Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) (Psychologists) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 March 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:48): I rise today to speak to the bill before us, and indicate that Labor will be supporting the bill. However, we share some of the significant concerns that have been raised by stakeholders, including the Law Society. This bill makes amendments to the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 to expand the range of medical practitioners who are able to provide the reports required under the act.

The Attorney-General has stated that this proposal will help free up resources and reduce the delays being experienced in the provision of reports for high-risk offenders under the Sentencing Act 2017. I understand that there is only a small number of forensic psychologists who are able to provide these reports.

We note, as an opposition, like so many of the so-called reforms that the Attorney-General has put into the parliament, that they come about because of the previous inaction of the Attorney-General herself. This particular so-called reform comes after the Humphrys matter where the government tendered to the court that it was going to take a further six months for a report for the notorious paedophile Colin Humphrys, and there was much media attention around the fact that the government and the Attorney-General's inaction on this could have resulted in a dangerous paedophile being released. Once again, we have seen the Attorney-General forced into action because of her own shortcomings.

During the second reading explanation, the Attorney-General indicated that there were 40 reports prepared by the Forensic Mental Health Service in the period from October 2017 to November 2018. The Attorney-General also indicated that on average there are around 35 or 36 reports prepared each year. The Attorney-General advised that the proposed bill would likely impact on about 11 per cent of the reports, so about four reports a year will be impacted, which is a very small number indeed for what has been a big problem that the Attorney-General has failed to get under control.

There were a number of questions responded to during the opposition's briefing on this bill; however, many of those answers have created new questions. The Attorney-General has advised that the new pay scale for writing reports would be a fee-for-service based on the WorkCover scale and that there was no fixed rate. I presume the Forensic Mental Health Service has a budget for reports and an estimate of what an average report would cost. I would appreciate it if the Treasurer was able to answer that question during the committee stage in relation to the estimate of what an average report would cost and what is the budget for these reports.

At the time of briefing being provided and in the Attorney's second reading explanation, we did not receive an answer as to the current size of the pool of experts who provide reports or how many additional FTEs are being allocated and what the increase is in the budget for the Forensic Mental Health Service. Again, I would appreciate the Treasurer, who will have the conduct of this bill, providing answers to those questions during the committee stage.

It is worth noting that this bill does not directly amend the Sentencing Act 2017, which was the cause of much public concern—and the lack of a report that the government initially said was going to take six months and almost had, on their inaction, the notorious paedophile Colin Humphrys being released under the Sentencing Act—regarding sexual offenders unwilling or unable to control their sexual instincts.

I note that the Law Society has provided some commentary querying whether lesser qualified persons are suitable to provide these reports. I am advised that others have raised similar concerns. The Attorney in her second reading explanation indicated that the bill is part of a range of measures designed to help reduce the waiting time for such reports. I am sure we will hear in due course if there are actually any other measures or if this is an actual suite of measures. I will conclude by saying that the Labor opposition will not seek to delay this bill from passing but we will certainly be monitoring the operation of this new regime and holding the government and the Attorney-General to account when she says this is but one of a suite of measures.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:53): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) (Psychologists) Amendment Bill. The Attorney-General was able to make application to the courts that certain prisoners are deemed high risk and are subject to an extended supervision order at the end of their sentence. This is typically where there are concerns that a person is likely to reoffend and it is only for serious sexual offenders, serious violent offenders and terrorists.

In order for an extended supervision order to be granted, two reports need to be provided to the courts from approved forensic psychiatrists. This bill will broaden this clause so that the approved forensic psychologists will also be able to provide reports. Upon initial examination of this bill I held some concerns that forensic psychologists may not have the expertise required. However, I understand that Dr Nambiar, the chief forensic mental health psychiatrist, will still be responsible for allocating cases to participating professionals and that complex cases will be handled by psychiatrists.

Late yesterday, I was advised that the government had filed amendments to outline the experience required by psychologists before they are eligible. These amendments were made on the recommendation of Dr Nambiar and I think they are sensible amendments. Although I have no doubt and there is no indication that Dr Nambiar would allocate files to a person without the necessary skills, it is good to have these requirements set out in the act. I am supportive of this bill and these measures. It will assist in alleviating the workload for forensic psychiatrists and expedite applications for extended supervision orders.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:55): I rise to speak in support of the bill inclusive of my amendments, albeit with some qualifications. SA-Best appreciates this bill is intended to alleviate the current backlog being experienced in the courts in regard to the provision of reports prepared under section 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and, indirectly, the Sentencing Act 2017. But let us be in no doubt that this bill fails to address the underlying reasons behind that backlog and does not address the resourcing, investment and training issues that victims, the courts, the Law Society of South Australia, the DPP and the forensic psychiatrists have consistently identified and the government has failed to respond to.

