Health and Sport Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Official Report 635KB pdf

---

Liability for NHS Charges (Treatment of Industrial Disease) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Good morning, and welcome to the 29th meeting in 2020 of the Health and Sport Committee. We have received apologies from Alex Cole-Hamilton; I welcome Willie Rennie as his substitute.

I also welcome Stuart McMillan MSP, who joins us for stage 1 consideration of his member’s bill, the Liability for NHS Charges (Treatment of Industrial Disease) (Scotland) Bill. We will hear evidence on the bill from two panels of witnesses. First, I welcome Joe FitzPatrick, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing, who is accompanied by officials from the Scottish Government directorate of health finance: Isabel Hinds, governance and finance accountant; and Julie McKinney, head of internal financial performance. I thank you all for joining us and invite the minister to make brief opening remarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence today. The Scottish Government is sympathetic to the intention behind the bill, which is to ensure that the costs of treating and caring for individuals who are affected by an industrial illness are recovered from the party that has compensated those individuals, rather than the taxpayer. We are keen to consider any proposal that would allow national health service resources to be used more effectively.

In saying that, we would be interested to see more evidence behind the detail of the bill, as a number of points require further clarity. The policy memorandum notes that there would be in the region of 500 cases per year but states that, ultimately, it is impossible to estimate the costs to the NHS of treating those people. We are keen to see further information about the number of cases and resulting costs.

As we set out in the memorandum that we submitted to the committee in September, it would also be helpful to have evidence on the anticipated level of revenue that the bill could recover and on the cost of administering the scheme. It is important that the scheme should not run at a loss due to the potentially low number of cases.

At present, the effect of the bill is that the Scottish ministers would administer the scheme. We note that the member says in the bill documents that his preference is for the United Kingdom Government to administer the scheme through the Department for Work and Pensions compensation recovery unit. It will be important to clarify details on scheme administration, as the bill might need to be amended to enable the scheme to be administered by a new statutory body, or to give new statutory functions to the existing body.

At this unprecedented time, we recognise the difficulty of gathering further evidence on costs to include in the financial memorandum. Nonetheless, if we are to come to a clearer position on the bill, we require further work to be done on the expected costs to be recouped, compared with the time and resources that would need to be spent on the proposed approach.

We look forward to the committee’s report on the bill. I am happy to take questions.

Thank you, minister. Given everything that you have just said, would it be fair to say that you are not averse to the general principles of the bill and indeed are sympathetic to them, but that, if the bill is to proceed to the next stage, you will need the questions that you have summarised to be addressed?

That is an accurate summary of our position. Obviously, everyone has an interest in the NHS having additional resource, but we need to ensure that any scheme that we put in place meets its intended purpose and has that effect, rather than ending up as a drain on resource.

In that case, is it your view that all the practical and implementation issues that you raised can be addressed through the Parliament’s scope for taking proposed legislation to a conclusion?

We would need more information about intention, and it looks like more work requires to be done. The Government would be keen to help the committee get more information if the decision is that the bill should proceed in this parliamentary session. Obviously, accessing some of that data in the current pandemic, particularly on issues around finances, is particularly difficult, and more difficult than it would be in normal times.

Thank you very much. That is helpful.

The minister has raised the issue of finance, with one challenge being the need to find out about the cost of the scheme.

I am interested in the definition of “industrial disease”. The bill defines that as a disease

“arising out of the employment of the injured person ... arising out of the employment of any person associated with the injured person, or ... which makes the person suffering from the disease eligible for employment-injury assistance under regulations made by the Scottish Ministers”.

Might issues relating to the implementation of the new scheme arise from the definition of “industrial disease”? If there are challenges with the definition, what are the reasons for potentially implementing the new scheme?

As the bill goes through the parliamentary process, it is really important that we ensure that we get robust definitions. It is clear that the existing scheme is a United-Kingdom-wide one and that the new scheme would be a divergence from that. It would have Scotland-specific aspects. There would be a balance between ensuring that the aspects of the scheme that remained aligned across the four nations would still be robust and ensuring that we have appropriate definitions for specific aspects.

[Inaudible.] I would like to talk about the administration of the scheme. Who should administer the new scheme? Should it be the Scottish Government or the compensation recovery unit at the Department for Work and Pensions?

