 Gwelwch amdodd. Rydw i chi'n cael ei hwylion y 14 yr ymgyrchegai ymdegiadau ac ydw i'n cael ei dyl ni yn 2015? Rydw i chi'n cael ei ymgyrchegai ymddiannon a chymdeithasol yn ac oedd rydw i ddymarch yn gyblwyddoedd? Felly, ymlaen chi'n wneud am gyrdd y llyfrkei ffordd a'r sgolfa yn mynd i gy 커�o diwylliant gan Llyfrgell Merlun i'r seniorsiol ymddiannon i'r cyfrifio mewn bethau bwysiggyl â'r cyfrifio mwy wneud ac yn hyn dechrau digon a chyfnod ag hyd i'r cwmpwysgol gyda gwaith o brwylliant. Wrth hynny'n amser i gyfrifannu mor gyfrifannu gwlad ar gyfer o gyfrifannu gwlad gan hynny, ond mae'n gweld gwlad i gael'r gwlad a ddiogel â'r comysmru ac i ddyflin. Efallai, gofio ceisio y mae'n meddwl ysgol. Felly mae'n mynd i gmwybod. Felly mae'n meddwl i gyd, ond mae'n meddwl i gael'r meddwl yn meddwl, ond mae'n meddwl i gael'r gwlad. ahead of children's rights and well-being from the Scottish Government. Good morning, Philip, and thank you for attending. Can I click us off, Philip? Can I just ask for the Government's view in general about your interpretation of the scope, the limits, if you like, of the new power that have been assigned to the commissioner as part of the passing of the Children and Young People Act? yw yw'r ysgol yn eisiau amddangos. Yn y gwasanaeth, yw'r hynny'n ddarparu gyda'r byw. Mae'n ddweud o'r byw yw'r yr Aireol, a'r dynion yma, rydych chi'n meddyl yma, a'r ddweud o'r byw yn ymgyrch gyda'r byw, ac y mynd i'r byw yn ymgyrch gyda'r byw, ac yn ymgyrch gyda'r byw, a'r ddweud o'r byw, ac yn ymgyrch gyda'r byw, o'r ddweud o'r byw, a'r ddweud o'r byw ..y'n gyfwag yw'r coleg y gallwn bod wedyn.. ..y'n dweud hynny iawn i'n ysgoleth. Yw'r cymdeithasol yw yw yw'r cynchyslwydau.. ..y fydda i'r cyllid yma hwn yw'r cyffredig ymddangos.. ..y'n eich bod yn y ddweud yw'n cyffredig yw ymddangos.. ..y'r reoli cyllid ymddangos ymddangos yw ysgoleth. Ymddangos yw yw'r cyllid ymddangos yw yw'r cyllid ymddangos yw.. Mae'r symud, os gallwch yn fawr yn tylgrifaur i fynd y ComIsio, y roi am y Fyrgoniaeth Cymru a'r cyfrifyrwyr i'r Rhaglen lleguaeth gwych, yn cyrraedd y 2003 o gyhoi, bydd e ir dim yn syniad y byrraedd a ddyn nhw'n byw'r cyfrifyrwyr yn cael eu amserio sy'n cymaintio'r righte of the child. Mae'n arweinydd â'r llai fydd o'r llai cyfladell yn y dweud iawn. Mae'r llai fydd o'r llai y rwyng o'n cyfrifiadau cympasol, ond mae'n amser o'r llai'r ychydig iaith a'r llyflau cyflinol ar y dyfodol ac yn ystafod â'r cyfleid o'r bwysig yn ystafod o'r cyflinol. A'r hyn a'n ddigon hi eisiau bod fynd i'r rhonddaeth yma, byddiwch ar y cyflyroddau cyflinolau cyflinol, yn gweithio'r bwysig ar y cifnol. Ond dob i'r clywed o adeddu'r cyflyn yma, byddiwch ar y cyflinol ar gyflinol sy'n chwarae sydd gyda'r cyflinol ar hynny'r cyflinol, ar y llyfr eich cyflinol ar gyflinol, The challenges that might be made on issues to do with Children's Rights Was one that we valued and we valued many state-holders as well. Like it is something I might add, it is something like Maybe it was a theme within the discussions that went on in the run up during the passage of the legislation But I think has made to come out a bit more strongly through the passing year And it's maybe picking up a theme that the Ombudsman made in his submission, or their submission to this committee as part of the passage of Mhm legislation. And that there is, there does appear to be a significant issue about children and young people being part of the complaints landscape. They're due to appear to be recognized challenges about how they should be taking part in that landscape. And I think there is a, in addition to the value that we continue to see within the parties. part two of the legislation. There is maybe an additional benefit that comes for having the commissioner's office as a way to help children and young people if you will get in and make the best use of the existing complaints landscape. That's a value that it seems the other complaints bodies are acknowledged and one that I think comes out quite strongly from the report. So, if you will, I guess in a sense of scope and in a sense of the direction we would wish to see the legislative duties be taken, I think there's an added benefit there about the role they can have in terms of, I think the word I would maybe use is enhanced signposting to support the existing complaints bodies. I'm interested you said that about signposting or I was going to use the word gatekeeper, I'm not sure if that's appropriate. But signposting young people, children and young people to perhaps a more appropriate place to take their case. When we wrote to you at the time, you wrote back, not you personally, I can't remember if it was you personally, I don't think it was, but the Government wrote back and said, I'm going to quote, we would therefore not foresee there being a role for the commissioner to have extensive ongoing involvement in a case prior to local processes being exhausted etc. I'm just wondering whether, how does what you just said about the role in the early part of a case fit in with the letter you sent us earlier in the year or last year I think? The key thing is to get involved in those processes. I think once those processes kick in, it's absolutely right that those processes should be allowed to go forward and I think any confusion of that would probably just make the landscape even more complicated. But there does seem to be an issue about being aware of what processes are there, how it works going through, what have you. In a sense enabling children and young people and presumably their families to be able to take full value of those processes. There does appear, I think maybe over the course of the year it's become even more apparent that there is a role in which the commissioner's office can play which will help to do that. I don't see that as getting involved in the processes themselves necessarily and I think we would still hold by what was written to the committee at that time. But I think it's just appreciating if you will, the work that goes on before that stage is maybe something that we can become more mindful of. It's the nature of legislation, the nature of new duties as you get further into it, you begin to appreciate that there are elements of it that may require more consideration, more thinking through. And indeed there may be additional value and benefits that come out of the duties that maybe weren't wholly apparent at the time. I think that ability to get in to the complaints processes is one that is perhaps worth acknowledging. OK, thank you very much. I come new to this and having read the report which I think is a very good report. What concerns me is what you just said in terms of legislation as we go through we have to understand the changes. How much effort went into looking at not just the processes but the organisation and how this whole thing would flow before we brought the original act before the legislature. I mean I get kind of concerned when officials come here and say well there's legislation and we accept that will be fundamental changes but I have to question what. Processes you went through in the various other bodies to make sure that the landscape wasn't complicated, that it was as easy as possible. We went through a very thorough process, we went through, we would have to do it. So why is the landscape complicated? The landscape was complicated coming into this. The landscape was complicated by the nature of the different bodies and the different roles they already had. It existed well before the 2014 act and existed before. It's one of the reasons that we were, that part two was actually set which is I guess in part a way of thinking is there ways of ensuring that in all that complexity that children's rights were addressed in a systematic way across the whole of all the areas that you would want to be picked up. As part of that work we had to do very thorough work in terms of for example the financial memorandum which is in a sense working out what it is that the commissioner's office may have to be doing, what kind of resources it may require and that required quite extensive liaison with the other complaints bodies, not least the Almundsman, the Care Inspectorate and the Human Rights Commission, but also actually seeing how it was done in other parts of the different nations of the UK, Wales, Northern Ireland and what have you. When you looked at them you felt that there might have been a better way of doing things. I'd have to go back and actually check with colleagues about the specific discussions I'd had that took place because I wasn't at those discussions, but certainly all the reports that I heard at the time sort of had overall responsibility I guess for the bill team going through the legislation, going through Parliament at that time. But there was no sense at all that there was maybe other ways of doing it. I think there was a recognition that every nation will have its own distinctive legal landscape, its own complaints landscape, so therefore what precisely works in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be replicated wholesale obviously in any other of the nations. But I think there was a recognition that in those other nations the Children's Commissioner could have a very powerful role. Now we have a different landscape here and how that role translates in Scotland was something we thought long and hard about, both in terms of the proposals that were put forward and indeed the actual drafting and indeed was well discussed as we passed through, not least stage two in this committee. So I think there was a recognition that there would be a very powerful role to be had but it would need some careful thinking and that careful thinking was done. I mean I agree with that but the question has been answered in terms of, you know, we're still maintaining all the other complaints bodies. My question is in looking at the overall, as you say, process where all these other bodies necessary or the very powerful position that the commissioner has and should have, why didn't we look at some of these complaint bodies and try and embrace them into fewer organisations? That would have swept up a much wider, I guess, revision reform of the complaints landscape which I think would have gone well beyond what the Children and Young People Act was envisaged to be done, to be doing. I think there was a recognition that, I guess I'll give an example, as part of the work that was done into looking into assembling the material for this report, I was part of a conference call that went on with Welsh colleagues, particularly Welsh commissioner's office and a number of other colleagues elsewhere about how complaints procedures worked in other parts of the UK. And what really struck me about what was going on in Wales was that you had formal roles and they had to be respected and you had, you need to have clear memorand of understanding in order to proceed. But what was fascinating, I think, was the fact that there was a spirit of co-operation, there was a feeling of they all shared the same goals and therefore it was all about the relationship building that worked. I would hope that that sort of attitude would be something that should lie at the heart of how we work our way through from in terms of how the complaints procedures should apply to children and young people should also apply to children's rights, rather than relying wholly, I would say, on the clear legal definitions, memorand of understanding, which are essential, but I think it's that relationship that's important. And I guess the feeling that's embodied in the Children and Young People Act is that it's that relationship building that remains very important. We'll come back to it. Thank you. I was surprised to read this 90-page report, the 18-page summary and all the other documents that's taken seven months for the Children's Commissioner to complete. I was surprised to read that within that they'd hired the services of senior council. Now that doesn't come cheap. But it hired the services of senior council in order to interpret both words and clauses within the bill. Now, as a member of this committee, we have no access to senior council and I know as an economist, another economist who totally disagrees with my interpretation and I know that our justice system thrives on senior council lawyers and judges both interpreting legislation in quite different ways. And with the best will in the world, there is always a degree of ambiguity despite everyone's best efforts. Having read the interpretation by senior council, is your view of that single, we've got nothing to compare it with, is your view of that accurate? Do you think it's been interpreted accurately? You won't be surprised to say that I won't be commenting on what the legal opinion that's been taken by the commissioner's office. I guess at the end of the day, the Scottish government has its own legal opinion, that legal opinion clearly deeply informed the way in which the part two was cast, the way in which we shepherded it through Parliament and what have you, and our expectations around it. And that would be the view that we hold. So Diolch yn fawr i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd. Let yourself, I have an economic background. I think one thing as an economist I'd be wary about is wandering into other professionals territory. Indeed, indeed. I'm glad you said that, that's my issue today, and I respect the fact that you cannot comment. As an economist rather than a lawyer, I find it difficult to comment also, and I'm sure you understand that. So I just go on to my second point. I'm at a disadvantage because I wasn't here during the consultation stage one, two and three, my colleague Liz Smith followed that process through. Can I just ask you about the named person? Buried away in page 46 of the Children's Commissioner's 90 page report is a mention of the named person. It's worth highlighting children and young people Scotland Act 2014 gives ministers powers to introduce new complaints procedures by regulations relating to named person part 4, section 30 and the child's plan part 5, section 43. This will be consulted upon in summer 2015. Given that, and I respect and welcome the fact that that will be consulted on, in your response to Chick Brody and throughout all of this, and I have read every page, there is undoubtedly a complex and cluttered landscape for the complaints procedure through various organisations. If you're about to consult on the complaints procedure for the named person, I actually find, there's hardly a mention of the named person in here, so will it be the case that, well, can I put it to you, would it not be wise to look during your consultation at the complaints procedure for the named person at the same time in the same act as looking at the investigatory powers for complaints for the Children's Commissioner. You know, I can't understand why the Government are carrying out a consultation exercise, which I welcome. And today we have to make a decision about one part of this bill and you're about to consult on the complaints procedure for a different part of the bill. Would it not be wise to carry out one consultation exercise to see where the Children's Commissioner fits in and where the named person fits in, because there's no mention in all these documents of the named person. It's quite a lot there, so let's see if I can unpack it quite succinctly. I hope you appreciate that. I do, I do. I just hope I can do it as succinctly as I can, so my apologies if some of it is maybe too succinct. I guess the first thing to say is there is no consultation, if you will, and we have no remit as a Scottish Government for doing a consultation on the Part 2 powers. That is a duty that falls upon the Commissioner. I think it would be inappropriate for us to be able to say we're going to consult on how the Commissioner should fulfill their duties, what have you. Those powers aren't in the act and I think it would be difficult to imagine how we could do that on a formal basis, which is just a straight up answer. More deeply, the complaints procedure within parts 4 and 5 are kind of essential because they're dealing with this new responsibility that will be falling on the main, local authorities for kids from the age of 5 upwards and health boards for kids up to the age of 5. And that is to do, I guess, with the specific functions and responsibilities that will be coming out of parts 4 and 5 of the act, to do with the named person, the child's plan. That is quite different, or at least I would argue that's quite different from what the Commissioner is being charged to do under part 2 of the act. The Commissioner doesn't have a role with respect to, doesn't have a formal role under part 2 with respect to the way that parts 4 and 5 act, the way that named person, the child's plan works. Now you would hope... There's no overlap there. The overlap would be in the sense in which I guess it's the theme that runs through the whole of the legislation, which is to say we wish for all the different functions, all the different parts of the act to be carried on in a way that is wholly consistent with children's rights. We wanted the UNCRC to permeate this legislation. We wanted this to be a very much a rights-based approach to carrying things forward. So when we think about parts 4 and 5 and the way that's carried forward, we want it to be carried forward in a way that recognizes children's rights. And I can assure you that when we do come out to consultation, as we will be doing over the summer on the complaints procedure for parts 4 and 5, we hope that that is very transparent, that that children's rights approach does well. It does permeate in terms of a philosophy. But I guess what the complaints procedure to do with parts 2 is a distinctive role. It's something that sits above, for example, the complaints that may sit against how a teacher may carry out their role, how a health visitor may carry out their role, how a social worker carries out their role. And I guess in the same sense, the name person is part of, maybe is more kind to that sort of way of thinking about the complaints process, how a particular professional or service that should be provided to a child, a young person or a family, how that's carried out as opposed to something which is more overarching, which is what part 2 is trying to capture. I do think you point out, you do make a very important point though, which is that in coming out with the complaints procedure and indeed in thinking about how all the different parts of the act, I think it's incumbent upon all the people for whom there are duties to show how these different things work