It has taken a bid to have Colin Humphrys—a notorious child sex offender—released from gaol for want of a psychiatric report, which was going to take six months to complete, for the government to now take action. The bill addresses an immediate crisis but, again, let us not be mistaken, it is a bandaid solution. There is an overwhelming amount of work in the court system to be undertaken by forensic psychiatrists and forensic psychologists, which is a direct result of not being sufficiently funded. These resourcing issues are for another day but I think it is a shameful situation that the Chief Justice, the Hon. Chris Kourakis, has felt compelled to go to the media to bring the current under-resourcing of the courts to the public's attention.

As the Law Society of South Australia has comprehensively pointed out, and cases such as Colin Humphrys bring into sharp focus, the implications of supervision orders being extended or revoked are very serious and of great concern to the community. It is critically important that these reports are completed by experts with the required and relevant experience and professional accreditation. As the highly respected Dr Loraine Lim said, and I quote, that psychiatrists and psychologists can work collaboratively to provide risk assessment reports for high-risk offenders but:

…we need to be mindful of not creating an over-reliance on some of the lesser trained allied health professionals who may not have had the fundamental training in risk assessments or in the treatment of complex behaviours.

We do not want to compromise a criminal justice system that is already struggling with increasing workloads. Until now, the courts have relied upon a relatively small number of highly qualified and experienced forensic psychiatrists to produce these expert court reports—and, from the briefing I attended, I believe that is around six. If psychologists are to be permitted to undertake these types of assessments, then it is absolutely critical that there are safeguards as to their qualifications and experience.

The amendments I am proposing aim to install these essential protections into the bill so that when courts make decisions about high-risk offenders, including if they are going to release them back into the community, that they base those decisions on the highest quality assessments and reports prepared by accredited and recognised qualified forensic psychologists and medical practitioners. It is simply unacceptable for the courts, and indeed for the community, to rely on a psychologist who does not have the necessary skills, experience, qualifications, certification and admissions to produce reports that the courts, and ultimately the community, can rely upon and have confidence in.

The Attorney-General claims that it is difficult to attract suitably qualified people to forensic psychiatry and, if this is the case, then those training pathways need to be expanded. Our pool of forensic psychiatrists has been shrinking year by year and this is a threshold issue that needs to be addressed. In regard to forensic psychologists, it is a real concern that Dr Lim warns us that South Australia has not had a master of forensic psychologists program for the past 10 years and that a better long-term solution would be to better fund training pathways.

It is completely inadequate for the government to propose that, should the bill be passed, a part-time 0.5 FTE forensic psychologist will be employed by the Forensic Court Diversion and Assessment Service to prepare these reports. We do not accept the government's view that more training for more forensic psychologists has been considered, but due to the challenging nature of that work it is difficult to attract suitably qualified people to this niche area of the profession. The more competitive remuneration scale may assist in attracting more suitably qualified professions to complete these reports and by extension may attract more candidates to consider qualifications or training forensic psychiatry. But remuneration alone is not enough.