That is a very important question. The member in charge of the bill has suggested that it should be administered by the compensation recovery unit at the DWP. My officials have contacted the DWP to seek clarification on its position, and we are still waiting for a response. Obviously, we will provide that information to the committee when it is received.

The question is very important because the answer to it would determine to some extent where the burden of the costs would rest. It is clear that, if the costs rested on the NHS and those costs were higher than the recovered costs, we would have a scheme that was intended, in principle, to help the NHS but which would do exactly the opposite. It is really important that, in looking at the bill, the Parliament and the committee ensure that we do not inadvertently create a scheme that does exactly the opposite of what Mr McMillan and, I am sure, others hope that it would do.

My experience is that the Governments in the four nations tend to underestimate the costs of providing new services. As a generalisation, there are hidden costs in setting up any new organisation. The advantage of the compensation recovery unit administering the scheme is that there is an existing scheme and it knows which way is up. The issue is not a party-political one. I understand that the minister may wish to have a lot more powers in the Scottish Parliament, but that is not what we are talking about; this is about ensuring that the approach is cost effective and that we do not create another huge tier of bureaucracy.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I have a preference one way or the other; I do not. What I am saying is that in the bill as drafted those powers rest with the Scottish ministers, although I understand that the preference of Mr Stewart and Mr McMillan is that the scheme would be administered by the compensation recovery unit.

You said in your opening remarks that you are sympathetic to the scheme, but that there are a number of issues and that more evidence is needed on finance. My question follows on from David Stewart’s question. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to the potential costs of administering the new scheme? I note that the DWP charged £215,000 to administer the current scheme on our behalf. Will you elaborate on that? Have you looked seriously at whether you would continue with that scheme while having to set up a unit under the Scottish ministers, would you have a Scotland-only scheme?

The member is absolutely right about what the DWP charges—the figure is £215,600. This is not a Scottish Government bill. If the committee decides that the bill should move to the next stage, we would do as much work as is required around it. Just now, huge resources are going into the Covid response. As I said in my opening remarks, some of the costings might be more difficult to estimate under current circumstances than in normal times.

I have a short follow-up question. I thank you for the correspondence that the committee has received from the Scottish Government. Point 10 in that correspondence says that if the Scottish Government wished to set up its own scheme, it would need to speak to the DWP about whether it would

“have the capacity to provide the service”

or whether it would be happy to work with you to set up a separate service. How difficult would setting that up be?

As I said, Scottish Government officials have contacted the DWP to seek clarification on its position, but we have not yet had a response. I guess that it is suffering the extra pressures that we are suffering, and which the committee is suffering, in terms of the work that it is doing around the Covid response. We will make sure that the committee sees any DWP response.

Thank you.

That is very helpful, minister.

Good morning, minister. Your opening statement and the Scottish Government’s written evidence alluded to the fact that further explanation is needed as to whether setting up the scheme would be worthwhile and would not incur costs. Has the Scottish Government made any assessment of the potential financial benefit to the NHS of the scheme as set out in the bill?

As I say, this is not our bill and we will take it forward as the committee suggests. The point I made in my opening statement is that some additional evidence would be required to enable that assessment to be made. There are two sides to that: one is the cost of administration, and the other is what might be recovered. Both figures would be difficult to estimate at any time. Parliament and the Government are used to making estimates for which it is difficult to access the information, but it is especially difficult just now, given the pressures that we are all facing.

What process will be required to get that information, and what is the timescale for that?

This is not a Scottish Government bill, so the member and the committee would need to satisfy themselves that they have robust figures. If there is a role for the Scottish Government, we will put in the required resource. However, that resource will have to come from somewhere. The health directorate, in particular, is working very hard across the board, and we have already had to put aside a number of the Government’s priorities in health and other areas in order to focus on the work that is required to respond to the virus.

09:15  

I am not detecting a great deal of enthusiasm from you, minister.

Have you looked at the work on the issue by the occupational and environmental health research group at the University of Stirling, which has said that the money that would be brought in from the proposed scheme would easily cover the cost of running it? Do you agree with that assessment?

I have not looked specifically at the University of Stirling’s work in this area. Isabel Hinds might be able to comment on that.

I thank the committee for having me.

I have not seen the piece of work in question, but I can certainly have a look at it and submit any views to the committee, should that be required.

That is fine.

I invite Stuart McMillan, who is the member in charge of the bill, to ask any questions that he may have for the minister. I ask any other committee members who have questions for the minister to indicate that in the chat box and I will try to bring them in.