together. I think it's very, while they are distinct and they're always designed to be distinct and to serve particular functions, I think it's important for us to show not least to children and people families how those different functions fit together. So if there's something indeed I would walk away from your question with, I would just reinforce for me the importance that when we do go out to consult on the complaints procedures, we absolutely do need to make clear how it fits in and how it is distinctive from other parts of, if you will, the complaints landscape, but also other parts of the legislation that it may touch upon. I mean, quite, I'm still struggling to understand one example that would justify these investigatory powers, but the closest I've probably got to it would be social work, you know, that would be the closest and yet you say that social work complaints would be covered under the named person. No, no, no. Let me be clear. Let me be clear what I, and my apologies if I wasn't very clear about that. What I was saying is that the complaints... I probably didn't understand. You didn't mention social work. I did, I did. I guess I also mentioned teachers health visitors. I think what I was suggesting is that the complaints procedures with regard to the named person and child's plan are similar to, for example, the complaints that someone might wish to make about any professional or any service that is provided by a local authority and health board. And that could mean social work, it could mean health, it could be anything. So in other words, it's about a distinct service which there's a responsibility for local authorities and health board to provide. That's what the legislation says. It says they must provide the named person and we appropriately need to provide a child's plan. So the complaints procedure will be similar, I guess, to how complaints procedures address those other sorts of issues. We need to work out the detail about that, but it's that kind of thing. Whereas I think what the complaints procedure has set out for the children's commissioner's office is a more overarching thing. It sits, if you will, above that and deals more specifically with the issue of children's rights. I don't want to take up too much time, so I'll just ask my final question, although I have many, many questions. I've also read the comments from the Ombudsman, the Care Inspectorate, Human Rights Commissioner, Health Improvement Scotland, Information Commissioner, Mental Welfare Commission and there is absolutely no doubt, as you said in your response to Chick Brody, of their willingness to work together. But there's also no doubting the overlap and there's also no doubt of, sorry, if I can just say, Care Inspectorate, clearly an overlap. The Information Commissioner in all the reports, I think it's what the convener said, there's very little mention of working together. There are also the nature of the complaints, unpredictable and undefinable. She's also concerned that the proposed methodology is too simplistic and in some cases unworkable. I thought the Ombudsman's comment, I would not consider it appropriate to comment on the interpretation of another office holder of their own legislation. Actually, I read it carefully because what I was looking for was for one of them to say, we don't deal with this, we really need a complete new body children's commissioner to do this because we can't do it. But what I read was of overlap, willingness to work together. I also read of the difficulties working together. I think it was the Information Commissioner that some information cannot be shared. Duty to Co-operate, others have restrictions placed on them. All I heard was difficulties and I still, after 90 pages, seven months, summary documents, information, I am still sitting here struggling to see what are the complaints that we're turning away just now. What's happening out there to children who are making complaints and they're being turned away, they are not being served by our current system. I've read all of this and I still don't have it. Perhaps you could tell me. Well, that may well be a question you wish to push to Mr Bailey, I guess. Well, I thought I'd try with you first. Well, it's always good to have two bites of cherry, I guess, but my sense from the report is that it is a complex science-cape. It was a complex science-cape that was inherited by the legislation. My sense is, for having spoken to many of the individuals involved, that there is, as you say, a huge willingness to work together and a recognition of the value that could be played in, perhaps I might say, an informal way about, I mentioned before about enhanced signposting, but about that role about working together to help kids and young people get into the system. Sorry, there's a big difference between signposting and investigatory powers. No, no, no, I do. I'm perfacing my comments. I understand, but investigatory powers are very different to signposting. No, no, I understand that and I was coming to that. Two different beasts. I was coming to that, but my sense from the report is that there are clearly areas which are set out, where it would appear that the commissioner's office is able to step into a role that is not readily identifiable than anyone else would. I think there's an example there about an informal exclusion from school, I believe. Named person? No, I don't think it's that one. Would a named person not be involved in an exclusion from school and social work? They might weld you, but I think if we're talking about the complaints, I'm not sure it would be the named person who would be responsible for the complaints in the same way that we're talking about something I think where the complaint may be made against whoever the responsible authorities are. My understanding is that the named person would get involved right away. I misunderstood, but that would be their responsibility to go to the family, social work, see what's happening. Absolutely, and that would be the way of resolving the issue. So that's not a clear example then? Well, no, I guess the suggestion is if it was not resolved, if the work of anyone involved with the schools or the local authorities did not resolve the issue to the satisfaction, I guess, of the child, the young person, the family, and maybe this is an example you may wish to ask Mr Bailey about in more detail. But it would not be, again, if there was a sense of dissatisfaction there, how is that dissatisfaction taken forward? And there did appear to be an example there. And there does appear to be examples about sectors and areas where, at least with regard to children's rights, there doesn't appear to be a clear locus or responsibility for any of the existing complaint bodies to be able to take forward. So I'm certainly seeing that there are areas here of things which the office could take forward. I think that what the full scale of that and the scope of that is something to be explored further, I would suggest. I thought you were very sorry. Sorry. There are other members who want to come in there. I'm sure you'll have further options later. Liam McArthur. Thank you and apologies for being slightly late this morning. Just looking back at the committee stage 1 report on the bill, I'm reminded that two of our recommendations were, we expect all parties to be clear about the interpretation of the commissioner's new powers and suggest that, if necessary, the bill should be amended to ensure this. I think it goes on. We recommend that the Scottish Government gives further consideration to the volume and type of work that any extra inquiries will require. Now, in response to that, the government gave us an assurance effectively that they felt this part of the bill was clear in the financial estimates fair. I mean, I paraphrase, but that was broadly the gist of that response. Given that we've now had a number of months, a fairly comprehensive mapping exercise, and there's still questions around these areas. Do you think that the Scottish Government was justified in the assurances it gave us in response to that stage 1 report? I guess the reassurances we gave you is that, insofar as any of this work can be calculated and worked out in advance, we've made every effort to be able to exhaust, if you will, the assessments about what the likely volume and the likely nature of the work would be going forward. I guess inevitably with these things that there will be, I think there's always a recognition that we need to be further work from the commissioner's office working closely with the other complaints bodies. And I see that the report here is obviously a significant step forward. Presumably when it comes to actually detailing the memorand of understanding that I think would be needed and which seems to have been recognized across the board as needing to be done, that would be where I guess the final detail that will come forward. And then it may well be the case that it would need to see how the demand goes forward going in terms of the types of complaints that come forward and how they'd be dealt with. But I guess at the moment there's nothing I think that would change the fundamental assumptions that went into the financial memorandum. I mean there you've rather reiterated again I think points that were made in the government's response that there would be a sort of an ongoing process of keeping things under review and ongoing discussions between various participants in this area, which I don't think is unreasonable. As a committee and I suppose the corporate body of which I'm also a member as well has a fairly specific request in terms of the capacity requirements from the commissioner to deal with the increased workload. And I still don't have a clear understanding and I don't think anybody seems to be claiming to have a clear understanding of what that likely workload is going to be. And therefore I think we're in this invidious position of trying to determine whether or not the specific proposals in terms of the capacity requirements of the commissioner in his office meet the anticipated workload requirements that arise from this bill. It would obviously be a matter for yourselves and for the office to decide I guess how best to resource in those circumstances. I imagine it won't be the first time where there's an element of if you will demand led and that demand may not be necessarily certain about how to predict that demand going forward. And therefore I guess a degree of caution and wariness and close monitoring of how those resources are doled out over a period of year maybe several years would be necessary. It doesn't sound different in nature to the way some of these functions are carried out where they cannot be precise estimates of demands. And I'm sure in some ways the ombudsman's office when it was maybe starting to ramp up in its initial days I think way back you couldn't have made the same predictions about how complaints will evolve. But in the sense that would argue for a sort of staged approach which says look we will see how this works in practice and therefore the capacity requirements of the commissioner's office may increase over time. But actually putting in that resource in anticipation of potential demand some years down the line doesn't necessarily make a great deal of sense and potentially risks putting in place resource that then seeks to justify its presence by going out and perhaps disrupting this kind of ecosystem of MOUs and collaborative working with other stakeholders. That's clearly a decision for yourselves. I mean it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. I guess I would only offer the observation that it sounds to me that this is not an unusual situation to get in and that there is a body that will need cannot make an accurate an exact if I will and final estimate of what the demand will be over a period of years. And therefore there will be well understood principles for how to resource and monitor that sort of situation going forward in a way that would give comfort to the body to be able to fulfil its obligations. And also comfort to the funders to be able to realise that they have not given resources a way that should not have been given away. I want to come back to some of the points that Mary raised at the beginning. If my understanding was right you suggested that there might be scope for signposting. Under the 2003 act it says that there is restriction to this power is that investigations must not duplicate work that is properly the function of another person and Mary went through a lot of the concerns of other organisations about the duplication. I read the submission that the commissioner put forward to the corporate body in terms of job descriptions. It says that one position is head of complaints and investigations. And it says to lead investigations which arise from complaints received by the office. And the case worker part of the job description is to assist the head of complaints and investigations in the execution of formal investigations. And then the actual budget itself has a very small budget I hast not to add for expert advice. Does that sound like an organisation that's being created to act as a signposting organisation or is it an organisation that's being set up that is going to go into that minefield of duplication? I would suggest it's neither actually. I don't wish to comment on the resources which the office is putting forward and requesting. We've set out what we think the cost would be very clearly in the financial memorandum which is in front of me. Three additional full time equivalent staff and we set out what we thought they might be. And that's to cover an organisation that would be conducting investigations. That would be doing the preparatory work for the investigations. That would be doing the work for determining what would be appropriate to take forward as an investigation. In other words, non duplication. And that would be dealing with the, if you will, the interest and the demand that would come into that organisation for people saying I wish to make a complaint. In which case they may, they will have to work out who sits with that or who sits with the commissioner's office and where it sits elsewhere. So it's not a signposting organisation. It's not an organisation seeking to duplicate. I would suggest in terms of what we envisage in the financial memorandum. It's something which does all the necessary functions in order to fulfil the duties under the act. The difficulty I'm having is the Scottish Information Commissioner says for some organisations including mine there are restrictions on what we can share with whom. For us these restrictions are such that they create a criminal offence and cannot be overcome by a memorandum of understanding. So how can you create a third investigative body which can't get any information from one organisation because it's a criminal offence? Well, I presume that if there's any memorandum of understanding that would take place or however it wishes to be phrased, it would need to take full account of what the Information Commissioner's office is able to do, not least with respect to issues that might be about criminal offences. It would just become part of the landscape that would need to be mapped out, that would need to be understood before any work goes forward. I would assume that in the existing landscape before the 2014 act some of those issues must have already arisen. These four bodies must have bumped up against each other if I could put it that way themselves. So some of the issues that have been arisen, some of the need for having clear lines and understanding can't be novel to them. There must be issues that they have recognised and addressed and have found, I presume, formal and informal ways of going forward again, of working their way through. So while it's a new set of issues, it's a new body that needs to be part of that landscape, I'm not sure the process of adjusting to that landscape is something which is novel because other bodies have tried to presumably do it in the past. Practically everybody's been skirting around and discussing the issue of the boundaries and where perhaps there might be overlaps and so on. The report itself doesn't deal an awful lot with where collaboration and co-operation as such could come into this. Do you think that it's a very complex landscape out there that has been repeated again and again and again? Isn't this a huge task to reconcile all these boundaries and overlays and collaborations and co-operations? It's a major task. It's a task that seems to have been done in other parts of the United Kingdom, and as I said before, I was very much struck by the spirit of co-operation, the strong relationships that were developed elsewhere, where people worked with each other with a degree of respect, with a degree of recognition of where expertise lay, and they managed to find ways through it. They managed to find ways through it in a way that seemed to ease the administrative burden and not add to the complexity. Now, how they managed to do it and whether that could be replicated in Scotland is something I think we would all have to look to the complaints bodies in the commissioner's office to be able to demonstrate and to do. My understanding from the discussions I've had with them when I have chatted is that there is very much that spirit of co-operation. It's permeated many of the responses you've seen, and I think it certainly lies behind some of the comments that Mr Bailey has said before. If it hasn't come out as much in the report as it might have done, that's maybe something to pick up with Mr Bailey about how that co-operation might work in practice. Do you think it's any more complex here in Scotland than elsewhere? I don't know. I think every area will probably lay claim to its own complexity, the own idiosyncrasies of its system, what have you. I'm a great believer in thinking that if everyone remains focused on what the ultimate goal is, which is to ensure that children and young people, if you will, are done right by the services that are there for them, and that we provide the right kind of supports and safety nets to make sure that, whether that isn't taking place or where it's perceived not to be taking place, they can get the redress, if you will, that they should have. If people remain focused on that, they will find a way. They seem to have found a way in other parts of the United Kingdom. I've seen a reason why we shouldn't be able to be hopeful, why we shouldn't remain very optimistic that it could take place here. Given the number of overlaps that have been identified, I was