The bill, as tabled, is already an inadequate response to one aspect of the wider structural issues facing our courts and those issues are the ones that I have just touched on. The government's amendments to my amendment are a further attempt to water down the bill and they are not supported by SA-Best for that reason. I will give more reasons in relation to those amendments when we come to considering the amendments. With those words, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:01): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading and I look forward to engaging in productive discussion in the committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think clause 1 is probably the appropriate clause for a couple of general questions about the operation of the scheme. As the scheme currently operates, not taking into account the proposed changes the bill will make, I am wondering if the Treasurer can outline the classes of people who can provide reports for this act as the scheme currently operates, but also under the Sentencing Act and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act who can provide reports of this sort?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that under this act it is just psychiatrists, and under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act it is psychiatrists and psychologists.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And under the Sentencing Act?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Psychiatrists.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am wondering if the Treasurer is able to give any advice on an estimate of the pool of people currently, under how the regime works, who are able to provide such reports; that is, how many psychiatrists are suitably qualified? What is the pool of people who can do that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised there are six psychiatrists and five psychologists.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear, under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act at the moment, are there psychologists and psychiatrists who can provide reports?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That was the honourable member's first question. The answer to the first question was psychiatrists, and psychiatrists and psychologists under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. That was the answer to the first question. The second question was a number: there are six psychiatrists and there are five psychologists.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The pool that can provide reports under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act, as it currently stands, is six people. Is that correct?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I take it that is in South Australia. Is there anything that precludes reports being done by interstate professionals?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Has South Australia ever utilised interstate professionals to provide reports, either under this act, the Sentencing Act or, indeed, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised: not to the knowledge of the advisers that are here at the moment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is there a reason why that has never been considered?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I said by way of interjection across the chamber, in relation to what the former government did and the reasons, the Leader of the Opposition might be in a better position to know than me. But I am told the other option which is available are private sector psychiatrists in South Australia. It is likely that the people who make this decision, if they had to go beyond the public sector psychiatrists, would be more likely to choose a South Australian-based private sector psychiatrist as opposed to going interstate.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To be clear, the pool of people who can provide these reports—when the answer was six—is that just public sector people?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What would the pool be, if we expand that to the private sector and have private sector psychiatrists being utilised to provide these reports? My follow-up is going to be: if they have not, why not?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am afraid we do not have that information, but I understand that the decision is taken by the responsible person. The qualification is a psychiatrist, so I guess it is whatever number of psychiatrists is the potential pool, but then it is up to the particular responsible person making these decisions whom he or she selects from that pool, if they so choose.

So no, we do not know what the total number of private sector psychiatrists in the state is, but I assume it is a significant number, obviously, and I guess there must be a roll or a register somewhere that would have whatever that number is that would be available. In relation to why in the past it has not been utilised, we just do not have that information available to us at the moment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am gathering from that last answer that the answer to the question: have private sector psychiatrists been used for these reports, is we are not aware of any incidents where it has happened.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The advisers I have with me today are not aware as to whether or not former governments and former administrations have taken up that option.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In the case of the Humphrys matter, when it was originally submitted to the court that the report would take six months but very quickly revised to a much shorter time, who provided that report in the end?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It was provided, I am advised, by one of the psychiatrists within forensic mental health, but I am not aware of the actual name of the individual.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is what I was trying to understand: was it within government, to which the answer has been yes. Was consideration given, rather than making the amendments that are before us now, to utilising private sector psychiatrists and/or interstate psychiatrists, rather than expanding the class of people who can provide reports?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised it was deemed to be appropriate that psychologists would be able to provide the nature of the reports that were going to be required under the act, and it was obviously a more cost-effective option than bringing people in from interstate, with obvious increased costs, or indeed going to the private sector for psychiatrists in terms of reports.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Treasurer helpfully talks about the cost-effectiveness of this option rather than other options. How does the government respond to criticism that it is lowering the bar for the sake of cost rather than keeping it to psychiatrists only who provide the reports?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Based on the advice for the answer to the last question, the government would say our advice was, firstly, as to the nature of the reports that were going to be required, they were suitable and capable of being undertaken by a psychologist. The experts in this particular area evidently gave that particular advice. The second issue was in relation to the cost-effectiveness of the option as opposed to the alternatives of importing experts from interstate or going to the private sector for private sector psychiatrists.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the Attorney-General has mentioned that this is one of a suite of remedies to the problem of being provided reports on time. What are the other elements that the government has in train or is doing or is contemplating doing? Is using the private sector part of that suite of options?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised in terms of the question the honourable member has asked about a suite of issues, since 4 March, just over a few weeks ago, the Forensic Court Diversion and Assessment Service was established. Staffing for that service is as follows: a consultant psychiatrist, a psychiatric registrar, two clinically trained registered nurses, a team leader, a part-time admin officer and two social workers.

I am advised that in this diversion process, referrals can be made to the diversion service, or the accused may be well-known to the Forensic Court Diversion and Assessment Service (FCDAS) due to previous offending. The mental health database will be used to crosscheck custody and court lists to flag whether a defendant has a mental health history or existing treatment plan. Once identified through the custody list or via referral, nurses will undertake a basic mental health assessment for the accused and report to the court recommending a diversion from a formal assessment and referral to appropriate treatment services.

If these reports are accepted by the court, this will reduce the requirement to seek more costly forensic assessments by psychiatrists in the Forensic Mental Health Service (FMHS). It is predicted that this will divert approximately 40 per cent of psychiatric assessments under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. For those matters not diverted, a forensic assessment is conducted by either a forensic psychologist or a forensic psychiatrist.

