training of judges and sheriffs at the Victim's Task Force is very much looking at. Training for judges and sheriffs, as has been mentioned, is for the Judicial Institute and training requirements for solicitors and advocates of course by their professional bodies. The inclusion of training requirements in an act of a journal would therefore be unprecedented and, as Lady Dorian said, inappropriate as it would cut across the professional regulatory responsibilities of the faculty of advocates in the Law Society of Scotland. I know that that would not be the convener's intention. It is not for the court or the Lord President to determine what training is appropriate for advocate solicitors or to certify an appropriate provider. Amendment 6 could also potentially undermine the principle that once a practitioner has a right of audience, the court cannot refuse to hear him or her. The amendment could also potentially cut across the role of Lord Advocate as the independent head of the system of criminal prosecution, as you will when Lord Advocate is a prosecutor. In all high court trials, advocate deputies appear by reason of the commission, which he gives them. It is a matter for Lord Advocate to decide who he gives for a commission. The potential amendment could constrain him in cases involving evidence before a commissioner. Of course, I understand that that is not the intention of the convener in lodging this amendment. None of my comments that I have just made should be taken to suggest that I do not agree on the importance of training in this area, but I consider that it can be dealt with in a more appropriate and effective way. Perhaps the area that it can be addressed by would be that the High Court practice note, which came into effect on 8 May 2017, provides extensive guidelines for practitioners for the taking of evidence by commissioners. The practice note also directs practitioners to the website for the Advocates Gateway, which provides helpful guidance on how to ask appropriate questions depending on the age of a child or, indeed, a young person. There is also a supplementary practice note, which will come into effect in April this year. It contains further detail about the submission of questions in writing and in advance and sets out a protocol for the general approach to be taken. The protocol was agreed by the Crown, the Faculty of Advocates in the Law Society of Scotland. The greater use of this procedure will also help to ensure that questioning is appropriate. Therefore, perhaps the four issues that the convener articulated well could be examined again once that practice note comes into effect in April 2019. Perhaps an idea would be for us to take away what the convener has said, to have those conversations with the Crown, the Faculty of Advocates and Law Society of Scotland to ensure that those principles are in some way reflected in that note. I think that that would be a more appropriate way to address this issue while not undermining the important role of the organisations that have, within their remit, the training of judges and lawyers. The very last point that I would make that you pressed the Government on convener rightly was around trauma-informed training. It is an issue that I find hugely important. The 2018-19 programme for government includes a commitment to develop an adversity in trauma-informed workforce. We have announced £1.35 million to launch a national trauma training programme to support the Scottish workforce to respond to psychological trauma. This trauma will be in line with transforming psychological trauma, the first knowledge and skills framework for the Scottish workforce that was published last year by the Scottish Government in NHS Education Scotland. I hope that that will give the convener some reassurance. However, if I can add to that, I would say that the victim's task force has often, in its first couple of meetings, talked about the need for a trauma-informed approach to the criminal justice system. I wonder whether you could perhaps address the specific point on resources, cabinet secretary, that there was, I think, from all the participants that I read out or people that we heard evidence from very much seeking an assurance that this training would be sufficiently resourced. I wonder at the same time if you could perhaps explain how on and on going basis you are assured that no training is happening and how the quality or effectiveness of that training is monitored at present. In terms of training, we have regular discussions with Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service and various agencies related to them, the judicial institute, for example. It is for them to determine what appropriate training is needed for judges and sheriffs, but we work often closely with them, particularly when new legislation is coming into force. An example of that would be the domestic abuse legislation for which there has been extensive training for judges and sheriffs, and that comes undoubtedly with the resource implication. On specific issues of this, if the judicial institute feels that there is a need for greater training of sheriffs and judges, then, of course, they can make that representation to the Government. In terms of our overview on this, as I say, I am always very aware that the Government has to respect the independence of our judges and sheriffs, but we can, of course, at times be involved in that, but we need to be assured to only do so when it is appropriate. It is not something that we would set out in primary legislation. For example, the Scottish Government hosted a round table in February this year, just last month, for NHS Education Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland members of the faculty, academics and the other stakeholders from the legal profession to discuss opportunities to develop bespoke, trauma-informed training resources for solicitors to count towards CPD-continued professional development. It is important that training is developed