A question has been asked about the definition of “industrial disease”. Do you believe that the definition in the bill is robust? I realise that the issue of whether it is robust has already been touched on.

The definition that is used in the bill does not give us huge concern. If the bill were to proceed to the next stage, we would consider whether any amendments were necessary. The definition of “industrial disease” is not an area that we have huge concern about, unless Isabel Hinds has evidence to the contrary.

I agree with that assessment. We have no concerns about the definition at the moment. It would be at stage 2 that we would look to make further assessments.

With regard to the financial memorandum, Willie Rennie asked about the work that has been done by the University of Stirling, which you said you have not seen. At last week’s meeting of the committee, the witness from the University of Stirling indicated that they believed that, if the proposed scheme was introduced, the measures in the bill would cover its costs and the additional resource could go into the NHS.

I recommend that, once the meeting is over, you have a look at the evidence from the University of Stirling. I am aware that you are waiting to receive a reply from the DWP.

We will look at that evidence. However, it is important that the financial memorandum is as robust as possible, and if the University of Stirling can provide more data that can go into the estimates in the financial memorandum, that will help with their robustness.

As I said, I have not seen what the witness from the University of Stirling said, so I do not know what assumptions they made about who would administer the scheme, what the costs of administering it would be and how many cases they assessed. It sounds as though the work that has been done at the University of Stirling, on which evidence was presented last week, is an interesting piece of work. Neither I nor my officials have seen it as yet, but it is important that that information is looked at.

I have one final question, which is on the administration of the proposal. I am sure that we will also address that issue when I am asked questions shortly. The suggestion that the CRU should undertake the administration was made to ensure that costs are reduced, instead of establishing something new in Scotland. With that consideration in mind, does the minister think that that would be the most appropriate way forward, even in the short to medium term, to ensure that the proposal could be introduced until such time as constitutional arrangements are altered?

It is important that we understand who would administer such a scheme in the short term and in the longer term. As I said, my officials have contacted the DWP to assess its take on the matter, but we have not yet had a response. I do not know whether there is an opportunity for the DWP’s CRU to carry out the work; the DWP might say that it does not have the information. My officials will chase the DWP for a response about administration. If we receive a response, we will ensure that the committee gets sight of it.

That is very helpful. As there are no further questions for the minister and his officials, I thank them for their attendance. I ask that the further evidence that the minister has offered to provide to the committee is with us by 20 November at the latest. That will allow us to proceed on the schedule that we have set.

We will provide the information by then if we receive it. As I said, it is not ours.

Indeed. However, if it is possible, that would be welcome and would assist the committee with its work.

We move to the second evidence session on the bill. I welcome back the poacher turned gamekeeper, or the gamekeeper turned poacher—I am not sure which it is—Stuart McMillan, who is the member in charge of the bill. As a witness, he is accompanied by Andrew Mylne, who is the head of the non-Government bills unit of the Scottish Parliament; Kenny Htet-Khin, who is a solicitor; and Seonaid Knox, who is a researcher for Stuart McMillan. I welcome all the witnesses to the evidence session.

I ask Stuart McMillan, who will no doubt be considering the evidence that he has just heard and elicited, to make a short opening statement before we move to questions.

Thank you, convener. At the outset, I would like to thank a few people and organisations for their assistance in getting the bill to this point. First, I thank Phyllis Craig MBE from Action on Asbestos, which was formerly Clydeside Action on Asbestos, and Laura Blane from Thompsons Solicitors. Phyllis and Laura have been the genesis of the bill and have been consulted at every part of the process. This is the second attempt to bring such a bill to Parliament, and I believe that this bill is more tightly drawn and focused than my proposal in the previous parliamentary session.

Staff in the NGBU have worked tremendously hard to get the bill in shape to allow it to be introduced, and I offer my thanks to them. Finally, I thank my former staff members Shaun Kavanagh and Jenifer Johnston, as well as my present staff member Seonaid Knox, all of whom played their part in helping to shape the bill that is in front of the committee.

The bill’s purpose is to help to bring additional financial resource into NHS Scotland when there is a successful personal injury claim relating to industrial injuries. The claimant would not need to do anything extra, but the additional sum to the NHS would be consequential on a successful claim for damages. The liability to repay NHS costs would fall on the responsible organisation—that is, the organisation that was already required to pay the damages. That organisation might be an employer or its insurance company. The bill is not retrospective, so it would cover only harmful events that occurred after the bill came into force.