interested to see that the idea is that the commissioner does not duplicate, but I see that the commissioner on page 6 of the summary report highlights the opinion of council that the other person, the other entity, doesn't have to exercise that power, which is duplicated merely by having it precludes the commissioner from exercising that power. That could severely constrain what the commissioner can do, given the sheer number of overlaps, as I say, and the fact that all these boundaries are still going to be negotiated. Where are we going on this? How are we going to end up with a commissioner that actually won't have the powers that we think he has, because the powers are at least partially duplicated elsewhere, and even if that other party isn't exercising the powers, the commissioner can't do anything about it? I mean, ultimately, that would be a comment on the legal opinion you received, and I'm not in a position, nor I think would it be appropriate for me to do that, I guess, because that's partly... I'm more concerned about the results of that legal opinion rather than the legal opinion itself. Well, that will come out, I guess, in terms of how the commissioner chooses to carry forward with the duties, and how the other bodies and the relationships they come to, I guess. And as I said before, if there's the will and the spirit of co-operation, they should be able to do it in a way that enhances the landscape around the detracts from it. Thank you very much, Mr Reins, for appearing for the committee this morning. I'm going to suspend briefly so we can change witnesses. Thank you. Can I welcome to the committee this morning, Tam Bailey, Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, and the staff, Pauline McIntyre and Nico Dutton. Good to see you all this morning. We're going to go straight to questions, and I'm going to begin this panel's questions with Siobhan. Thank you, convener. Children and young people don't currently use the systems that are there for complaints procedures. How on earth will this change? In the 90-page report, I don't get the sense of how it will change. I've got the sense of what you hope to do. I've got the sense of the procedure. But how will that change for a young person? I'll answer that quickly, and then I'll pass to Pauline in terms of the model of operation. We've taken soundings from children and young people. You're right. They don't use complaint systems. Part of the reason they don't use complaint systems is that they don't think they'll be listened to or taken seriously. In fact, that's why our national scrutiny bodies, of which we've been discussing this morning, don't see children and young people because they don't even get passed the local authority. Our job will be to engage or the local processes, not just local authority. Our job will be to receive the complaints from those young people and assist them through that. We're well used to dealing with young people. We have a lot of engagement with children and young people through the office, and I'm sure that we will be able to actually set the office up in a child-friendly manner that will attract those children and young people or those representing them. I suppose that having listened to the first session is that this is really about opportunities for children and young people. I think that we've talked a lot about some of the barriers and some of the difficulties around duplication. I think that our take on it is that children and young people often have a valid reason to complain but do not know where to go. The complaints bodies that we've talked to in the regulators have been very clear that they would welcome those complaints but that they don't currently receive them. I think that what we're looking to do is to provide that centre where children and young people could come and know that we would support them to bring their complaints to the appropriate body. I think that that's the approach that we're taking. One of the things that came out of the discussions with children and young people and also with practitioners was that children and young people could be quite intimidated by the idea of bringing a complaint, particularly where it was about someone that they had regular dealings with. A teacher, a social worker, a case worker. They often weighed up the impact of making that complaint against the value of bringing the complaint itself. I think that we would be able to help with that in terms of our approach in bringing a child-friendly field to that complaints process. I think that the other flip side to that is that we would also be able to help the other bodies and work with them to ensure that their approaches were child-friendly and that the response that the child or young person received when they made their complaint was appropriate to them. I suppose in your answer, Pauline, you said that children currently don't know where to go. I think that everyone recognises that. How will that change then? Obviously, you can put all the procedures and all the policies in place to allow a young person to complain, but when they don't know where to turn to, how is that going to change? How are we getting that information out there? I think that there is a body of work for us to do as an office in terms of letting children and young people know what our role is and how we operate. I think that there is a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of us linking in with local organisations, working with children and young people, with general publicity, with targeting particular groups that we have found that are finding it more difficult to complain. For example, asylum-seeking children, we have been told by practitioners that finding it very difficult to navigate the complaints landscape. Younger children find it difficult, children with learning disabilities and other groups of children and young people. It is a kind of dual approach. We would be taking a general approach in terms of publicising the work of the office and what we could do to assist, but at the same time we would also be targeting particular groups that we were aware found it more difficult than others to complain. We are just having a discussion with my colleague, Chick Brodyhead. We are talking about whether you have to get it right now or, indeed, if you don't want to become an adult, you have already got the experience of being let down. If you look at the legal opinion that you have received in the EHRC's response to that about how, if they don't investigate, you don't have the power to do so, that limits. So a child comes along to you and says, okay, they didn't do it, but we wish for you to investigate. Do you not think that they would be let down at that point? I don't know if you would like to answer that. Yes. I believe what you are referring to is the part of the legal opinion that was already cited earlier, which is that it is another person's function that would exclude the commission's agreement as opposed to their action. That is what the legal opinion says, and yes, there will be situations where another body has a function to investigate a complaint by a child, but for their own reasons will not take action and will not investigate that complaint. That will pose challenges to that child and to potentially even to the credibility of our complaints system when you think about it. So I think it's a communications challenge as much as anything else. The decisions need to be explained properly to children and young people and what the expectations can be from each process. But if they are aware to be gaps in the system as a result of that, I think they would need to be addressed. I'm not quite sure I agree, though, that it's a communication problem. Today HRC said, you cannot duplicate the work that is properly the function of any other body even if we decide not to undertake an investigation. I think your re-emit is narrow on page 51. Then we go to the information commissioner who said, we would be breaking the law, it wouldn't be a memorandum, so it wouldn't be communication, it would be we can't simply do those things. Therefore a child has presented himself to you who may not have done that in the past, may not have known where to go to once their complaint dealt with. I'm trying to get to where your response is. Do you say, actually we can't deal with that because the information commissioner won't give us the information, so really sorry, or we're going to try and circumvent that somehow? I mean, I'm just trying to get to that, it doesn't come across, and therefore really we're still with the children and young people not using a complaints procedure, we're still stuck there. It doesn't matter what complaints process you look at, local or national, they all have limitations on them. And what's been referred to, for instance, the information commissioner's response is specific limitations on the legislation we freedom of information. And yes, she did indicate that in certain instances she would be obliged not to share information because that would be breaking the law. But if you also read that you'll see at the bottom that she says there's still scope for a memorandum of understanding. So it's not in all instances and it doesn't exclude working arrangements with that particular commissioner's office. And the key point here for me is it's a very complicated landscape. Everybody accepts that. We find it complicated. How much more complicated do our children and young people find it when they want to complain? When eventually they get an issue which they feel confident to make a complaint on, they are going to need a lot of assistance through that. And part of our response will be to help them through that, particularly at local level because they don't even get past local complaints processes. That's why the children and young people don't figure in the complaints processes of our national scrutiny organisations. It doesn't get to that stage because what the children are looking for is some kind of resolution. And a resolution that doesn't compromise them with people that they have regular dealings with. So we'll get to that stages. It may do. The two outcomes of the bulk of the activity of the office will be either resolution without it going through any complaints process because people will have the opportunity to take a second look at it. Or that children are assisted to navigate local complaints processes. And inevitably there will be some that reach the national bodies. But really what we're looking at here is not to generate an industry of complaints. It's to get resolution for children and young people that feel in some shape or form their rights, interests or views haven't been taken properly into your account. You heard my question earlier to Mr Reins regarding this complicated landscape. I'm a very simple person in terms of just looking at how do we get outcomes simply? Apart from encouraging children to complain, who actually do you believe owns the outcome of the complaint given this complicated landscape, which I'd rather call bureaucratic bunkum? How do we get through that? Who actually owns the complaint, resolves the complaint without, I'm sure there could be co-operation, but through this whole tunnel, dark tunnel of communication, the communication challenge which has been mentioned, who answers the children's questions and resolves them and who has the authority to do that? That hits at the nub of how complicated matters are. And in fact I'll refer you to something that was said by the Information Commissioner in her response and it said, this complaint she'd outlined a complaint about social work. She said this complaint would potentially overlap and it's illustrative not comprehensive. The local authority complaint has to go then before it goes to SPSO, SPSO, the Scottish Information Commissioner, the UK Information Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner. Because of the complicated landscape you actually have ownership, as you describe it, located in a number of different places depending on how it's sorted or what the details are of the complaint. So of course the people that own the complaint are, I would say, the young person who actually wants some resolution and the person or bodies who have got responsibility or that could in fact be any number of bodies. And in fact the Information Commissioner helpfully was on to say that it sounds like a criticism but we haven't paid sufficient attention in that early stage of the complaint resolution, even though I think that the bulk of the activity that we will be involved in is actually in the early stages before it gets anywhere near investigation because of the complex nature of it. That's why you need specialist knowledgeable staff to actually tackle this area and that comment was made frequently to us. I understand that and I appreciate the answer and I have no doubt that there will be cooperation. But my objective, I'm sure your objective, and I applaud the report as being helpful. I wasn't here when the other one was produced. But seeing as the children, the children have to be encouraged to bring complaints but at the end of the day what I'm trying to get to is who in this huge bureaucratic landscape is responsible. I know you have to call an expert, but I'm still not clear. Can you just tell me in terms of, we heard about your conference calls and talking to Wales and what have you, in terms of the wider international landscape, what evidence do you have as to how the objectives that I seek are being addressed? OK. If a complaint comes to ourselves, then we will take the responsibility of seeking to give best advice and it was mentioned about enhanced signposting. That's an awful lot more than just pointing a young person or a family in the direction of a particular body. We will take responsibility of contacting those bodies and ensuring that if it is another body's responsibility that that is taken seriously and is actually passed on in a way which facilitates the resolution for the child or the young person. The experience of these other bodies is that the involvement of the commissioner's office actually generates or facilitates a resolution in itself because the organisations don't want to have complaints what they want. It's actually in most instances the best answers to the young person and some kind of resolution. Are there international bodies? You have many ombudspersons in Europe carrying case handling responsibility and in fact our Nordic colleagues are facing the same criticism from the UN committee as the UK faces which is that our commissioners don't handle individual cases and we're in consultation with them because they're very interested in developing case handling responsibility. My direction of travel is a growing number. The majority of ombudspersons and children's commissioners have case handling responsibility and we've got lots of models to be able to use. We use the comparisons of Wales and Northern Ireland because they're closest to our own jurisdiction and they're under the jurisdiction of the UK. We in England don't have case handling responsibility and there's a particular issue for that in England because of the huge size of it. At least that seems one step forward in terms of who will have the responsibility. Before I bring in Colin, can you clear something up for me? It came up previously and I think it's come up again this morning from hopefully what I've listened carefully to what you've said, Mr Bailey. You mentioned a couple of times things like you would help them through it to the young people or another phrase I think you used was you would help them mediate through the process. The reason I'm asking about this, I want you to clear this up because these kind of phrases were used back at stage 1 when the bill was going through. We asked the Government about that at that time. I read it out earlier but I'll read it out again in the letter to the committee on the Scottish Government clarified and it said, We would therefore not foresee there being a role for the commissioner to have extensive on-going involvement in a case-prath local process is being exhausted and it is not our view that the commissioner should take on any mediation type role. That was backed up by the minister Aileen Campbell when she appeared before the committee as well. I'm just trying to understand when you say you'll help them through it, you'll mediate through the process and the government says that you won't have a mediation type role. Is there a problem there? No, but I think it might be helpful to talk through some of the examples because it's come up again this morning about clarity of actions and I think it might be helpful just to talk through some of the examples that we've given in the final chapter of the report where we gave three examples and gave I think quite detailed description. I'm happy to do that. I just would like a relatively simple answer before we do that as to whether or not you believe that your powers allow you to be involved in this mediation type role, mediation through the process I think was the phrase you used, or not. I'm trying to understand because I know you want to use the examples but in principle is it the case that you would be involved in that variation or not? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I used the word mediation. I thought you did say you would mediate through the process earlier on. Then later on you said you would help them. I stand corrected if I used that. We'll double check the OR afterwards. I think you did. I'll stand corrected. I think it would be helpful. I don't see any issue of us being involved in a case to assist the young person to get involved in local complaints processes. That's the question I think. Liam McArthur. My recollection is the same as the convener's on this. Looking through the note for today's meeting, I'd say there's a quote from Aileen Campbell from 17 December where she confirms the point about exhausting local dispute resolution processes but then goes on to say however once those processes have been exhausted we would not want to prevent the commissioner from mediating on an issue where such a course of action was likely to result in the matter being resolved more quickly and effectively and it could be perhaps achieved with a full investigation. After the processes have been... Indeed, but I think the use of the word mediation has been used at different stages in different aspects of the process. I'm not sure if there's a great deal more clarity but I think probably the government have used those in different contexts as well which is not necessarily helpful. I don't want myself to miss McArthur again, but I think the point here was that the question I'm trying to ask about is about mediation in the early stages through the point that we're talking about, the local processes as opposed to the quote from Aileen Campbell which was after local processes have been exhausted then there may be a role for the commissioner to be involved in the mediations. So I think they have two separate things. Can we go back to the local processes? Yes. Would you or would you not be mediating through that process? We would be assisting youngsters through that. Yes. So if you want to... If I use that word... Let's forget the word mediation then. Are you involved at that point? Absolutely, we would want to assist youngsters to access those local processes because that's a major gap in our system right now. Young people and children don't use them and they don't use them because they don't feel listened to or they actually don't want to escalate it. What they want is some resolution to their situation. Is there anything to prevent you from assisting a young person now in terms of where they go in terms of taking their complaint through the local process at the moment? In terms of our current person, we do not have an end point on that which would be... That's not my question though. My question is if a young person came to you just now and said I think I've got a complaint about something to do with my local authority. Could you assist them in the way that you described there at the moment? In a limited way because we would not have any capacity to ask the local authority about the specifics of that case because we don't have individual case handling responsibility. We're specifically debab from that under the 2003 act. I don't want to get picky on this but there's a difference between assisting a young person and responsibility. I think there's also a difference here because you're not supposed to get involved. I'll go back and quote it again but you're not supposed to get involved at the early stages as per the quote I read earlier twice from the Government. I'm trying to understand whether or not you're involved, assisting somebody and just saying, here's how you take it forward and this is the way you do it, you have to understand it, but the Government seemed to be quite clear that their interpretation of legislation is that you do not have a role in these early stages of the process. Again, our 2003 legislation, as it stands and as it will stand from this legislation, is as long as we cannot duplicate that which is the responsibility of another body. That's why you would actually try and get the young person to use what those other bodies are. Essentially, the first port of call would be local processes. I'm trying not to... Let's go to the examples then and see whether... Just before we go to the examples, I suppose maybe just an additional point just to answer your question. I think it's about the level of support that you're providing to that child or young person. Of course, if a child or young person brought somebody to the office at the moment, we would try and direct them to the right process but we don't have currently the set-up to enable us to do that in the way that we would like to do it in a way that we think is child and young person friendly in the sense of what we would want to do is not so much media on behalf of the child or young person. I think that's a bit of a misnomer. It's about supporting that child or young person to access local processes and in doing that, you might, for example, find a local advocacy support worker who could work with that child or young person. You might find another support agency who could then support that child on the ground. It's about making sure that as you transfer that child or young person into that complaints process, they're in the right place, they have the support that they need and also that the other body is prepared to deal with that child or young person in an appropriate way so they know about the particular needs of that child or young person. It's taking a holistic approach towards it whereas at the moment we're quite restricted. We don't have the staff to enable us to take that in-depth approach but we think that's the most child-friendly way of approaching this. I was about to leave it until that last sentence. This is where my concern is. It's about, and you're right, it's about the level of involvement. That's the fundamental question I'm asking. You said you don't have the resources at the moment to take forward an in-depth. Now, my interpretation would be that you're not supposed to take forward an in-depth. In-depth at this point. Sorry to interrupt. I would say it's in-depth, not in the sense of us actively becoming involved in that case. It's in-depth in the sense of us being able to take the time to identify the most appropriate support for that child or young person. So it's not about us actively being involved in that case, it's about us identifying that support and identifying which route to put that child or young person down. Okay, thank you. Colin McDonnell. Sorry, Colin Beattie. I do apologise. Apologies, Colin. You just want the same guy. I'm not sure if I'll take it as a compliment here. I'd like to come back to talking about these boundaries and so on. According to the specifications on your powers, they're rights-based investigatory powers. The concern, of course, is where there's overlaps and duplication and so on, because, as your own counsel stated, if that other person has any of that power to any great degree, then whether they choose to exercise that power or not, it would exclude the commissioner from actually taking action in that case. How would you deal with that? If you felt there was something that was going to be, that needed to be addressed, but there was another body with the powers that wasn't going to do it for any reason. How would you deal with that? You're right to point out, and it's already been mentioned this morning about the narrowing of the scope of the exercise of the power because of the wide-ranging implication of that non-duplication. In fact, that's one of the reasons that a number of investigations comes in at Solos 124. We will develop, and we've already been doing that during the mapping exercise, relationships with those other bodies, and we would certainly be wanting to seek some reasoning or rationale as to why that body wasn't dealing with that particular complaint or that particular issue. I remember, under my understanding, I couldn't possibly envisage the variety of cases that might come forward, so there would have to be a resolution. Memorandum of understanding won't be what you're going to, won't be what you predict, the range and variety of cases that are likely to come through. Some of this, some of the level of memorandum of understanding will be set in the framework, some of it will actually be establishing a custom and practice on how we operate with those other bodies. Clearly, the memorandum of understanding will be quite important, but what happens if there's a dispute between yourself and that body either in the course of producing the memorandum of understanding or subsequent to that? Who adjudicates? Who would decide? How would it be resolved? Before I bring Nickwin on that, my sense of the relationships that we've been establishing with the other bodies is that it's been very co-optive. You've seen, you've already been quoted, the other bodies are in agreement about establishing memorandum of understanding. We are an established office, I think that people will be professional in dealing with that and people are of a mind where they want something, they want this to work rather than have disputes on it. But inevitably, some people will have differences of opinion. I am absolutely confident that we will be able to work through those. I'll say that and I won't let me, that's on record. Absolutely confident that we will be able to work through that and that's on the basis of our experience of putting together this report and looking at what are the implications of what is quite a complicated exercise. The level of goodwill has been very high and I don't have any reason to doubt that that would continue. Nickwin, do you want to say something on that? Just to echo that, assuming it involves two organisations, any kind of dispute over where the boundaries lie, both organisations would be expected to approach that in good faith and to find a negotiated way through to any disagreements. In the end of the day, I have to say that the terms of the non-duplication requirement in the Act, or as it will be in the Act in section 72a, is essentially that the commissioner has to consider the evidence and any information received and then be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the investigation would not duplicate work and so on. So the judgement in terms of individual decisions is for the commissioner to be satisfied on reasonable grounds whether there is duplication or not. For those decisions, the commissioner can be held accountable and ultimately through the courts. If somebody disagrees with the judgement in an individual case and says, well actually we have power, I'm sure they won't be shy to come forward and have those discussions in good faith, but ultimately the backstop is judicial review of the commissioner's decision and then the commissioner will have to show that the decision was made on reasonable grounds, on relevant evidence, a rational decision. It's a general principle of public law and one that will apply to the commissioner's decision making. But if there is a tough war and it happens with the best will in the world, it happens and you've got a child in the middle of this perhaps, how do you resolve this quickly? Who do you judicate? You talk about judicial review, does the child have to wait for that judicial review before there's a decision? I think the answer to that is that it's in the child's best interest and in the interest of all organisations involved to make sure that we don't have to get to that point because that will take, as you've rightly pointed out, that will take time, expense and all the rest and that's not in anyone's interest. I would hope that everybody would have the child's interests right at the forefront there, but with the best will in the world again, you could end up with two organisations that believe they have the child's best interests at the forefront. How do you resolve it if there's two different points of view? I suppose the reassurance I would give you is that the overlaps are all over the place in this landscape and currently our existing bodies managed to resolve that. So it's not intractable and we should take the evidence of how the system operates at present. And that is that in my estimation, people are very respectful of other organisations and that at the centre of it is somebody, either an adult or a child, who is seeking some resolution. So I think that we should be reassured that however complicated this landscape is that people managed to, our bodies managed to resolve that in a way which doesn't damage the complainant. And I would think that we would take that, we would go at it in that same spirit of always keeping in mind what's in the best interests for that child. And I accept that sometimes there will be a difference of opinion, but these are resolvable and you can be reassured that they are resolved right now without the extension of the powers of the commissioner's office because as we illustrated, there are overlaps in many parts of the system. The memorand of understanding is obviously going to be a fairly high level document. You yourself state in your report that it's very difficult to deduce the proper functions of some regulators or complaints bodies as their remits make other areas of significance from a children's rights perspective. So the negotiations with bodies where you're having difficulty actually working out what the proper function, whatever the definition of proper function is, how long is this going to take? Well, in fact, that's the care inspector I think that you may be referring to. And they will be most enthusiastic in setting up a memorandum of understanding and that's the body that has got the widest scope, or one of the widest scopes in terms of the use of their powers and they were most enthusiastic in terms of engaging very early to say we're more than happy to look at memorandum of understanding. But I think it's actually your final question. I would just like to say that the court I gave was actually from your report where you were saying it was difficult to deduce the proper functions. This must make it quite difficult. Yeah, but I think, I don't have the paged reference in front of me, but that was certainly the case with regards to the care inspectorate. But I repeat, I'm confident that we can work that out. And the evidence of that has been in the production of the report. Even with this complicated landscape you have confirmation from all of those bodies that they are satisfied with the interpretation that has been given in the report. And that was quite an undertaking. And I know of other bodies that are looking at the tribunal landscape in Scotland who are taking much longer to produce a report on it just because of those complications. Mary Scanlon. First of all, to see all the bodies are satisfied with your report, none of them have actually said that. And secondly, a memorandum of understanding is something that we would absolutely expect from every organisation. And these are all thoroughly professional organisations. And I would expect no less. So saying a memorandum of understanding doesn't mean we are willing and we want, you know, it's not an endorsement of what's happening. It's an integral part of professional practice. So my first question, convener, is how many children's complaints have you turned away in the past year because you didn't have the individual case handling powers that are contained in the act? How many were turned away? I think this is getting at the volume of traffic that we expect. It's to do with the volume of complaints that are likely to be made. So I would like to refer you to the supplementary evidence that we provided as a result of my last appearance when we gave details of the estimates of the number of children that would make complaints. And on the basis of the evidence from Wales and Northern Ireland, we factored up the child population and came up with a figure of 870 complaints that we would have to handle on just on the basis of the similarity of roles. And that was provided as a result of the supplementary evidence. But to be fair, I didn't ask about Wales and Northern Ireland. I asked about how many people have come chaffing at your door, metaphorically speaking. In the past year that you've been unable to pursue their complaints because you didn't have adequate powers in staff. I really don't want to know about Wales in Northern Ireland or indeed England. I'm just looking at Scotland. How many have you turned away in the past year? We don't have the complaint handling power right now. So it's rather... I know you don't. It's a question that we can't answer, and I'll be frank. I cannot answer that question because we do not have the power right now. That's what we're debating in terms of the expansion of the... Right, okay. I'm not going to get an answer there. So my second question is... I've read through the SPSO, Cairns Spectric Human Rights Commissioner, Health Improvement Scotland who are asking for a robust memorandum Information Commissioner and Mental Welfare Commission. None of them have said, oh, yes, there are real serious problems here that we cannot investigate. Therefore, there is a need for the Children's Commissioner to undertake investigations because we can't do it. They have all given us thoroughly professional responses and as many of my colleagues have pointed out, they've mentioned Information Commissioner, Cairns Spectric, clearly an overlap. The SPSO has mentioned he wouldn't consider it appropriate to comment on interpreting another office holder's advice. There are clear concerns from the Information Commissioner and others. Given that you haven't identified a specific case, none of these organisations have said, hands up, we're having to turn away people, we can't deal with them. We've discussed a cluttered and complex landscape and much of what I've heard this morning will be the remit of the named person. So it's already cluttered and complex. The Government is about to undertake a consultation on the named person. Now don't tell me that it would be easier for a child in Betty Hill or Drum the Rocket to talk to their teacher or their health visitor and they would rather get a bus or a train to Edinburgh and come chaffing on your door. Do you not think it's already complicated? Nothing has been identified for you and it's going to be more complicated if you like or less, given what's happening with the named person. How can we clearly see the need for restigatory powers, your signposting, your supporting, mediation or otherwise? How can we see that without seeing the end result of the named person legislation and regulations? OK. I'd like to refer you to page 79 of the report, which is the case study 3 that we presented. Now remember, this report has been to all of the bodies and they have scrutinised that. Case 3 is an example when none of those other bodies would be dealing with that particular case and if there's time, convener, then it would be helpful to walk through that. I understand that. Of course we must answer the question but we don't have enough, they want a lot to do today. But it's wrong to say that we haven't identified a case that would be dealt with by these powers. And all of those other bodies are in agreement with the chapter where we have given those examples. Convener, the example given is a child who's being disruptive in school. Now I appreciate I didn't hear stage 1 stage 2 or stage 3 of the children young people's bill. But my understanding is that a child who's disruptive in school, the first port of call and hopefully the last port of call would be the named person who would use the GIFEQ arrangements, multidisciplinary, talk to social worker etc. So to me, there's no mention of the named person here in all of your pages but to me the example you've given that would be your responsibility, my understanding is it's the named person. Well with respect, the child in this instance has already made a complaint to the local authority and that complaint hasn't been upheld. In other words, the named person doesn't have a locus in terms of