practically like this, rather than perhaps if we had an inflexible approach via legislation. Again, hopefully that gives some element of comfort that we have regular dialogue with the judicial institute on resources and training needs. As the cabinet secretary, we will appreciate the training aspect and the content of that training, and the effectiveness of the actual question is going to be absolutely key to the success of this bill. The probing amendment has been very helpful in ruling out an act of adjournment as a way of taking this forward, but there still remains the question of the protocol, the HIC-HD protocol, which sets out what seems to be very sensible and suggestions from explaining to a child before that they do not have to feel under pressure to answer, to say if they do not understand, say that, ask for more explanation, or if they do not know, simply say that, to avoid the suggestibility and leading questions to have more practice and open-ended questions, all germane to getting the best evidence and moving towards the forensic interview, and, crucially, monitoring that even a practice interview would be helpful to establish that rapport about an unrelated topic, but just to practice these techniques and put the child at ease and crucially monitoring how this training is being carried out, not just you've done the training, that's it, but to see is it being effective. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would be prepared to meet me and maybe to discuss this a little bit further, to see if there's anything at stage through that we might usefully add to the bill that might help ensure that the very best training is carried out. Yes, of course, I'd be content to be very happy to meet my view on this, and I think all the four points that you articulated would make imminent sense, but, and this is where the caveat comes in, is that the Crown, the Faculty of Advocates and Law Society of Scotland, I suspect they would be in a much better place to be able to judge whether or not there would be any unintended consequences of what is being suggested. I think it's important to probably explore that in further detail with those stakeholders, so while, of course, I am happy to meet the convener, I may also want to just touch base with those stakeholders and also to gain their view on this issue, but, of course, I'm more than happy to meet. That's very helpful, and I appreciate that it would be very important also to meet those stakeholders. I propose to withdraw this amendment. Do members have any objections? No objections, thank you for that. Therefore, I now call amendment 7, in my name, group with amendment 8. I will move amendment 7 and speak to both amendments in the group. The bill is silent on the issue of an additional commission or commissions, but it was confirmed at stage 1 that if new evidence emerged, a further commission hearing could be held, could take place. Amendment 7 is there for a probing amendment to provide the opportunity to discuss this issue. The amendment provides that, while circumstances may occur where an additional commission or commissions are required with a witness, in those circumstances the court must meet compelling reasons for doing so, for the taking of new evidence. Academic research and the 1989 Pigot report recommended pre-recorded capture of evidence to ensure children should not be re-victimised by having to give evidence all over again in court. The same principle would apply to additional commission or commissions. Here again, the Lord Justice, Lady Dorian, in her additional comments, made the very helpful point that, while there may be some advantage in setting out a new process to allow holding of further commission hearing or commission hearing, there are significant risks. For example, if there were such provision on the face of the bill, experience suggests that applications for those would rapidly become a routine occurrence. That, in turn, would undermine two of the bill's central objectives. One, to minimise the uncertainty as to when a witness might have to appear and to avoid repeat appearances. It is the judiciary's view that there is already sufficient flexibility, both within current court procedures, to allow for such follow-up hearings if it is required. However, it would be helpful to have on the record the cabinet secretary's understanding of and comments on the legal basis that currently allows for where necessary and appropriate multiple commissions to take place. The committee in its stage 1 evidence heard that there has not been an instance where new circumstances had arisen to give cause for a second commission hearing. Given that, and therefore mentioned comments from Lady Dorian, does the cabinet secretary agree that it would not be necessary or desirable to include provision for additional commissions on the face of the bill? Amendment 8, in my name, is in the same grouping as amendment 7, and focuses on reviewing the impact that the bill has made on the taking of evidence by child witnesses in commission or commissions in relation to the same proceedings, to be done up to two years after receiving royal assent and allows the Government a year to respond. It is important to stress that, although the amendment allows for the review of the act provisions up to two years after royal assent, it may be sensible to establish the effectiveness, given the proposed phased approach to adults, to carry out this review some time before the two-year deadline. I should be grateful, therefore, to hear the cabinet secretary's view on whether the review provision should be included on the face of the bill, and I move amendment 7, in my name. Do members have any comments? John Finnie. Thank you, convener. I am not supportive of the provision. I think that we heard from Norway that a robust system first time around saw that meant that there was no requirement. However, you raise a very valid point, and I think that, as ever with justice issues, there is that tension between the rights