The bill will deliver two main things. First, after a period of time, it will introduce additional finances into NHS Scotland. Secondly, it will encourage employers to introduce better health and safety measures. As a result of that, I would expect a long-term reduction in insurance premiums. It would be unavoidable that premiums would rise in the short term, particularly as soon as the act came into force; employers would be liable for a new category of cost and sensible employers would extend their insurance to cover that risk. However, in the longer term, costs would certainly reduce.

Finally, as touched on, I would prefer the administration of the system that the bill would put in place to be done by the CRU. It already exists, so asking it to take on a new task would be easier and cheaper than establishing something new. Nonetheless, the bill would still be worth while if a Scottish equivalent of the CRU had to be established. I am sure that I will get some questions about the financial memorandum, which was touched on this morning. I am happy to take questions.

As you just said very clearly, we are talking about future events; nonetheless, on the basis of past events, you will have in mind some idea of how many cases that are not currently covered might end up being covered by the bill. How many cases might be involved annually?

One of the challenges in bringing forward the bill has been the financial memorandum, which has been touched on, and trying to get a figure for the number of cases to put forward has been difficult. In the financial memorandum, we used the figure of 514 cases, which is based on information that was provided by Thompsons Solicitors. I am also aware of the additional information that was presented to the committee by the Forum of Scottish Claims Managers and Alan Rogerson. I believe that 514 is a rough estimate; as time goes on, the real figure will clearly differ from that, including in relation to industrial diseases that we do not yet know about.

That is a helpful starting place nonetheless.

Good morning to Stuart McMillan. You talked a little bit about other industrial diseases, the definition of which I am interested in. Last week, we heard evidence that the term “industrial disease” might be a bit out of date and that we should perhaps use the words “disease or long-term injury from employment”. I am interested in the emergence of industrial diseases, injuries or illness caused by Covid, and mental health has also been mentioned. Last week, Thompsons Solicitors reminded the committee that liability would already have to have been established for a person to become liable for NHS charges; nonetheless, mental health conditions and emerging conditions such as Covid and long Covid might be issues to consider. Obviously, those are new issues. Might they be covered by the provisions in the bill?

That is a valid question, and my answer to it is yes. When we consider the information in the policy memorandum and the financial memorandum, “industrial disease” is defined broadly to include any diseases arising out of a person’s employment but also a disease arising out of another person’s employment—so long as there is a causal connection between the disease and the employment. However, the definition also includes diseases that confer eligibility for employment injury assistance, as defined by regulations under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Your point regarding Covid is worth considering, and I will do that but, ultimately, the short answer to your question is yes.

09:30  

Obviously, you have done fantastic work to prepare the bill and get it this far. I am interested in the fact that the Covid pandemic might have added complexity when it comes to considering financial implications.

That is a fair assessment. When the bill was being produced and worked on, Covid was not on the horizon. Things are a lot different now.

I will bring in Andrew Mylne, if that is okay, convener.

Just to add to what Mr McMillan has said, it is important to bear in mind that, because of the way the bill sets up the definition of “industrial disease”, the provisions will apply only in cases where there is already a compensator. In other words, it will apply only where an employer—it usually is an employer—has accepted liability in the first place for what would become a damages claim, and the NHS cost recovery will flow from that. Therefore, in a case where someone contracts Covid, the employer would have to be liable and would have to pay damages for the circumstances in which the employee contracted Covid. The bill certainly would not apply automatically just because someone contracted Covid while they were at work. There would have to be that extra element.

However, subject to that, the definition is drawn fairly broadly. Obviously, there would be capacity to adjust that according to policy that the Government wished to impose on it in future.

I hope that that helps.

Emma, are you happy with those answers?

Yes.

In that case, I call Donald Cameron.

Could Stuart McMillan provide more information on the estimates of the amounts that the new scheme is expected to recover? I ask that in the context of supplementary evidence that Alan Rogerson has provided to the committee in which he estimates that, over 12 years, there would be a shortfall of approximately £0.5 million between the costs of administering the scheme and the amounts recovered.

I saw that information. I must say that I am very much aware of the scepticism of the insurance industry towards any type of proposed damages legislation, although, of course, the bill is not that. However, that certainly was the case with the 2009 legislation relating to pleural plaques.