the complaint that the child is making. They have already made a complaint to the local authority and ordinarily that complaint could then be escalated to the public service ombuds person but they cannot deal with it because of the particularity of that issue because the child isn't actually excluded. It's essentially an internal exclusion in the school. So it wouldn't come under their locus either. The point is I don't know if you don't understand the legislation but you know at the moment the Children and Young People's Scotland Act the new complaints procedure regulations so the regulations relating to the complaints procedure for the named person part 4, section 30 and the child's plan part 5, 43 will be consulted on over the summer so there's the consultation to take place and I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job, convener but also it has to be scrutinised and endorsed by this committee so using an example to say well this is what's happening just now in three months time we'll be looking at regulations that will clearly define what a named person will do so you know I can't understand why we're looking at investigatory powers for you today given that any example you've given me is for the named person. I don't want to curtail, I never want to curtail any member's questioning but we've kind of covered that I just want to get a response from the commissioner on the issue which I think we've got which is your question about where you come in in terms of investigation clearly Mr Rains earlier talked about the role of a named person we haven't got the regulations yet but the role of the named person or others at that level and then later on it would be the commissioner with respect it's difficult to comment on a complaints process that isn't there yet and that the regulations haven't been passed nevertheless I think it would be rather short sighted to think that the named person will put an end to all complaints that go through local authorities and so you will still have instances where a child has a legitimate complaint that goes to the local authority and then it is not upheld that's the situation in this case so yes there may be another interplay with the named person it remains to be seen and I'll be interested in the deliberations of the committee in terms of how those would work but it would be very short sighted of us to think that just by having a named person means that a child's complaint would not be processed by the local authority and indeed found against and that's the situation that you've got here very brief paragraph 12 in information commissioner's response and she's responding to your 90 page in seven months in the making document there is little mention in the report of working together with other regulators as opposed to dividing work between them why do you make little mention of working together and why don't you mention the named person well I've got no doubt that we will be working with other regulators and if the information commissioner's picking it up we will certainly attend to that we cannot operate this and it's already been stated repeatedly this morning if anything we'll be doing a lot we'll be doing more work with the other regulators as a result of some of the initial assessment and in terms of named person then named person is to be decided really how that will be enacted in any case and I've got no doubt that named person will appear in many other documents are only included once the working model is established it hasn't actually been put into effect yet and you're still debating the regulations on it so I think there's a kind of we need to wait and see how that pans out we're not debating or consulting on them well well and then debate will come back to yourselves you know you'll make the decision on it okay thank you I'm not sure whether Gordon you're okay then lay him with an extremely short supplementary I must get his proof as I can thank you I had the exchange I had with Mr Reins in the previous panel I suppose that the concern is that while there is a legitimate process of seeing how this evolves through the memos of understanding and collaborative working with others there's not as yet certainty as to the volume of work that's required would it be unreasonable for us as a committee to assume that that then lends itself to a phased introduction of the capacity within your office to deal with a workload requirement that will reveal itself over time okay at the risk of repeating myself we provided supplementary evidence to outline the volume of work that we expected and that was to this committee and we provided a full report to SPCB which gave the rationale of where those same figures came from so nobody knows the exact number but the best that we can do is look at similar operations and other jurisdictions and then look at that in terms of the child populations and in fact we've taken the lesser estimate because the Northern Ireland estimate if we factored that up would be many more than 170 that we've estimated and in terms of a phased introduction I think I actually covered that when I responded to SPCB but I'll repeat again that we're talking about a new function here we need specialist staff we need people who can actually understand this landscape it's already been said numerous times today about how complicated this is and if we don't have sufficient staff then quite frankly that will place the office in an invidious position where expectations on children and young people will be high and their ability and capacity to deliver will be low and that's just not the way that we should be going about setting up a new function of the office All three of you for coming along this morning to explain the position and certainly also thank you for the report that you published on the matter so it's been very helpful to the committee and I think everybody who's been along to discuss this morning I think the committee will discuss this matter possibly next week or the week after we'll do that as soon as possible can I now suspend to allow witnesses to leave and to allow the setup for the stage 2 proceedings Welcome Mark your next item is stage 2 consideration of the British Sign Language Scotland Bill can I welcome Mark Griffin the member in charge of the bill and his officials Dr Alasdor Allan Minister for Learning Science and Scotland's Languages and his officials can I remind everyone that officials are not permitted to participate in the form of proceedings can I also welcome Dennis Robertson who's not a member of the committee but who has lodged some amendments today everyone should have a copy of the marshaled list of amendments which was published on Friday and the groupings of amendments which sets out the amendments in the orders the order in which they will be debated as usual the proceedings will be interpreted in BSL for the benefit of those who are following today's proceedings I will run through the main procedures there will be one debate on each group of amendments I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way if they have not already spoken on the group I will invite the minister and then Mark Griffin as the member in charge to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding up speech the debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up following debate on each group I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it if they wish to press ahead I will put the question on that amendment if a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved they must seek the committee's agreement to do so if any committee member objects the committee immediately moves to the vote on that amendment if any member does not want to move their amendment when called they should say not moved please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment if no one moves the amendment I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list only committee members are allowed to vote voting in any division is by a show of hands it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote although Mark Griffin is a member of the committee as he is a member in charge of the bill he is not able to vote during these proceedings the committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section and schedule of the bill and so I will put a question in each section at the appropriate point and it is our intention to get through all of the amendments today so without any further ado can I call amendment 1 in the name of Dennis Robertson group with amendment 38 Dennis Robertson to move amendment 1 and to speak to both amendments in the group Dennis good morning convener and thank you can I firstly put on record my thanks to deafblind Scotland for the work that they have done in bringing this amendment forward I think we all owe them a great deal of thanks because their work has been invaluable in terms of raising the awareness of the tactile BSL which I am sure many members have not been aware of prior to deafblind Scotland bringing this forward tactile BSL is BSL convener but it is used when a person usually when a person has a condition like Usher's syndrome which is a sight losing a condition people are generally born with but a person can have injury or illness as well and if you are deaf and then lose your vision but your language has always been BSL you continue to use BSL in sending or speaking to people within your immediate area however receiving BSL back needs to be different a person then needs to do it by touch by taking the person's hands and going through BSL there are occasions when the person may have to use deafblind manual but this is not a preferred method for BSL users but it is a fallback position especially sometimes to make things clear with moving these amendments convener it is imperative that it is an explicit aspect to ensure that tactile BSL and when we are referring to BSL that we are actually referring to both apart from in amendment 38.2 when it explicitly says that we don't have to have our final reports or plans etc in a tactile BSL format which is understandable and I would hope that members would consider that later but can I just say once again that tactile BSL is used by very few people but when people are using communication it is extremely tiring and very frustrating and you can imagine convener when a person has sight loss on top of their deafness it can be quite devastating to that person so there are other factors that we need to take on board but perhaps not in this particular amendment so I have great pleasure in bringing this amendment to the committee and I would move these amendments thank you convener one thank you Dennis if any other members wish to contribute please indicate can I begin with Liam McArthur start by thanking Dennis Robertson for lodging these amendments and moving amendment 1 can I also thank and join Dennis Robertson in thanking Deafblind Scotland for their contribution not just in the form of this amendment but actually through our evidence session I think colleagues will recall that the evidence gathering process was recognised that there are specific needs of the Deafblind community that need to be reflected in this bill and I think to be fair to Scottish Government and to the Minister they very much acknowledged that in their contribution to our deliberation so I welcome these amendments there may be other aspects of the bill that need to be amended to better reflect the specific needs of the Deafblind community but I am certainly supportive any other member at this stage I'll just make a short contribution myself I also thank Dennis Robertson for bringing forward this amendment amendment 1 which I support I think the reason why I support it is that I met with members of the public who are Deafblind at Deafblind Scotland recently including a constituent who wrote directly to me and asked me to meet with him to discuss the possibility of a particular amendment and I think they provided a very solid and cogent argument as to why it was necessary to support this particular amendment so I thank them for that meeting and for the clarity of their argument in supporting this amendment so I'm quite happy to support it I think it adds to the bill and provides clarity for those members of the public who are Deafblind that it isn't just BSL itself that is covered by the bill and with that can I call the minister Thank you convener likewise I'd like to thank Dennis Robertson on lodging this amendment although as has been said all people who use BSL should benefit from this bill there is a real and I think it's a justified concern that Deafblind people who use as has been described by Mr Robertson a tactile form of BSL because of the relatively small numbers involved and the complexity of communicating tactile BSL Likewise having met a number of Deafblind people in the course of the discussions around this bill I would certainly accept the arguments put forward very passionately by Deafblind Scotland and by many of the Deafblind people they represent that including a specific reference within the bill to tactile BSL is helpful and will ensure that the needs of that group of people are not forgotten so together I believe with Mark Griffin's amendments around consultation on BSL plans and making them accessible to Deafblind people I think these amendments from Mr Robertson will be helpful and for those reasons the Scottish Government is certainly very supportive of them Thank you very much minister Mark Griffin I'd also like to thank Dennis Robertson for tailing these amendments today I think when we drafted the legislation we had imagined that the term BSL would cover all BSL users but I think we do recognise that there's an extra emphasis should be put on the needs of Deafblind BSL users and was happy to meet and work with Deafblind Scotland to support the introduction of this amendment I think the form of words in tactile forms of BSL means that no Deafblind BSL user should be left out with this legislation and I support this amendment Thank you very much Mark Can I call Dennis Robertson to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press up with the draw his amendment and can I welcome the support from yourself the minister and the member Can I maybe just put it into context in winding up that it was a Deafblind person that taught me BSL and I sincerely thank Steven Joyce from Deafblind Scotland for his patience in actually going over BSL You can imagine the difficulty in no sight and Steven is a Deafblind user so therefore we had a great deal of tactile BSL interaction and he was extremely patient and this is why I know that sometimes you need to use sometimes a Deafblind manual to actually explain points and I did manage to get it wrong on several occasions and I was extremely patient and I just wanted to bring that to the committee's attention that it's extremely tiring but it's extremely beneficial and even to teach someone who is blind BSL is an achievement in itself and I commend the work that Deafblind Scotland do and I would like to move the amendments in my name Thank you very much Dennis therefore the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to We are agreed Can I call amendment 2 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 2A, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 hit the minister to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group Thank you, I'm very pleased to introduce these important amendments which seek to reduce the number of plans by bringing public bodies other than those to be separately listed in the best schedule 2 within the scope of the national plan which give greater clarity about the purpose of the national plan lengthen the reporting cycle which reduces the administrative burden on the public sector and ensure that the bill will focus on action rather than on administration I'd like to go if I may through some of the provisions of amendment 2 in turn subsection 1 BA requires the national plan to set out what Scottish ministers will do and what they will consider that relevant public authorities should or could do to promote British sign language. Under this provision the national plan will set out the agreed national priorities to be taken forward by national public bodies covered by the plan and by public bodies preparing their own plans this I believe strengthens the provisions of the bill as published The first national plan is particularly important as I explained in evidence to the committee at stage 1 we intend to set up a BSL national advisory group to inform its development The group will involve a significant proportion of deaf BSL users as well as representatives from public bodies subject to the bill We think it will take time to agree a suitable structure for the group and a process for recruiting deaf BSL users to it. Therefore allowing two years after the act comes into force to publish the first national plan as set out in section 11d will give us time to engage properly with the deaf community and public bodies and this will enable us to publish a more considered plan which takes account of the views of deaf BSL users who will benefit from the action set out in the plan and of public bodies who will be delivering those actions. Subsection 1e provides that national plans are published every six years rather than roughly every four years under the bill is introduced The Scottish Government takes the view that a four year cycle for the reporting and review process set out in the bill is in our view too short This view is informed by our experience of implementing the Gallic Language Scotland Act which had a five year cycle which some authorities have suggested is too short I originally suggested a seven year cycle but many deaf people who submitted evidence felt this was too long so our amendment proposes a six year cycle instead Extending the cycle will I believe give public bodies longer to implement the action set out in their plans and gather meaningful information on progress before they are asked to feed into the national progress report As members will have seen from the revised costings I have provided in my recent letter to the committee requiring public bodies to produce plans every six years rather than every four years also leads to a significant cost saving We propose to invest these savings in providing support to help public bodies better understand and meet the needs of the BSL community they serve and to boost the capacity of translation and interpreting services In my view amendment two introduces a more proportionate approach to the reporting process and creates a less bureaucratic action oriented focus for the bill Amendments