of the complainer and the rights of the accused. I take reassurance from the very clear statement from Lady Dorian. It is the judiciary's view that there is already sufficient flexibility within current court procedures to allow that aspect, if there were a further accusation to come forward to be dealt with. I think that both are being met with the proposal as it stands. John Finnie, anyone else? Like John Finnie, I will not be supporting this amendment. I think that we need to, as we heard from various evidence, limit the amount of time that children are re-traumatised. I know that that cannot be something that you have raised in your opening remarks. Importantly, I do not think that there is anything in the legislation that prevents a second commission taking place if the circumstances require it, and I think that they need to trust the practitioners who are working with the children involved to make those judgments. I thank you, convener, for bringing forward those amendments around the power to hold. A second commission, as well as the review on the impacts on child witnesses, is required to give evidence on multiple occasions for the same proceedings. I will address the amendments. In turn, it is very helpful to have the opportunity to address the issue in whether a specific provision is required to enable a second commission. It is an important point, and this has been a valuable discussion. The policy intent is very clear. It is very clear that we do not want to have multiple commissions as that would remove the main benefit for the child or vulnerable witnesses of pre-recording their evidence and delay the point at which they could get the experience over and done with and attempt to move on with their lives. Of course, it is necessary that there is a procedure to allow this to happen in the rare circumstances where there is a need to recall the witness for further questioning. I note from the stage 1 report and comments from many members of the committee that it is accepted that we need to limit the impact of further questioning, but it is quite right to seek clarification on whether a specific provision on this is required or if the current legislative framework will suffice. In the Scottish Government's response to the committee's stage 1 report, we advised that we would consider further whether a specific provision in the bill on second commissions would be helpful. We are still of the view that it is not necessary. I am aware that Lady Dorian, as has been mentioned, has now written to the committee to advise that it is the judiciary's view that there is already sufficient flexibility within current court procedures to allow for a follow-up hearing if required. I thought that she very helpfully highlighted the risks in setting out a new process to allow holding of a further commission hearing. In particular, if there was an explicit procedure on the face of the bill, such applications would become routine, which would undermine two of the central objectives of the bill. It is possible that the very existence of a separate procedure could act as an encouragement for the applications of further commissions. That is at the heart of the issue that concerns me the most about trying to set out a separate procedure. The convener also asked about our own legal understanding of this. Of course, we align ourselves with what has been said by Lady Dorian. We believe that a second commission could be done by review under section 271d, and more than one vulnerable witness notice can be submitted under section 271a. Therefore, we consider that there are already mechanisms that the court could use if necessary to order a second commission in an individual case. In relation to amendment 8, which is focused on the reviewing of the impact of the act, but specifically the issue of the impact on child witnesses who have had to give evidence on multiple occasions in relation to the same proceeding, I understand the rationale of course behind this amendment and the good intention behind it. I agree with the principle that there should be an evaluation of these important reforms. As we set out in the implementation plan, which I sent to the committee on 7 January, monitoring and evaluation is integral to ensuring that the commencement and roll-out provisions of this bill is undertaken in a managed and effective way. However, despite that, there are a number of issues that mean that I cannot support this amendment at this time. Firstly, the timing. The amendment requires the commencement or review process. Two years after the royal assent of the bill, we expect that this would be approximately June 2021. Under the implementation plan, over this period, we expect to be concluding the first six months evaluation of operation of provision within the High Court. It would not for me make sense to embark upon another evaluation so soon after this, particularly since a new rule would not yet have been rolled out to sheriff and jury cases. The second issue that I have is about inflexibility. I accept the convener's point that if a child witness has given evidence on multiple occasions in relation to the same proceedings, it is an important factor that we must consider. However, to create an entirely new process to focus the appraisal on this one issue might be disproportionate, particularly since, as Lady Dorian pointed out, there has not been an instance yet where new circumstances had arisen to give cause for a second commission hearing. In any evaluation, there should be close monitoring of a range of other matters, such as the volume of commissions, the type of cases, and how commissions are working operationally to ensure that reforms are having the desired effect and informed decisions about the next stage of roll-out. Furthermore, we would want to evaluate not just the impact of the act but aspects of the broader system, such as, for example, the high court practice note. Thirdly, the amendment requires that in preparing this report there should be consultation