 Rwy'n wedi santh i gynhyrchu'n amdano 13 y Cyfnodreidol Gymru Pwysig, a Gwyl Llyfrgell cymunedol 2018, ac mae'n mynd i cysylltu'r cyflug i gyfas ymddian nhw i tyd gyda ar y plynyd i gael y teimlo addysg yng Nghymru a Llyfrgell. Mae rygwch gyfer y cyfeirio i ddifblog efo'i yw ddechrau. Rwy'n ymdangos i ymddiannol nawr, yna fyddechrau ar gyfer eich gynhyrchu. Maen nhw rwy'n gymryd amdano élan Millar, Fy hoffaeth y mae'r siwr i fynd i ddechrau lleolwyr, oedd y gweithdoedd y Section 10 o ffacilu, a mae'r sicr i'r gwneud ei fod yn ysgrif Shadow Carers i Gymraeg fath ar gyfer y pleiddoedd yn neud yn y dros Lead Llywodraeth. Fym ni'n rwy'n trwy-grffes i fynd i'r prif, dwi'n fawr i ddych chi'n arwain a oedd y prif yn ddechrau'r prif, ac yn ddechrau'r prif edrych y byddai'r boreg gyda I. Felly, dd stret y pethau'n ei wneud. Aethau'n gyntafol o'r ffordd cyfhwylrach, ac mae'n gynnwmi'n gwych i'r 20 f damaging y gwasanaethau aethau aethau aethau o'r spirit. Felly, mae wedi hyn ynplayg i'r gweld cyffredin, ac mae einwaith wrth swyddi am lwythiau ni'n mynd i gyrraedd ei ddechrau. Byddwch godd yn ei gwybod i organismu'r anhygoel o'r pethau anhygoel a ddweud ac'r dien. Y ddechrau sy'n gwybod, dw i gael argei'r ardal, yn cynnig wedi'u gwybod nifer yn gwneud i chi arweithiol y bydd i chi. Felly, oherwydd o'r wedi gyfer y cyfle, rydyn ni'n osion gwneud y cwnghwysiwn ar ni. Rydyn ni'n amser achos ni i'r cwnghwysiwn a gwneud arweithio i chi arweithio a gweithio i chi arweithio i chi arweithio i chi arweithio i chi arweithio i chi'r cyfle. Does the topic matter anyway? What's the origin of the First Minister's advisory group? The grass to cup of power serves as a recommendation for the very important leaders in Netflix. I've been in the leadership of my man with the capacity to build the trust that I, an Rah shall lifetime give me for you, so that it's where you stay. mythexions yw i ddwy. Mae'n gwych chi'n wneud y Scotland o'r gwbl cwylir y bydd hynny o gael. Felly, yn y cyfwyr yng Nghymru, Graeme Smith, y Gwyrdraeth Gwyrdraethau Ysgol, mewn cyfwyr ymgyrchu i ddwy i'r prydau gyda'r prinsypus yw ddwy o'r gwbl Cwyrdraethau ymgwyr ymgyrchu ymgyrchu? A chyngoedd y cyfwyr ymgyrchau cyfwyr ymgyrch, a chael byddwn eu cerddo i'r rhwntau o brusul ac o Glasgo. Maenai ymddillai ysgodaeth neu ymddillai cyffredinol, gyflym yn y Comisyndu Cyngor, Llywodraeth Cymru, Llywodraeth ymddillai a'r cael eu dddigtau, ac ymddillai cymaint o'i ymddillai ymddillai, arno i fod yn ddodd y blaenau lawr, gan gweithio ei ddadigol o'ch dod o'r llefnodau cyngorol a'r llyfr hwnnw dda. Secondly, Scotland should explore the ways and means of keeping pace with progressive developments taking place in the EU once we have left the EU so that no one in Scotland is left behind progressive developments that can be expected to take place. Thirdly, Scotland should continue to show leadership in human rights, which by and large it has done over the last 20 years since devolution. We then presented those findings to the First Minister and she very quickly decided to establish an advisory group on human rights leadership to operationalise these three principles, to make recommendations by December 10, International Human Rights Day this year, on what concrete steps Scotland can take to operationalise these three principles in the areas of not only civil and political rights but economic, social and cultural, and also environmental rights. She has asked us to give recommendations about how those steps could be implemented in whatever the post Brexit scenario might be from a constitutional point of view, either the status quo or if there is enhanced evolution or if there is independence, whatever the model, how would human rights progress be developed. She specifically asked us to consider giving effect to UN human rights treaties ratified by the UK but not yet given legal effect within the UK, what might be the benefits, what might be the risks, the challenges and to present recommendations on how that may be done if there is a merit in doing it. In essence, as you know, Scotland does not have a constitution. The closest thing we have to it from a rights point of view are these two pillars provided by the Scotland Act Compliance with EU and compliance with European Convention on Human Rights. Brexit removes one at a stroke, the EU compliance. In my view it imperils the other, the continuing adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be easier for the UK to leave that. Once it is no longer a member of the EU, there needs to be a new framework constructed post Brexit. That is the thinking that the First Minister has asked us to do in a fairly challenging but welcome time. We have a number of questions from our committee this morning and I will go to Alec Cole-Hamilton first. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Professor Miller. It's good to see you again. I have a couple of areas of questioning that I would like to pick up on. First, I immediately off the bat of your remarks. There are three principles that I am sure that the committee would absolutely subscribe to. My concern is the fact that with regard to the latter two, keeping pace and demonstrating leadership in the human rights field and particularly with our European partners, we are not keeping pace now and we are not demonstrating leadership now. There are gaps in domestic law that are a drift of where we need to be in terms of the observance of human rights. For example, prisoner voting. We know that the ECHR has given a recommendation that all states need to get right with that. Similarly, there are treaties and international conventions to which we are party that we are still a drift of in terms of our obligations. Do you have a role in advising the First Minister to bring us up to scratch on that before we even begin to consider keeping pace following our exit from the EU? What we have been asked to do is to present recommendations as to post-Brexit what framework should there be in Scotland that enables no regression, keeping pace and demonstrating leadership. Within that, that would therefore, in my way of looking at it, include the very areas that you have mentioned. Clearly, if we are going to be recommending to the First Minister, for example, there are various ways in which you could give further effect to UN treaties or keep pace with European developments. It is implicit in that that existing recommendations