I am further advised that this diversion service is not applicable to matters under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act or sections 57 to 59 of the Sentencing Act. I am advised we have also increased the remuneration payable to forensic psychiatrists doing these reports. That is an example within the suite of measures to which the Attorney is referring.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Following on from that, in relation to the increase in the scale: to be clear, the psychologists that we are suggesting will now be captured will be paid a salary for their reports, as opposed to a fee? Is that correct? We will only go to psychologists externally when there is a conflict of interest, or if there is some other reason as to why we cannot use an internal psychologist to complete the report?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that part of the answer to the honourable member's question is that there is a dedicated part-time forensic psychologist who will be paid a salary, but I will see if there is any further information.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In response to the previous question, the Treasurer said that reports under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act will decrease by 40 per cent. What is that 40 per cent of? What does that figure actually mean?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just while I am getting advice on that, I am further advised by my very well informed colleague the Minister for Health that there are certainly some experts in the area who are paid in accordance with a fee arrangement.

I can only share the information which I have been provided and my interpretation of the advice I have received. My advice says it is predicted that this will divert approximately 40 per cent of psychiatric assessments under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I am assuming that the natural reading of that advice is that it is 40 per cent of the number of psychiatric assessments under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. That is the only information I have.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You do not have the number of those?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is 40 per cent of whatever that number was. I am advised that we believe the number of assessments in 2017-18 under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act was 389.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I just want to point to some of the advice provided by the Attorney's office. It indicates that where a psychologist is to be used, they will be paid a fixed rate of $757 to complete a report, and $989 for high-risk offenders. That has come from information provided by the Attorney's office, so I am gathering that will not be disputed.

Under the pay increase that is being proposed, the new remuneration scale will be that psychiatrists will be capped at $1,500 when those reports are ordered by the Magistrates Court, but where it involves a report under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act it will be $2,250 and a high-risk offender will be capped, I think, at $3,000, so there is an increase in the fees.

The point has just been made about weighing up the interests of costs versus outcomes. I suppose my question is: is it not the case that, in order to attract private sector psychologists or psychiatrists, the pay is in fact low compared to the output required of them? So the government is now saying that cost is actually not warranted. I appreciate that there is a scale and the price has gone up, but we are not attracting those individuals because they simply are not going to do it for the amount of money that is on offer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that Dr Nambiar believes that the current payment scale is uncompetitive but he believes that the new scale, to which the member has referred, is competitive.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I confirm also that at the moment those able to provide reports for non-high-risk offenders—so we are not talking about the high-risk offenders that we are going to cover in this bill—does not include forensic psychologists? That is to say that, if it is a non-high-risk offender case, it is limited now to medical practitioners, including psychiatrists?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that that comes back to the first question from the Leader of the Opposition, so I can only repeat the answer, and that is: under the Sentencing Act, it is limited to psychiatrists; under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, it extends to psychiatrists and psychologists.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just trying to think about this in the context that we are talking about a higher risk category of offenders, but we are opening that up to, effectively—I am not going to use the word 'lower', but the fact remains that they are not medical practitioners—psychologists as opposed to psychiatrists. However, we are dealing with individuals at the higher end of the scale in terms of their offending, potentially. So we are opening those offenders up to reports that can be obtained from individuals with lesser qualifications than what we currently have. Does that make sense?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I can really only come back to a response I gave earlier, and that is that Dr Nambiar in particular—I think I referred to him earlier as the responsible officer—will make the judgement that, if it is a particularly complex case that requires the expertise of a psychiatrist, he will make that professional judgement that a psychiatrist is required and needs to be used.

As I said earlier in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, there are a range of assessments that Dr Nambiar believes can be very adequately provided by psychologists. The honourable member is quite right to say that it is just a different qualification, and Dr Nambiar will make the professional judgement as to the ones that he believes are suitable and have to have an assessment by a psychiatrist, and he can make the judgement as to those which he believes can be more than adequately handled by an assessment by a psychologist.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I just make that distinction because, by virtue of the long title of the bill, we are dealing with the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) (Psychologists) Amendment Bill. By definition, we are dealing with a group of offenders who, arguably, would fall at the higher end of the scale in terms of their offending. I accept the response that the Treasurer has given us that we will be relying on the professional opinion of Dr Nambiar in that regard.