four and six ensure that the second and subsequent national plans have regard to any recommendations coming out of the review process Amendments five and seven are minor consequential amendments around the consultation provisions Amendment nine is a minor consequential provision in relation to the timing of the preparation of national plans If I may turn to Mary Scanlon's amendment Can I say I share her concern about the issues faced by parents with a deaf child and these are issues we've discussed in committee before I think it is very likely that relevant material will feature in the first national plan but in my view the amendment doesn't fit with the approach that the bill takes The bill creates a framework for action but deliberately does not specify what should be included in the national plan As the member in charge stayed during stage one it will be up to the government to choose what resources to put into its policy priorities All that I am setting out is the overarching strategy that the government should promote The content of the national plan will be determined through extensive engagement with the BSL community and I have committed to including parents with deaf babies on the national advisory group which will support that process So I don't think it is appropriate more than that at this stage because writing into legislation what should be included in the national plan I believe preempts that important process which I have set out and as Mary Scanlon will be aware the British Deaf Association has identified eight areas which it believes should be included in the national plan of which support in the early years is only one If an amendment is passed this could open the way to further attempts to legislate to include other priorities and I think that this does undermine the collaborative approach to developing the national plan which I have set out and thank you for your forbearance but I think there were some important issues to be detailed there Indeed Minister, thank you very much for that Can I call Mary Scanlon to move amendment 2A and speak to all amendments in the group I won't be speaking to all amendments but I will speak to amendment 2A I mean as you know minister I am looking for a commitment to the national plan and I do appreciate that the national advisory group has still to be set up and I do appreciate that consultation will take place as well as time but I was very struck and I think as any other committee member or MSP when we look at a bill we do learn a huge amount and I have to say the scrutiny of this bill hasn't been any different but I found the briefing paper from the National Deaf Children's Society as well as others very interesting and I was particularly struck by the way that they highlighted the 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents and on one of our committee visits we heard about the difference to a child of having parents who used BSL compared to another and we were obviously looking at attainment for deaf children as well and personally I just can't imagine the difficulties a child would have not being able to communicate with their parents and I cannot imagine as a parent in a granny how difficult it would be not being able to communicate with your child or grandchild so I think a lot of the time in this committee we've looked at the BSL support for children we've looked at the shortage of teachers we've looked at issues related to teacher training and I think we've scrutinised the bill fairly effectively so far. What we probably haven't focused on too much is the support from the family that is so hugely beneficial within that I think I almost got a commitment I retire next year so I'm not going to be here when the national plan is done but I think I almost got a commitment but I would perhaps look for a more formal commitment from the minister that he would do whatever is possible to ensure that there would be BSL support not just for newborn babies but for children and for families where it was appropriate because I do think this adds so much to the whole BSL provision within Scotland so I look forward to hearing what the minister's response is. Thank you very much any members wish to contribute at this stage? I have one contribution which is really to ask the minister a question could you just maybe provide a little more detail on the changes to the cycle, the length of the cycle for the publication of the national plan I know that we had some debate about this obviously during the stage 1 evidence taking on the bill but clearly it was a point of some contention for some members about it being too long possibly if it was extended and while I agree that you have gone from 7 back to 6 which I think is welcome could you perhaps give some more detail about that if you don't mind and I have to say I do accept one further point I accept the minister's argument to be in the name of Mary Scanlon the bill itself does not lay out specific support provisions on the face of the bill we had some of this discussion at stage 1 whereas the amendment does exactly that and therefore I think it is not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the bill and therefore I can understand why the minister has said what he said and I would tend to support that thank you for that can I call Mark Griffin? Regarding the timing of the plans it was my intention that national plans would be like to each cycle of the parliament so it would be a four, five year cycle so that national government would produce and then scrutinise their own plans and we wouldn't have an incoming administration dealing with the policy intentions of a previous government so that was my intention and the reason the bill was drafted as it was but I can see why the fixed term straight six year cycle is much more simpler in terms of early dissolution of parliament and other issues I think in consideration of administrations implementing and scrutinising their own plans that perhaps we hadn't thought it through to the next level where local government in following the same cycle as a Scottish parliament Scottish parliamentary cycle would then be out of sync and so local government would be in the same predicament if we stuck with the parliamentary cycle where an incoming administration could possibly be scrutinising the performance of a previous one so I accept and support the amendment to bring the cycle into a fixed timeframe rather than on the basis of a parliamentary cycle I can also see the arguments for allowing more time from the start of the process I think that's crucial to make sure that the right people are on board on that national advisory group to inform that first national plan so I also support that amendment I support the amendments in this group 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in relation to Mary Scanlon's amendment I would agree with all of her comments in terms of the need for support for learning BSL for parents here and parents who have deaf children but it does take a step away from the intentions of the legislation there are a number of priorities for the BSL community and support for parents of deaf children are one of those priorities and I've not been persuaded that argument for this one priority to be included within the bill should take any priestess over any other particular priority I think it's right and proper for the national advisory group to be convened for them to consult and decide on their own priorities rather than setting that in stone here at this point in the process Thank you very much Can I call the minister to wind up on amendment 2? In response convener to the point that you raised about the time scale of the length between the plans and reporting I would essentially make many of the same arguments as Mark Griffin has made and to add to that also my own experience anecdotally of the Gallic Language Act is that the four-year plans there I think without taking away from the importance of those plans can lead to possibly an over an excessive degree at times of work around planning rather than implementing plans I think around the points that Mrs Scanlon raised around the wider issues of families who have deaf children as an indicator I accept many of the reasons behind or that many of the considerations behind our amendment however to answer her point as well about what the Scottish Government has recognised the importance of supporting families with a deaf baby providing half a million pounds recently to the national deaf children society for its family sign project there are many ways in which we can engage to ensure that families in this situation have all the resources they need to communicate with a deaf baby or toddler or indeed as the member leads to an older child at school so they can get the best start in life and address a subject which I know is of concern to both Mrs Scanlon and myself which is around closing the attainment gap that continues to exist for deaf children I would however ask Mary Scanlon not to move amendment 2a but to note the commitment that I have indicated to include families of deaf babies on the national advisory group like Mr Griffin I would be of the view that those are things that are better determined by that group rather than through legislation Thank you very much minister I call Mary Scanlon to wind up on amendment 2a and to indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw that amendment Thank you convener The whole purpose of this amendment was not to set any precedent or priority and to say that one group was more deserving of than the other It was really just to make sure that it was on the agenda and that families did get the support at that critical time and to help them to communicate with their children I do note the commitment that the minister made and I'm delighted with that commitment and I also acknowledge that this is not the place for us to be telling the national advisory group what to do and it's not the place or the time to be looking at regulations I fully and absolutely understand that I'm pleased that I brought this amendment today, I do think it's moved forward and I do think the commitment from the Government financially and otherwise to the National Deaf Children's Association Scotland is very welcome given all that I will not be moving the amendment in my name but that was the purpose of your original statement so you will have to seek to withdraw it Does the committee agree to the withdrawal of that amendment? That's agreed, thank you The question is that amendment 2 be agreed Are we all agreed? We're agreed Can I call amendment 3 in the name of Mark Griffin group with amendment 26 Mark Griffin to move amendment 3 and speak to both amendments in the group During the development of the bill I think it took a decision on balance and trying to reduce the cost burden on authorities in relation to the translation of documents into to BSL I think that the committee have flagged this up was an important issue and it was a difficult deliberation as to how we would go on this but I'm delighted with the committee's recommendation and also with the Scottish Government support that national plans and authority plans should be accessible to BSL users and I've moved the amendment in my name Thank you very much Any members wish to contribute to this amendment? Can I just say Mark and certainly I'm sure on behalf of all the committee that were very grateful for you to move this amendment it was something that the committee felt really strongly about that the national plan should include the fact that it would be published in BSL so it's a very welcome amendment in my view and therefore can I with that call the minister The Scottish Government fully supports these amendments as members the committee observed during stage 1 it would probably be fair to say that it would exist for this Parliament to pass a bill requiring public bodies to produce BSL plans without requiring them to translate these plans into BSL As I said in the Government memorandum and as I'm sure the committee well understands if plans are presented in written English they will not be accessible to many deaf BSL users who are the target audience In the Government memorandum I suggested that the cost of translating authority plans into BSL should be subsumed by the relevant authority since the requirement does not substantially exceed their current duties under the Equality Act 2010 However, as the amendment requiring translation of plans does represent the new cost arising as a direct result of the bill, I have included it in the revised costings provided to the committee and it will be considered as part of the new burden I would encourage the committee to support these amendments Minister, can I call Mark Griffin to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 3? Just to thank the convener for your support, the minister's support and the committee's strong support for this amendment through stage 1 report and press the amendment in my name Okay, thank you very much The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to are we all agreed? As agreed, can I call amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 all in the name of the minister and can I invite the minister to move amendments 4 to 7 on block Moved on block Thank you, can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 4 to 7? There's no objection, therefore the question is that amendments 4 to 7 are agreed to are we all agreed? That's agreed Can I call amendment 8 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendment 18 Mark Griffin to move amendment 8 and speak to both amendments in the group Can I move amendment 8? I've lodged these amendments as I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the needs of deafblind people should be placed on an equal footing wherever possible with other users of BSL with the operation of the act I think as Dennis Robertson had already pointed out that those with a dual sensory impairment face distinctive challenges in that one-size-all fits approach won't quite work with BSL so ensuring that that consultation is accessible to members of the deafblind community as well as those who are deaf is essential I think This group of amendments complement the amendments already tabled in the name of Dennis Robertson they continue on from the work that I, the Government and I think members of the committee have undertaken with Deafblind Scotland and I hope members will support these amendments Thank you very much If other members wish to contribute would they please indicate can I call Liam McArthur Comedians just very very briefly as I indicated in reference to Dennis Robertson's earlier amendments I certainly very much welcome the fact that we've now seen a series of amendments at stage to recognising the specific needs of the deafblind community and therefore I will heartily support Mark Griffin's amendments in this group Thank you very much No other member has indicated they wish to contribute at this stage so therefore can I call Minister Thank you convener as I've already indicated I fully support the importance of engaging with BSL community so that they rather can directly influence BSL plans and help ensure that public bodies deliver on the commitments set out in those plans and as witnesses have pointed out in evidence effective engagement is a crucial part of that we have invested £390,000 this year in the Deaf sector partnership which will help to support effective implementation of the bill if it's passed important function of the partnership will be enabling public bodies to engage directly with the BSL communities they serve it's that engagement I believe which will help to ensure that plans focus on the right things and in doing that make a real difference in people's lives so I'd also welcome the specific reference to deafblind people who use BSL within these amendments from Mr Griffin as deafblind Scotland have argued that the small numbers of deafblind BSL users can benefit from the provisions of the bill and it is important that public bodies take steps to include the deafblind people in the consultation on their plans thank you very much Minister can I call Mark Griffin to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press up with the draw I think it's important that these amendments are supported to make sure that BSL users are locked out from a consultation process that will drive forward a lot of the policy improvements that could improve their lives I think it's right and proper that deafblind BSL users should be included in that consultation and we'll be giving special mention to make sure that no-one is matched out and press the amendment in my name thank you very much Mark is that amendment 8 be agreed to are we all agreed can I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 2 minister to move formally moved the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to are we all agreed the question is that section 1 be agreed to are we all agreed agreed can I call amendment 10 in the name of Dennis Robertson in a group on its own Dennis Robertson to move and speak to amendment 10 Dennis thank you convener convener I'll try to be as brief as possible with reference to this particular amendment I believe that all ministers have a responsibility to ensure that they take cognisance of BSL deaf BSL users in all their portfolios and with reference to that I don't believe that we need to specifically have a lead minister being responsible Dr Allan I think already has demonstrated that he is quite I think passionate about ensuring as he was in the Gallic language ensuring that BSL is given the same recognition as any other language and any other responsibility that he has within his portfolio so in doing that I'm only putting forward to the committee the suggestion that I don't believe we need a lead minister to take responsibility because I believe all ministers should be taking that responsibility and I move that amendment in my name thank you very much Mr Robertson any other member wishes to contribute would they please indicate and I call Liam McArthur I think I would echo much of what Dennis Robertson has already said I can understand the motivation behind the amendment and I think it's almost certainly put down a useful marker in terms of the importance that promoting BSL within government needs to form going forward I think the minister in his evidence the committee gave I think some fairly strong assurances to the committee that that way the case it will be up to successive governments to reflect that I'm a little weary about appointing ministers for each and every specific task I think it will be incumbent upon each