I saw the figures, and I can see why the insurance industry has suggested them, but I would point to data from the compensation recovery unit that shows that £66.8 million was recovered from employers from 90,219 settlements. That means that, on average, £740.80 was recovered per case. If that figure was applied to the estimated 514 industrial disease cases, that could generate more than £380,000 for NHS Scotland.

It has been difficult to get accurate information to nail down the financial memorandum. If the committee decides to move the bill forward, the minister’s earlier comments will be helpful and will potentially assist with getting more accurate data. However, I suggest that it is impossible to determine how many cases will come forward, due to the nature of the proposal.

I entirely agree with your last comment—it is very difficult to predict.

The current cap is set at £54,566 for 2020. Do you have a view on whether the cap should be increased or even removed?

I am quite flexible on whether the cap should remain as is, or be amended. I do not have a fixed position on that and am keen to find out what the committee would suggest.

In evidence, the Forum of Scottish Claims Managers, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers Scotland and Thompsons Solicitors Scotland believed that the compensation recovery unit would be best placed to administer the new scheme. What discussions have you had with the compensation recovery unit on the possibility of its undertaking the administration of the new scheme, and what is its view?

In October 2018, I wrote to the DWP, and I got a reply. The DWP indicated that it had previously been approached by the Welsh Government about the CRU administering its proposed legislation to enable the recovery of NHS costs relating to industrial diseases. The DWP explained that it was willing to discuss the proposals in order to understand the feasibility of the request. Scottish Government representatives were to approach the appropriate DWP officials to discuss any proposal to use the DWP CRU. Therefore, the DWP did not say that it would not do it; it said that it would have the dialogue to decide whether it would happen.

I have no further questions, convener.

I can see the challenges that you have faced in trying to get this worthy bill together. The whole point of the bill is to ensure that the claimants have a positive outcome. A number of issues have been brought up such as appeals and reviews and how the process would take longer and clog up the system. BLM commented that

“In our view, the complexities of disease cases are likely to mean that the administrative burden placed on NHS Boards is greater than that with which they are presently accustomed.”

That is an issue that would worry me. Is it anticipated that there would be an increased proportion of appeals and reviews under the new scheme for industrial disease claims compared with the existing scheme?

Obviously, the appeals process already exists. As is set out in paragraph 22 of the policy memorandum,

“Compensators must make the payments required by a certificate before appealing against it, unless this requirement is waived by Ministers; but a decision by Ministers not to waive this requirement may also be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal”.

In effect, appeals could still happen, but the payment must happen first, before any appeal.

In that case, there are likely to be more claims and therefore it would be more difficult, would it not?

It is hard to determine whether there would be more claims. I know that that was suggested in evidence last week, but it is genuinely hard to determine whether there would be more or fewer appeals. The key point is that the compensators must make the payments before appealing.

Have you taken into account the difficulty and complexity in assessing the cost of administering the scheme? That is also a concern.

I accept that there is a complexity to the proposal. However, at the same time, the proposal is to use the CRU process, to try to make it easier, in comparison with setting up something new.

I also accept that there are complexities in calculating the cost of NHS treatment in individual personal injury claims. However, the CRU operates a tariff system, with a cap that sets the maximum amount that could be claimed from any compensator. Therefore, although there are complexities, a process is already in place that would make it easier to progress and deliver my proposal.

Finally, I will ask about an issue that I want to get right in my own head. At this stage, none of us have heard anything from the CRU, have we?

No. The DWP is the United Kingdom Government agency that operates the CRU. In its reply to me, the DWP did not say that it would not operate such a scheme. It said that it would have to have a dialogue with the Scottish Government and then come to an agreement as to whether it would undertake what is set out in the bill.

Last week, I raised the difference between the abilities of small and medium-sized businesses and multinational companies to implement health and safety measures—that can be more difficult for the former. What considerations have been given to how the changes to liability resulting from the bill would be publicised?

No consideration has been given to that so far. However, I imagine that a few things would certainly need to happen. First of all, there would need to be a media campaign by the Scottish Government. Secondly, it would be extremely useful if organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and trade associations helped to publicise information on the changes through the business community, particularly the small business community. I am sure that all the organisations that I have mentioned will have been involved in publicity campaigns on a wide variety of issues in the past, so I do not see there being any issue in that respect.