Can I just ask—and I am not sure if this was canvassed; I apologise if it was—how many cases are pending awaiting reports, and how long are they taking at the moment?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The officers I have here at the moment do not have that sort of information available.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Treasurer spoke about Dr Nambiar as the individual who will be making the decisions about whether someone can provide these reports. What is Dr Nambiar's title within government, and ministerially to whom does Dr Nambiar report?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I may, my understanding is that Dr Nambiar is the director of the Forensic Mental Health Service, which is a division within the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network, even though it is a statewide service.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Minister for Health and Wellbeing for his contribution and answers in relation to this. While the minister is providing advice, did the minister or his office have any involvement in providing advice in relation to this bill, given the crossover it has between Attorney-General and health and the involvement of Dr Nambiar?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think my previous answer indicates the response, which is that Dr Nambiar, an officer of my department, was involved. While I am on my feet, if I could dare to inform the council in terms of psychology, particularly considering my close familial relationship with a psychologist. It would be worth stressing to the council that forensic psychology in particular is a growing branch of the discipline of psychology, and it would not surprise me if Dr Nambiar made an allocation of an assessment based on a particular expertise of a forensic psychologist or a psychologist, and on the basis of the particular issues that were raised by the particular offender.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Minister for Health and Wellbeing for that answer. I wonder whether I could ask him a further question that I think was part of the question that I asked, but I might not have asked clearly. Given the crossover that this has with Dr Nambiar and the department of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, was the minister or his office consulted or involved, not just in the preparation of this bill but in coming up with solutions to the problems of these types of reports being provided?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It would be fair to say that the Attorney-General and I have had ongoing discussions about the direction of the forensic mental health system and the criminal justice system, and in that regard, in spite of years of neglect by the former government, it was this Attorney-General who led the way in the establishment of a court diversion service, which has had a positive impact on the movement of mental health patients. In terms of my involvement in the bill, obviously it was considered by cabinet, and my department would have been consulted in that regard. Obviously Dr Nambiar is involved in this process, but clearly this legislation is led by the Attorney-General.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing: the minister said that there had been, I think, many discussions with the Attorney-General about forensic mental health. In addition to discussions, have there been any formal communications, notes of advice, briefings, emails or such?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Going back to the point just made about Dr Nambiar, effectively we are being told that that one doctor—and I am not criticising or questioning Dr Nambiar's abilities here—is having all this responsibility placed solely in their hands. It is not something we are going to enshrine in legislation: we are saying that this person will have the professional judgement to make those decisions.

I just wonder whether the government has thought about that in the context of the situation we would end up with. We have something like 520-odd registered psychologists nationally so we want to ensure that those psychologists that we actually use in this pool, dealing with high-risk offenders potentially, are going to be of a particular qualification level to ensure that we do not end up with somebody who does not have the appropriate level of qualification fulfilling these reports. The reason I raise that again is because it is not only the courts that are relying on these, it is the community that is relying on them in terms of providing that feedback to the courts.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I know the honourable member says that she is not making criticism of Dr Nambiar and I accept that, but from the government's viewpoint we have confidence in his professional capacity to make these particular judgements. I am not sure what the alternative is—and the honourable member is a lawyer and has followed parliamentary debates in terms of bills—as to how you would actually craft, if her numbers are correct and there are 520 registered psychologists nationally, the particular level of expertise or further testing that might need to be done for them to be accepted into this particular regime or not.

I think other than relying on the professional expertise of someone whose capacity is accepted by all who need to make judgements about a person's professional capacity to undertake the task, I am not sure what the alternative is in terms of how you would actually draft anything more specific. Even if there is, this is the government's package of measures which we are seeking to put through.

If the honourable member, on further reflection, has further refinements that she wants to bounce off the Attorney-General and indeed the parliament, ultimately, as she would be aware, I am sure the Attorney-General is always open to having discussions and as a private member she always has the capacity to move further legislation if she was to so choose.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am happy that in this instance I will not need to move further legislation because we are indeed dealing with amendments which deal with that very issue, and perhaps I will leave my further comments until we get to those amendments. However, the point I am trying to make is that underlying anybody going in and doing this job we are saying that they should have a certain level of qualification. We often insert into legislation, and into bills in this chamber, minimum levels of qualifications that we expect professionals to hold.

I note that the Treasurer has indicated that there will be amendments to my amendments but I would see that as one alternative, so we have amendments that require minimum levels of qualification and we say we will not consider anybody eligible for that pool unless they fall—as a minimum that is the standard that we will accept. I am happy to speak further to that when we get to that provision.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.