and obligations that the UK and Scotland has to meet those commitments should be part of that implementation and realisation. I would say that it is implicit in what we are looking at. Thank you. The second area that I would like to cover is rights literacy within the other decision-making bodies of this country. As part of our inquiry, we have a mandate to try and thread human rights through the working of this Parliament, and there are a range of recommendations to which the committee is coming. However, there is another arm of the firmament that we do not have much control over, and that is the working of the Scottish Government. Rights literacy within the Scottish Government is very important to the committee, but it is not always evident in what we see coming out of the Government. For example, the recent draft bill for the increase of age of criminal responsibility is on balance a great piece of human rights legislation, but within it contains an error that we have identified that would see as a drift of our commitments to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a basic error and one that is easily made, but indicative of a fundamental lack of rights literacy within the drafters of legislation at the Scottish Government level. What mandate do you have to thread human rights through the working of the Scottish Government in the same way that we have for the Scottish Parliament? It is a very broad mandate that we have, and the recommendations are premature for me to even begin to say what the recommendations may look like, because we are only very much in the early stages of our work. However, I think that you have identified something that we have already identified in the advisory group, which is the need for increasing awareness of human rights throughout the entire society. That includes Government, quite clearly. It includes Parliament, and your role is very, very critical in that. Probably more important than anything, it includes the public. As you know, I was chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission for eight years. One of the frustrations on a daily basis that I was experiencing was that, time and time again, people will tell you that they do not know what their rights are. If you are a lawyer, you might know what some of the rights are and where they come from, the charter of fundamental rights, the European Convention, the UN. However, for everyday people who make ends meet on a day-to-day basis, they are not set out anywhere, and they are not set out anywhere what they can do to exercise their rights. How do they go about doing that? I think that there is a big role for Scotland to raise the level of awareness throughout all the decision-making processes, but most critically among the public, because if the public does not know what their rights are, it lets others get away with it, if I can be as blunt as that. Having said that, I do not want to be at all giving a negative connotation to this. If you look back over the 20 years of the Scotland Act and the Human Rights Act, and I have been on that journey for the 20 years, when we started out, human rights was seen as something that belonged to the field of criminal justice. It was the justice committee that dealt with human rights. There was a sort of compliance culture. How do we make sure that we are not incompatible with the civil and political rights provided by the Human Rights Act? It was courts, judges, lawyers and prisons that we were preoccupied with understandably. Over the years, particularly in recent years, you have seen that sort of reactive approach develop incrementally into a more proactive approach and looking at the broader range of rights, economic, social, cultural and environmental, so that other committees in the Parliament be it environment, be it health and social care, the Social Security Committee recently, they are now looking at how do we fulfil those rights, not just react and not do something wrong to harm people's rights, but how do we give them more realisation? Several acts in the Land Reform Act, the Community Empowerment Act and the Social Security Bill are now making reference to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. I think that there has been a progression and Parliament has been broadening its understanding of human rights. We are on the right direction, but I now work mainly internationally with the UN. Every country is on a journey in terms of realising human rights. By and large, Scotland is on the right direction and has made good steps forward, but our recommendations will have the effect of renewing that impetus and dealing with a post-Brexit environment, where the Parliament is going to have to do more than it has. When you take away the framework of the EU compliance and the European Convention on a Shakey Peg, hopefully the Peg will stabilise, but it is a shaky peg, I think that the Parliament is going to continue and will increasingly be looking to the UN human rights system, how to give effect to the treaties, the rights that people enjoy, the recommendations that come from the UN to the UK and Scotland. Once out of the EU, I think that the Parliament is going to have to keep abreast of what progressive developments there are in rights in Europe. I think that also we will lose the EU comfort blanket so that a lot of the rights that we get from the EU and equality, immigration, data protection and consumer standards are reserved. We will be with Westminster, and I think that the relationship between this committee and the joint committee at Westminster on human rights will become an increasingly important relationship, because you can already see that when you take away the comfort blanket of the EU protection, the differences that have emerged through devolution in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and the rest of the UK are a much sharper profile now. There is already evidence that you can see that Scotland and Wales, for example, are saying that we do not want regression in those rights that the EU has provided, and we want to ensure that Westminster maintains the level of protection and we want to keep pace with progressive European developments. The Parliament is going to be having to monitor an awful lot more in the UK, Europe and the UN, and that means that the committee needs strength and resources to be able to take a lead within the Parliament