This is my final question. Will you clarify who you think would be responsible for getting out the information about the changes in respect of the liability for NHS charges to SMEs? As I said, I think that it can be a little bit more difficult for SMEs to implement legislation of this type. Who would be responsible for informing them?

09:45  

The Scottish Government would be the main body for sharing the correct information, but industry bodies would also play a pivotal role—it would not be just one organisation that undertook the task. I accept Brian Whittle’s point about smaller businesses and microbusinesses. However, in many aspects of public policy and policy changes, it tends not to be just one organisation, such as the Scottish Government, that puts information in the public domain. The Scottish Government might be the lead organisation, but other relevant organisations would also play their part in helping to get information out.

I think that Stuart McMillan has answered this question, but I will ask it for clarity. Would his bill result in any delays in compensation payments for people with industrial diseases? I understand his point that payments must be made before appealing, but would the bill have knock-on consequences for the rest of the process by adding complexity?

Mr Rennie is right that I touched on that. I do not see how the bill could lead to compensators delaying making payments in industrial disease cases any more than they do in accidental injury cases. I see no effect on that from the outcome that we want the bill to deliver.

You commented on liaising with the DWP. Have you had any political engagement? Have you spoken to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about whether she supports the DWP collecting such payments?

I have not spoken to the DWP; I wrote to it and, as I said, the reply gave the example of a discussion with the Welsh Government and said that the DWP would want to have such dialogue with the Scottish Government.

I support the bill in general, but my experience of dealing with bills has been that there are always issues in relation to unintended consequences. Have you analysed the bill’s potential impact on insurance premiums for Scottish businesses in comparison with those in the rest of the UK?

We looked at that. A fair assessment, which I touched on in opening, is that insurance premiums would inevitably increase in the short term or that additional insurance cover would be sought as a result of the bill. However, as employers took further precautions over time to protect their staff, premiums would reduce. Scotland could then become the safest part of the UK for employment. As we heard last week, if the bill were passed, it would bring health and safety benefits.

Staying on that issue, do you have specific evidence about when those costs would change? Clearly, no one on the committee would want to see businesses in Scotland incurring higher costs, which would make them uncompetitive compared with those in the rest of the UK.

I accept Mr Stewart’s point. However, although competitiveness might be an issue, I go back to my earlier comment that Scotland would also then be the safest place in the UK in which to work.

In the short term, premiums would no doubt increase—I am not running away from that fact, and I have to be up front about it. However, as I have indicated previously, if the bill were to progress and it could be seen that Scotland was a safe place in which to work, I suggest that the next step would be for premiums to reduce for those businesses that were doing the right thing and working to protect their employees. That could also have a beneficial effect on employees’ output, because they would feel safe in the knowledge that when they were going to work they would be able to come home again.

Therefore, although insurance costs would be higher in the short term, I expect that in the medium to longer term they would reduce because Scotland would also become the safest part of the UK in which to work.

I have a final question. Mr McMillan might have touched on the subject already, but I will ask it, just for the record. Do you consider that the bill would have a preventative impact that would result in there being fewer industrial disease claims in the future?

Yes, I do. However, I repeat the caveat that I made in a comment a few moments ago. We do not know what new industrial diseases will emerge in the future. Therefore my answer is yes in relation to the list of existing industrial diseases that we already know about. However, in relation to new cases I will have to say that I do not know, because we do not yet know what they might be.

I thank Stuart McMillan and our other witnesses for their attendance this morning. We have had a thorough examination of the issues affecting the bill, and the committee will proceed to have a further discussion on those in due course.

We will now move on. Agenda item 2 relates to the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, which will clearly involve our hearing from a number of people besides members of the committee. As we will not be able to proceed to consider the bill until 10:45, I propose now to suspend the public part of the meeting briefly.

We will resume on a different platform just before 10 o’clock, in private session, which will allow us to deal with agenda items 3 and 4 in advance of agenda item 2. That is simply to accommodate the participants in the stage 2 proceedings, who are not with us at the moment. I ask members to follow the advice of our broadcasting team. The BlueJeans platform will remain live. However, in a few moments we will send out a request for a separate meeting on Microsoft Teams, which will give the committee an opportunity to deal with those other agenda items ahead of our public session on the bill.

09:54 Meeting continued in private. 10:45 Meeting continued in public.