with quote-unquote vulnerable witnesses, whilst it is important that the voices of people who are seeking to support are heard. It is clearly a very sensitive matter and I am very concerned that a statutory obligation could not only be ineffective but have unintended consequences for the very people who are seeking to protect, for example, them having to retell their story. With all that considered, I can see merit in potentially having a review provision in the bill, which I intend to comment on in the discussions in the next grouping, but a review focusing on multiple commissions that are very unlikely to be numerous is not the preferred approach. I hope that my comments have given sufficient reassurance on the issue of second commissions to enable you not to press the amendments. Thank you, cabinet secretary. As I said at the outset, this is a probing amendment. I think that it has been useful to get on record that it is the cabinet secretary's view which concurs with the judiciary that there is sufficient flexibility within the current court proceeding to allow such follow-up hearings if they are required without setting it in the face of the bill. In fact, that would be undesirable and would possibly only encourage applications that would not be desirable or helpful. In the cabinet secretary's comments establishing that the six-months evaluation would be six months and roughly the time when you would want to look at commissions and other aspects of the bill. Given all of that, I think that that has been a very helpful discussion to put on record. With that in mind, I do not intend to press this, I will withdraw. Our members are content for me to do so. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 8, in my name, is already debated with amendment 7, not moved. The question is therefore that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Amendment 9, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 10, to move amendment 9 and to speak to both amendments in the group. The Scottish Government has rightly made the point throughout stage 1 that these reforms must be progressed slowly in order that careful monitoring can take place throughout implementation. Two different groups of vulnerable witnesses in various types of proceedings, and the cabinet secretary has just made clear his view that any review must be a wide one that must be all-encompassing. I agree, which is why amendment 9 places that requirement to review the operation of the act on a more formal basis and on the face of the act. The report envisaged by the amendment would ensure that the committee and Parliament can scrutinise these reforms very closely and receive all the information that they require to do so. I think that this will also—when the cabinet secretary decides to halt or progress a particular phase or extension—will give the public confidence that there is an evidence base behind such a move and ensure that the cabinet secretary is accountable for that decision. If the cabinet secretary is minded to speak against this amendment, and I note in his earlier comments he intends to comment in depth on those two amendments, I would be grateful for suggestions as to either how the Government proposes to share the progress and results of extension with the committee or move towards such an outcome at stage 3. I move amendment 9 in my name. I will now speak to amendment 10, and the other amendment in the group. Amendment 10 is again a probing amendment that focuses on the principle of moving closer to or moving to the Barnahouth model. The amendment specifically seeks to ensure that, after the bill has received royal assent, there is a review of the progress made by the Government and Government agencies towards implementing the principles of the Scottish version of the Barnahouth model. The committee has been clear that it wanted to see how the collecting of information has evolved and what progress has been made towards the one forensic interview and the Barnahouth type model. Before the end of this parliamentary session, I should therefore be grateful to receive the cabinet secretary's view on how the subjective can be realised. Do members have any comments? I welcome both of those amendments. As a general principle, the possibility of embedding the requirement for review into legislation often makes a great deal of sense. It makes a particular sense in this instance, given what is sought through this bill and the change in terms of the way that evidence is gathered and the experience of the courts, which is ultimately the intention of this. Therefore, I think that reviewing whether or not it has had this effect and whether, indeed, there are further steps that could be taken following implementation makes a great deal of sense. With that in mind, I think that Liam Kerr's amendment 9, in particular, is well-framed. It is broadly stated looking at the effect of the act in general. It is not prescriptive in terms of what that review could contain, giving flexibility regarding the content of that review. It then requires ministers to respond with consideration to the key agencies and actors involved in the operation of the act. Therefore, I think that it is well stated. The only concern that I could consider is that three years may be perhaps a little too soon in terms of the operation of the act for the reasons that the cabinet secretary set out in his response to the previous set of amendments. However, I believe that that is something that could quite easily be remedied in stage 3. Indeed, if there are additional considerations to be made, I think that that could be amended in stage 3. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 9 at this point, and I certainly will be if the member chooses to press it. I have sympathy for the sentiment of both the amendments. To boil it down, it is an attempt to ensure that progress is made and that there is a timeframe in which the Government would need to demonstrate progress on what are important matters and have received the support of all members of the committee, particularly in relation to progress towards a shift to the Barnahus model. My question is whether that is the only way to achieve that. We will have to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say. However, if the sentiment of those amendments can be achieved in a different way and that it does not require to be on the face of this bill, then I would certainly be sympathetic to that. The most important thing here is achieving progress towards an end that the committee has been unanimous on. I just want to say that I welcome your amendment 10 as a problem amendment. I think that many of us raised during the stage 1 debate that the infrastructure is very much already in place. Police and social work joint interviews already take place. Health services are already involved in assessments. I think that it would seem that it could be relatively straightforward to bring out some sort of pilot with a one-stop, shop-Barnhouse type of approach. I would be interested to hear the cabinet secretary's remarks on that. I think that it was also raised at stage 1, but I wouldn't vote for it at this stage. I certainly welcome it as a problem amendment. Rona Cymru. Amendment 9 is, again, well-intentioned, but my worries are the retraumatising aspect of it and that would be why I can't support it. Amendment 10, I'm really happy that it's been brought up and I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary's views on that because, as Shona Robison said, everyone is very supportive of Scotland moving towards the Barnhouse type model. If it could be done without prescriptive legislation in the face of the bill, I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary's views. Thank you, convener and committee, for the remarks. I thank Liam Kerr and convener for raising the monitoring and evaluation of the act by lodging these amendments to understand the rationale behind them. I agree very much with the principles that there should be evaluation of the important reforms. As I said a moment ago, the implementation plan that I sent to the committee on 7 January has monitoring and evaluation as an integral part of the phased introduction of the bill. It is crucial that commencement and roll-out of the provisions in the bill are undertaken in a managed and effective way to ensure that the intended benefits are delivered to individuals involved in the most serious of cases. We have only included dates for the first three phases in the draft implementation plan because we must ensure that there is a suitable period of evaluation and monitoring before moving to commence the next stage of implementation. I intend to update the committee on this monitoring work after it has been completed for each phase and what this evaluation means for moving on to the next plan stage. I consider that we need to retain flexibility for the timing of these evaluations so that it is not appropriate to set it out in primary legislation. However, that is different from potentially having an overarching provision in the bill to review and report to this Parliament on how the new pre-recording rule is working in practice. My understanding is that this is the intention behind Liam Kerr's amendment and I can see the merits in such a provision. I am very much minded in favour of such an addition to the bill. Unfortunately, there are some issues that mean that I cannot support this particular amendment at this time. I will, of course. I thank him for taking the intervention. If an amendment came forward that did not have a set timeframe or had a longer timeframe, would that be acceptable and how long a timeframe might he accept? There are a number of issues that I was about to come on to with the amendment. It is not just about the timing, but that is one of the issues. My suggestion will be that I work with those members who are interested in Liam Kerr and other members who are interested in an overarching review and see whether we can come back with something prior to stage 3. Daniel Johnson would like to be part of those conversations. Of course, I certainly would not have any objection to that. In principle, I agree with the sentiment, but there are some issues, not just about the timing, but I will come to that in particular. In terms of the way that the review provision is drafted, it suggests that any report on the impact of the act would focus on supporting information that is provided to vulnerable witnesses and detail any new proposals from ministers in this regard. I agree that monitoring and reviewing such information and support is important. I do not think that the proposed report on the operation of the act is an appropriate vehicle for such a review. The bill does not propose any reforms on providing information to vulnerable witnesses. A statement on the impact of the legislation on such issues is likely to be very limited. By highlighting the issue in his amendment, Liam Kerr has raised a vitally important matter. A key focus for the victim's task force is very much on the development of a victim-centred approach, which includes consideration of support and information materials that are made available to all victims and witnesses. That approach, led by the task force, will enable a comprehensive review of information and support. We also have to make sure that statutory review is time to be as effective as possible after those reforms have had a real chance to make a difference that we all believe that they will. Maybe the review is better to start, perhaps, as has been suggested, three years from the date of commencement of the first phase of the roll-out of the pre-recording rule, rather than, for example, from royal assent. I emphasise that I consider that any statutory review would be in addition to a monitoring of each phase of the roll-out and updating the committee, of course, accordingly. I have already explained in connection with the previous grouping groups of amendments what I think the reference