successive government to demonstrate how they are living up to the letter of this particular piece of legislation and the spirit behind it so on that basis I think I would support Dennis Robertson's amendment here thank you I can also agree with both Dennis Robertson and Liam McArthur on this amendment I'm sure that any future government will do as Liam McArthur has said and ensure that responsibility for this particular area of ministerial responsibility is paid proper attention to but I do note in passing of course the minister's title which includes Scotland's languages and I'm sure we'd all agree that BSL is one of Scotland's languages and therefore fits very neatly under the current minister's portfolio but with that can I call the minister well can I likewise thank Dennis Robertson for bringing forward these useful amendments I agree it is important for ministers to have clearly defined responsibilities for particular policy areas but the Scottish Government considers that assigning a lead minister for the bill and legislation is not particularly consistent with the collective responsibility of Scottish ministers now all of that said and has been alluded to just now clearly as a language BSL will sit within my portfolio as minister with responsibility for Scotland's languages and on that basis I would be very supportive of its amendment Thank you Minister Can I call Mark Griffin I think this section in the bill was provided for emphasis and resonance it was never intended to create a new ministerial post but purely for the Scottish Government to define ministerial responsibility for BSL I think there was perhaps misunderstanding previously and I think that was highlighted actually lodged my proposal for a private member's bill in British Sign Language that it was initially allocated to the health and sport committee and that some deaf or BSL users felt that the health ministerial team were responsible for deafness in British Sign Language I think through this process it's shown clearly and rightly that the minister for Scotland's languages is the right point of contact for any BSL users that legislating for a particular role perhaps goes against how the Government operates on the basis of collective responsibility and I feel accept Dr Allan's commitment to BSL as the lead minister and would support the amendment in the name of Dennis Robertson to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. I don't think that there's any need to wind up convener and I'll just move the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 11 in the name of the minister, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 11 and speak to all amendments in the group. Those amendments are of a technical nature, which means that I'm not going to trouble you by listing them one by one, but they are necessary as a consequence of other amendments, particularly around the decision to decouple the reporting and review cycle from the parliamentary cycle. They also reflect the changed approach to reporting on progress set out in a number of other amendments. Those amendments ensure that section 3 of the bill which relates to listed authorities, British Sign Language plans is consistent with other sections of the bill as amended. I move amendment 11. Thank you. No other members indicated that they wish to contribute, so therefore I call Mark Griffin. Thanks convener. I appreciate that the amendments are of a technical nature. I think that the minister explained the content. I wouldn't add anything further just to say I support the amendments. Thank you very much. Minister, do you wish to wind up? Merely to move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendments 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17? All in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 12 to 17 on block? Moved on block. Thank you. Amendment 12 to 17. There's no objection. The question is that amendments 12 to 17 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed, thank you. Can I call amendment 18 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 8? Mark Griffin to move or not move? The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I'll say that again. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 19 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 11, minister to move formally? Look. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. Can I call amendment 20 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 11 minister to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? yn y effeithio gweld dwydd, 22, 23, 24, 25 i 27. Ieithio gwylwch amgylcheddwyr cyfleol 21 a allwch ar yr amddangos i'r gweld. The bill is important in the Government's decision to review the new draft. candidates who are submitted to the list in the second or subsequent cycle. They also include further amendments on timing, again, convener to ensure consistency with other sections of the Ieo, mae'n ddiwedd rechydig o'r cymhiliadau o'r cyfnod gyda'i gyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod a'i'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod. Mae'n ddod i'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod, rydyn ni'n rwy'n gafodd yn hynny o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod, ac yn yw Mark Griffin? Rydyn ni'n fawr i'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to, and are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25? All on the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 22 to 25 on block? Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 22 to 25? There's no objection, therefore, the question is that amendments 22 to 25 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, thank you. Can I call amendment 26 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 3? Mark Griffin to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're agreed. Can I call amendment 27 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 21? Minister to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendment 28 in the name of the minister group with amendments 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34? Minister to move amendment 28 and speak to the other amendments in the group. My amendments here to section 5 of the bill seek to create a more appropriate and proportionate approach to assessing and reporting on progress in two specific ways. Firstly, by renaming the performance review a progress report, because of the lack of baseline data and performance indicators for work in this area, a performance review in the traditional sense of the phrase would be very difficult. Secondly, by removing the requirement to name individual local authorities and to highlight poor performance. On reflection, we do not think it appropriate to name and shame individual local authorities who have published their own plans as they will be authorities who are not accountable to Scottish ministers, a point which was made very strongly by COSLA as far as local authorities are concerned. We expect the assessment of whether or not progress made by a listed authority is satisfactory instead to be made through a self-assessment process involving feedback from BSL users. Listed authorities will be supported by the deaf sector partnership funded by the Scottish Government to engage properly with their local BSL community so that this provides an effective mechanism for holding public authorities to account. It is our expectation that the progress report will highlight best practice, it will also highlight where further development is needed but without identifying individual authorities. Those findings would then inform the ongoing support provided to listed authorities through the deaf sector partnership that I have just mentioned. We believe, convener, that we will make better progress by using a carrot rather than a stick to support continuous improvement across the public sector and the amendments therefore seek to shift the emphasis of the reporting and review process in that way. The progress report will be laid before Parliament by Scottish Ministers as required by the bill and will provide an overview of progress at national and local levels since the plans were published and will describe progress or otherwise against actions set out in the national plan. In practical terms, Amendment 28 gives listed authorities three years between publishing plans and contributing to the progress report in the second and subsequent cycles, although that will be two years in the first cycle. The timescale set out in the bill as published only allows just over a year between the publication of authority plans and the performance review and we don't think that that is long enough. Extending the cycle for reporting on progress in line with the cycle on publishing reports will also give public bodies longer to implement the action set out in their plans and gather meaningful information on progress before they are asked to feed into the national progress report. Again, this creates a more action-oriented focus for the bill and we know from evidence given to the committee at stage one that this is what ESL users would like to see. Thank you very much minister. Can I call Liam MacArthur? Thank you convener. I'm certainly very much welcome this amendment. I think it reflects the concerns that were at stage one about the Scottish Government finding itself sitting in judgment of individual councils who themselves are obviously responsible to their own communities. I think the approach that seeks to garner best practice and share that as widely as possible is a sensible one. I think each local authority public body for that matter will be starting from a different position, it will face different challenges, it will have different opportunities to take forward the promotional work around BSL and I think that's better reflected in the model suggested by these amendments. I think it may be a question for the advisory group going forward as to whether or not that is having the effect that it needs to have in spreading best practice more widely but I think for now this is a common sense approach to the legislation. I certainly support the amendments in this group. Thank you very much. Can I call Mary Scanlon? I did raise issues regarding this at stage one and again I'm very pleased to put on the record that the issues have been addressed and it was on the basis that there's very little baseline data so you may find in an area where there's very little provision and support for British Sign Language that they're making tremendous progress but you could find another area where the practice is excellent and they might sit back and think, well, there's not much more that we need to do so. I think to look at a progress report at every level hopefully to bring everyone to a more consistent level of support is wise but I also as I raised in the stage one debate prefer the carrot rather than the stick and I don't think naming and shaming anyone is a good way to build partnerships or to encourage and incentivise organisations to come forward so I'm very pleased to see that a progress report has replaced a performance review and I welcome and support these amendments. Thank you very much. Can I call Mark Griffin? Thank you. My priority for the performance review was that it would provide a national overview of progress and allow stakeholders and insisted parties to access information on the performance of local and national bodies and I think the proposed progress report achieves that. I think the amendments bring the cycle for the production of progress reports into line with the production of the national plans and I'm content with those changes. A move away from parliamentary sessions means that a timescale for the publication of progress reports is simplified and does away with the need for special provision in the event of early dissolution of the Parliament. I also note that amendment 32 removes the requirement to identify examples of poor performance among listed authorities and I understand that there were concerns with having what might be viewed as a punitive approach and that the amendments better reflect the relationship between national and local government and exactly who different levels of government are accountable to the electorate rather than, as I said, a different layer. Amendment 31 retains the requirement to identify and report on examples of good practice which is welcome. Amendment 3 confirms what is meant by the term relevant plans which is now used in the bill 2930 and 34 minor in technical or consequential nature and that I would just say that I support all the amendments in this group. Thank you very much. Can I call the minister to wind up? For the reasons essential that Mr Griffin, Mr MacArthur and Ms Scanlon have given, in my view, our amendments create a more cooperative and proportionate and practical approach to reporting on progress than perhaps the outdated and burdensome approach set out in the bill as published and better reflect, I think, the relationship between national and local government in Scotland. So with that in mind, I move amendment 28. Thank you. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Mr Greed, can I call amendments 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34? All the name of the minister and all previously debated can invite the minister to move amendments 29 to 34 on block. Moved on block. Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 29 to 34? There being no objection, the question is that amendments 29 to 34 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's also agreed. Can I call amendment 35 in the name of the minister, group with amendment 36? Minister to move amendment 35 and speak to both amendments in the group. I've already set out why we think that reporting and review cycles should be extended from four years to six years. In my view, this would have the additional benefit of detaching the reporting and review cycle from the parliamentary cycle. While I appreciate Mr Giffin's original reasons for requiring Scottish ministers to report and then account for progress within the same parliamentary term, I think that this not only ties us into a timescale, which is too short, but also which is unnecessarily complex. I believe that those amendments are part of an effort to simplify those issues. Thank you very much minister. No member has indicated the wish to contribute, so can I call Mark Gryffin? I accept that section 6 and schedule 1 are no longer required now that the bill has been amended to decouple the planning and reporting cycle from parliamentary sessions and so I support the amendments. Thank you. Minister, do you wish to wind up? I move 35. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That has been agreed. Can I call amendment 36 in the name of the minister? I have already debated with amendment 35 to move formally. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 37 in the name of the minister? I group on its own minister to move and speak to amendment 37. Section 7 provides for the alteration of the date of publication of a plan or review in exceptional circumstances. That fitted with what the bill previously said about timings for plans, but it is no longer needed under our revised approach. No member has indicated the wish to contribute, so can I call Mark Gryffin? I think that there is no longer that need to be flexible now that the timescales have been adjusted to allow more time to prepare the plans and progress reports, so I would support that amendment. Minister, do you wish to wind up? I move 36. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 38 in the name of Dennis Robertson? I have already debated with amendment 1 to move or not to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 39 in the name of the minister group with other amendments as shown in the groupings? Minister, to move amendment 39 and speak to other amendments in the group. I would like to take a little while to explain them clearly. We are proposing a series of amendments to schedule 2, which lists the authorities that will be required to publish their own BSL plans. Some public bodies such as Audit Scotland, the police investigations and review commissioner and the Scottish information commissioner have been added to the list, and so will require to publish their own plans. However, our amendments seek to remove some public bodies from schedule 2. That does not mean that they will not be subject to the bill, but that they will be covered by the national plan, and I will say more about that in a moment. For example, schedule 2 to the bill, as it presently stands, requires bodies such as the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, the Scottish Further Education and Higher Education Funding Council, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Qualifications Authority all to publish their own plans. We want to include them in the national plan, and so our amendments seek to remove them from schedule 2. In addition, schedule 2 to the bill, as introduced, included some executive agencies of the Scottish Government, such as Education Scotland and the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. Those are part of the Scottish Government, and so will be covered by the national plan. Our amendments seek to remove these and other public bodies with a national remit from schedule 2. A number of other public bodies who are not currently included in schedule 2 to the bill will also be covered by the national plan. For example, the Care Inspectorate, Children's Hearing Scotland, Creative Scotland, Sports Scotland, Visit Scotland and the National Galleries, Library and Museums of Scotland. Before I finish though, I'd like to say a wee bit more about the national plan. The scope of the national plan will be extended to include public authorities with a national remit who are responsible to Scottish ministers. This means that the national plan will cover the vast majority of national public bodies, including special NHS boards which have a national remit. This will reduce the number of plans being produced, which as well as reducing the administrative burden on the public sector will, I believe, facilitate a more strategic and co-ordinated approach at the national level. All the national public bodies covered by the national plan will be accountable to Scottish ministers, and it is my view that incorporating them into a single national plan strengthens, rather than dilutes, their accountability. So, in closing, as a result of our amendments, it is our intention that 147 public bodies will either be covered by the national plan or required to produce their own