and the current wording to consultation with vulnerable witnesses poses problems. However, while I consider this amendment, it does not quite have the effect, as I have just said a moment ago. It is a very constructive proposal. If Liam Kerr is willing to not press his amendment, I would be happy to work with him and any other members to bring forward an amendment at stage 3 to put on the face of the bill as a formal review of the act. As for amendment 10, I thank the convener for highlighting the importance of working towards ensuring that children's evidence is taken in a child-centred setting where they can access the wraparound care and support that they need. I am also very aware of the committee's deep and sincere interest in the Barnhouse concept. I believe that a Scottish version of the Barnhouse concept is the very best way to achieve this. As I said to the Parliament on 5 February, that is the Scottish Government's intended destination. I can fully understand why the committee is keen to ensure that progress is made and the evidence that the committee has gathered will inform our work. The issue for consideration today is whether the wellbeing amendment will have the effect intended. In 2015, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals services evidence and procedure review produced a comprehensive review of the same process and identified clear areas for action. That was a detailed process that took a number of years. I am not convinced that a Government-led review, considering the same areas, is really necessary or appropriate at this time. Furthermore, introducing a requirement for another wide-ranging review of the process for taking evidence from children will inevitably divert resources from taking forward this important work. In order to meet the requirement that is drafted in this amendment, any review would be focused on the way that evidence is taken. As we know, while this is an important part of Barnahus, the concept is so much more than that, it is about much more than the type of accommodation where evidence is recorded. Even though this is a vital element, it is about the wraparound care and services that are provided to these vulnerable child victims at the earliest opportunity that truly address trauma and promote recovery. To carry out a thorough systematic review, work would have to begin with this parliamentary term. Therefore, the resource that we intend to commit to scoping how Barnahus could work in Scotland and the development of very Scottish specific standards may have to instead be diverted to undertaking another review on the evidence-taking process, which has already been done. That would be on top of the review into the operation of the act, which I have said in respect to Liam Kerr's amendment. I consider that it should be added to this legislation. While I understand that this amendment has been considered as a way to ensure progress is made, I do not consider such a review as the best way to do that, particularly as a report on this review would not be required until the next parliamentary term. We are committed to taking forward work with stakeholders to consider how the concept would work in Scotland. That is why we have asked healthcare improvement Scotland and, indeed, the Care Inspectorate to develop Scottish specific standards for Barnahus based on breast practice from Nordic countries. That work will involve extensive consultation, including with health boards, children's services, the third sector and justice partners, and, of course, will be informed directly by children and young people's evidence. I do not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that truly child-centre trauma-informed response. I believe that the work that we are beginning on the Barnahus concept in Scotland will do that. Instead of supporting this amendment, I would therefore be happy to commit today to providing a formal report to Parliament on progress made on Barnahus. I also reiterate the undertaking of my letter on 12 December to the committee and, at the stage 1 debate on 5 February, to keep Parliament updated on progress in developing a Scottish approach to Barnahus. I hope that my comments for assure members of my commitment in this area and that we have the opportunity to work together on how best to ensure that progress is made in developing a Scottish approach to Barnahus. I reiterate that I consider that this is most likely to be achieved by focusing on making progress rather than committing to yet another review. On that basis, I would ask the convener not to press this amendment. Liam Kerr, to wind up and press or withdraw. Once again, I am very grateful to members for their thoughts. I thought that that was an interesting discussion. In particular, I take Daniel Johnson's point. I think that he succinctly summarised many of my views in bringing this forward in the first place. I am interested in the point about three years from royal assent being too soon. I do hear the cabinet secretary's point on the implementation plan. I also understand the points that he made about general timing and drafting in particular. I think that the committee would agree that it is crucial that we get this right. I welcome the cabinet secretary's offer to work together to ensure that outcome before stage 3. On which basis, if the committee will indulge me, I shall withdraw the amendment. Do our members content that the amendment is withdrawn? You are content. Thank you for that. I call amendment 10, and my name is already debated with amendment 9 to move or not move, not moved. We now move on to amendment 5, and the name of the cabinet secretary is already debated with amendment 2 to move. I move amendment 5, and my name? Is section 10-12 agreed to or not agreed? Is section 9 long-titled agreed to or not agreed? Thank you. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending. That concludes the public part of today's meeting. The next meeting is on Tuesday 19 March. We now move into private session.