plan, including nine executive agencies or other organisational units which are part of the Scottish Government, some of whom were listed separately and scheduled to the bill as introduced, as compared with 117 in the bill as it currently stands. Although the public bodies to be covered by the national plan will not be listed in the bill as amended, I have provided details of these in my letter to the committee convener of 21 May, which I hope is helpful. This is now on the public record and confirms those to be covered by a single national plan, which, as I said earlier, will enable us to take a more strategic approach to BSL at the national level. Thank you very much, minister. No members have indicated their wish to contribute. Just very briefly, convener, I think that the rationale behind the amendments is very sensible and the approach is very sensible. I think that it would probably bear repeating that, in taking that approach, we absolutely need to make sure that there is a sense of ownership and responsibility by each of those public authorities for the contribution that they make to delivering that national plan, but certainly the approach is one that makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much, Liam. I thank the minister for his exploration and understanding that the intention behind these amendments is to bring those national public bodies, which are accountable to Scottish ministers, and are originally listed and scheduled to under a single national plan. I accept that that will enable a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to producing the national plan and also to have the benefit of reducing the workload for many of those bodies that we cut down on in duplication. It comes to consultation and on cost, but I take on board and reiterate the point that Liam McArthur made in terms of national bodies taking ownership and responsibility for their own actions within that national plan. It was my intention that schedule 2 should be a starting point for the discussion as to which bodies should be included in the bill. I drew up that original schedule by focusing on the key public-facing bodies in priority areas of education, health, justice, local government and policing. I am content that the proposed amendments to this schedule increase the number of bodies who are affected by the bill while it does not increase the costs. I welcome those amendments. To pick up on the point that was made by Mr McArthur, the national plan will certainly be able to pick up on the specific areas of interest to different bodies. However, overall, our amendments to schedule 2 ensure that the bill will have broader reach and greater impact on the lives of deaf BSL users and that the approach that we take at a national level will be more co-ordinated. I move amendment 39. Thank you very much minister. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Can I call amendment 40 in the name of the minister, group with amendment 46? Minister to move amendment 40 and speak to both amendments in the group. Minister. Can we know that these amendments are minor and have been included as a consequence of other amendments? The addition to the interpretation section terms that have been added by the bill by other amendments. Amendment 46 creates a new section after section 8, which deals with interpretation of terms used earlier in the bill, namely authority plan, national plan and relevant public authority. Thank you very much minister. There will be other syndicators. What can I call Mark Griffin? No comments are there to say I support the amendments. Minister to wind up. I move amendment 40. Okay, thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Can I call amendments 41 to 45 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Can I invite the minister to move amendments 41 to 45 on block? Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 41 to 45? There is no objection therefore the question is that amendments 41 to 45 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's also agreed. Can I call amendments 46 to 57, 63 and 59 to 62 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Can I invite the minister to move amendments 46 to 57, 63 and 59 to 62 on block? Moved on block. Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 46 to 57, 63 and 59 to 62? There's no objections therefore the question is that amendments 46 to 57, 63 and 59 to 62 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 9 and 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I'm glad to say that in stage 2 consideration of the bill can I thank the member in charge, the minister and their officials for attending today. Very grateful for your attendance and also thank Dennis Robertson for his attendance as well. The bill will now be reprinted as amendment. As amended the parliament however has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place but members can now lodge stage 3 amendments at any time with the legislation team. Members will be informed of the deadline for amendments once it has been determined and we will publish further details on our website and on the BSL Facebook group. Today, as I say, concludes the committee's formal involvement in the bill and I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to our scrutiny of the issues. The many witnesses who of course gave evidence to us, Windsor Park, Sensory Service in Falkirk and Deaf Action for hosting a visit from us. The many people who gave their views and comments on the bill via our Facebook group in particular and finally, of course, to thank the BSL interpreters who have supported us throughout this process. Can I thank all of the people who have been involved in this process very much and can I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave? Thank you. Our next item is to take evidence on the education school lunchease Scotland regulations 2015 draft and the provision of early learning and childcare specified children's Scotland amendment order 2015 also draft. Can I welcome Fiona McLeod, the acting minister for children and young people and our supporting officials from the Scottish Government? After we have taken evidence on the instruments, we will debate the motions in the name of the minister at item 4. Officials are not permitted to contribute to that formal debate and can I invite the minister to make some opening remarks on both instruments? Minister. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, committee. I'd like to make a brief statement in relation to the draft provision of early learning and childcare specified children's Scotland amendment order 2015 and the draft education school lunchease Scotland regulations 2015. I think that it would be most helpful for the committee if I started with the specified children's amendment order and put it in context of the overall policy objectives. The key priorities of the Scottish Government's early learning and childcare policy are to improve outcomes for all children, especially those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged, and also to support parents to work, train or study, especially those who need routes into sustainable employment and out of poverty in order to support their families. These policy priorities are why the Children and Young People's Scotland Act increased early learning and childcare from 475 hours a year to 600 hours per year. Put a choice and flexibility on a statutory footing for the first time and extended eligibility to the most vulnerable two-year-olds, those who are or have been at any point since their second birthday, looked after by a local authority or the subject of a kinship care or guardianship order. The committee will remember that, in January 2014, the then First Minister announced further expansion of the entitlement to early learning and childcare for two-year-olds. That is for those with a parent in receipt of a certain out-of-work benefit, around 15 per cent of Scotland's two-year-olds, and that was from August 2014. Those under the free school lunch qualifying criteria would take us to around 27 per cent of Scotland's two-year-olds to come into force in August 2015 this year. The provision of early learning and childcare-specified children's Scotland order 2014 was made under the Children and Young People's Scotland Act and defined all three and four-year-old children as eligible and the first cohort of two-year-olds with a parent in receipt of certain out-of-work benefits. That amending order today will extend the eligibility for early learning and childcare to the second cohort of two-year-olds under qualifying criteria for free school lunches. Therefore, that draft provision of early learning and childcare-specified children's Scotland amendment order 2015 under consideration today proposes to amend the specified children's order 2014 by adding free school lunch criteria not already covered. That is where a parent or carer is in receipt of child tax credit but not working tax credit with an income up to the threshold for child tax credit currently £16,105 or both maximum child tax credit and maximum working tax credit with an income below a certain threshold currently £6,420 or universal credit or support under part six of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I should also point out that the thresholds for these tax credits can change annually under the tax credits act of 2002. Turning to the education school lunch Scotland regulations 2015, young children who are eligible for early learning and childcare are also entitled to a free school lunch where they meet the current free school lunch criteria set out in the Education Scotland Act 1980. However, one of the implications of extending early learning and childcare to this cohort of two-year-olds under the Children and Young People Scotland Act and to the two specified children's orders 2014 and 2015 is that a small number of those two-year-olds will not meet the free school lunch criteria. That includes those two-year-olds who are or have been at any time since their second birthday looked after by a local authority, the subject of a kinship care or guardianship order or those two-year-olds with a parent in receipt of incapacity or severe disabling allowance or state pension credit. Therefore, the draft education school lunch Scotland regulations 2015 before you today will rectify this discrepancy by adding the criteria that I've just mentioned to the free school lunch entitlement for young children. That will apply to all eligible young children in early learning and childcare to ensure that all two, three and four-year-olds have equal access to a free school lunch. We've worked closely with all our key stakeholders and delivery partners to discuss the practical implications of this commitment and to support its implementation from August of this year. So, in conclusion, convener, I would seek your support of the committee for both instruments to enable us to expand early learning and childcare to more two-year-olds and to ensure that those vulnerable and disadvantaged young children have equal access to a free school lunch throughout early learning and childcare. Thank you very much minister. Can I ask the members who wish to ask any questions to please indicate them? Can I begin with Liam McArthur? Thank you minister. I very much welcome both instruments. I've been no secret that I hope that this is the latest phase in an effort to go even beyond the 27 per cent, but having pressed for the Government earlier to go this stage further, I very much welcome this confirmation through the statutory instrument and the amendment order today. Likewise, I think in relation to ensuring that those eligible two-year-olds have access to free school meals, that was certainly an anomaly that was picked up for me at a local level. I should put on record the efforts of Councillor Rob Crichton in that regard in I think exposing what seemed to be quite a needless exclusion of those who were there clearly by dint of the fact that the two-year-olds were from more disadvantaged backgrounds but weren't necessarily eligible for the free school meals that appears within the nursery setting that were entitled. Again, I very much welcome that. I suppose that the only question I'd have, convener, is in the discussions that you've had with the delivery partners, presumably the local authorities principally, what discussions have been about the resource implications of extending this. I know in the Orkney context that the overall numbers didn't appear huge, which actually added to the sense of frustration that it wasn't actually being done, but I suspect over the piece that the cumulative figure may be not insignificant and be helpful to know how this has been resourced. We have had extensive consultation and working, not just consultation, working closely with all delivery partners and we have, COSLA has agreed the principle as long as provided that the costs that are incurred by local authorities will be fully met and the Government has estimated this around £600,000 and we can meet that within our budget for 2015-16. I would also like to put on the record to commend the Lib Dems to be fair in particular Willie Rennie, who has been very vocal on this issue and I very much welcome what's contained in these two policy notes. Can I just ask, and I ask it out of support of goodwill because I'm very much in favour, I understand that in England a percentage of two-year-olds is probably, from memory, 38 to 40 per cent. I may be wrong, but I just wonder if it's possible and it may not be possible for the minister, but if it was possible for you to tell us what group and what cohort is provided with early learning and childcare in England that's not covered here in Scotland? I'm sorry, I can't tell you about the criteria for England, but perhaps to reassure you on the figures that we've come to, the 15 per cent and now the 27 per cent, that's based on the budget consequential from December 2014 to increase the cohort of two-year-olds. We want to do this in a sustainable way, we want to do it working with our partners, so our first cohort last year was those two-year-olds in workless households and extending the criteria today will allow us to extend it to the families on the lowest of incomes, so it's based on figures from the consequentials from December 2014, but being done slowly to ensure that at each point we're able to fulfil our commitment. I welcome that, thank you. A couple of questions minister, I just wondered on both these regulations what the plan is in terms of how we're going to communicate with parents and the changes to the eligibility and who will be entitled to these, how will they get to know? We started on this last year with our fairly successful, we're working with the DWP so that when they identify parents that can come within the criteria they let them know that. We're also working with health visitors because health visitors are living the households of all the two-year-olds and over the summer as we did last year we'll have a large marketing campaign, radio, leaflets information to get out there. Thank you for that. I've got one other question which is specific to the school lunches regulations. It says in paragraph 4 of the policy note that the extended entitlement will apply to all preschool children where they are in a local authority ELC setting with a session spanning the middle of the day. I just wondered what a session spanning the middle of the day meant. What was that defined as? It's actually in the legislation as the middle of the day. Can I check that for you, convener, about specific hours but I think it's about over lunchtime? Just to clarify, if somebody had a session, if a session is just a period of time, just in the morning or just in the afternoon, that wouldn't... No, it's if they are actually in their early learning setting over the lunchtime period. School lunch means anything provided under some... Wait a minute, in the middle of the day which the education authority consider is appropriate, that's about what the meal is. I'll have to get back to you with the specifics. But I think it's fairly clear the middle of the day is if you're in there over lunchtime. I'm sure it seems quite obvious that it's those who are there across the lunchtime period who would get the lunch, that's not... I just wonder whether children who were there up to the lunchtime period would get it or not or whether that's... Yeah, I will go and work out what the middle of the day... Sorry, I think Liam McArthur has to go back. I'm glad you raised that point. I mean certainly it was the context in which it's been raised with me was with two-year-olds that were in a nursery setting over the course of the morning up to the lunchtime and then we're getting flung out the door just as the peer group... Nobody said you were going to flung out the door. I think if over the lunch period in a sense is simply seen as an extension of that delivery through the late morning, I think that would be seen as very welcome. I think if it were simply those that bridged the lunch hour in terms of the learning setting, then that would be unfortunate. I'll get back to you with more specifics, but that falls into, you know, we're working hard, local authorities are working hard on the flexibility of the sessions that they're offering, so that's obviously going to be factored into that. Okay, okay. Thank you very much. There are no other questions. Move on to agenda item four. As indicated, we now move to the formal debate on the instruments which is item four. Can I invite the minister to speak to and move the motions in turn? Minister. Sorry, I haven't got which order. Well, we're going to do one, three, two, nine, one first. Give me just a moment, sorry. That's the school lunches one, sorry. Right, so, right. Can I move the early learning and childcare specified children's Scotland amendment board? Oh no, I need sorry. Sorry, school lunch is one, won't you? Right, can I move the education school lunches Scotland regulations 2015? Thank you very much. Any contributions from members? The stage? No. I don't think you need to reply then to any of those contributions. Can I put the question then that motion S4M-13291 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Minister, I can ask you to move S4M-13292. Can I move the provision of early learning and childcare specified children's Scotland amendment order 2015? Thank you. Any contributions from members at this stage? No. Okay, can I therefore put the question that motion S4M-13291 S4M-13292 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much and with that I close the meeting. Thank you.