in that respect, so that might be a long answer to show, but I am a lawyer. Nevertheless, that is a good answer. Just one final question, if I may convene it. I think that you are at least very well the need for that kind of meta narrative of raising awareness, and I think that there is generally a recognition that that is being achieved. I think that you just have to look at the rights respecting schools agenda and how young people can repeat off to you the various articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is great, and that needs to continue when we cannot roll back on that. However, I think that there is another level that we need to focus on as well, which we are not doing so well, and that is the granular level, that idea that if it is not somebody's responsibility, then it becomes nobody's responsibility. We are already talking as a committee about extending to the other committees of this Parliament the idea of a human rights rapporteur, somebody who actually takes that responsibility, who receives training and an understanding of the treaties to which we are signatory in the conventions. Do you think that that may be required in the Scottish Government as well, that within each of the directorates and perhaps even within each of the bill teams that bring legislation forward for the Scottish Government, we have somebody who is specifically responsible for the observance of rights within the phrasing of that bill and is rights illiterate? Yes, when the Parliament was established and I was part of the conversations and various bodies at the time that was trying to frame the best foundation for the Parliament, there was a big discussion, do we have a human rights committee or do we mainstream it and expect that all the committees will integrate human rights into thinking. The view was that we should not have a human rights committee and silo human rights that should breathe everywhere. That did not happen. That is why we are this morning. It is the same within Government until there is a culture and a norm of understanding human rights and how to operationalise them. Mainstreaming is just incredible. There has to be very explicit well-resourced expert focal points within whether it is Government, Parliament or many, many other bodies in order that we can then move towards it being mainstream. I was at an event a couple of weeks ago, which gave me great heart just on the point that you have been raising. The Scottish Youth Parliament had an event in Dynamic Earth two weeks ago. Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament from every constituency in Scotland talked about what was happening to young people and linking everything, whether it is from mosquito devices to mental health to bullying of LGBTI to the need to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and what practical impact that would have on the quality of life of young people. Two thirds of the Scottish Cabinet was in there respectfully listening, as were the youth listening to what Cabinet members were saying they were trying to do. I was just sitting there and it was such a privilege because a lot of the work that I now do is with the UN in many, many different countries. I was just asking myself what other countries do you think Alan would create this forum, let alone the sort of mutual respect that was in display there. That gave me great heart for the future because these were young people that saw the connections and were thinking big, thinking globally and what would make a difference on the ground to them. The future is doable in terms of raising the awareness and getting where we want to. I met with the Scottish Youth Parliament delegates yesterday and the new chair of the Human Rights Committee, and they gave me their manifesto, their post-Brexit manifesto. It was incredibly interesting just to hear their views, so we have them in front of the committee next week. We are continuing that work with young people in the committee. I am going to move on now to Gail Ross. Good morning, Professor Miller. Thanks for coming along. The committee has heard some really compelling evidence over the past few weeks in this inquiry. One of the things that has been mentioned, which is probably something that you would have quite an opinion on, is strengthening the role of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The quote was that the Scottish Human Rights Commission powers should be extended to address the unmet need for free advice on human rights and be given the power to take forward cases. Do you agree with that statement? I read the submission given by the Scottish Human Rights Commission to this inquiry, and I would highly commend that to you. It is very comprehensive and should be given a lot of serious weight. In terms of any recommendations that will come out of the advisory group, they will be directed towards the First Minister and not towards the Scottish Human Rights Commission, but there is no doubt in my mind looking back as to the time that I was chair and then looking forward to just what we are discussing—how to increase making human rights relevant on an everyday basis. There is a huge role for a national human rights institution, and just as Parliament and Government should be strengthened in terms of the resources and the commitment and know-how, the strengthening of a national human rights institution. If it is given commensurate resources to do that, it is clearly part of what we would be looking at. What particular aspects might look like in terms of its further strengthening? As a former chair, I want to take a step back and not cast a shadow in any way, so I do not want to go too far down that road. In all the countries that I work in, as I say with the UN, you look for various things to get a barometer of the country's health from a human rights point of view. Does it have a free press? Does it have an independent judiciary? Does it have a civil society that is vibrant? Does it have an independent national human rights institution that is an effective independent influential well resource? It is one of the key pillars of a human rights society. We also heard an excellent piece of evidence from the ombudsman in Northern Ireland. She has a number of powers in relation to human rights that we were very interested in. Is that something that we could adopt here in Scotland? I do not know in detail what the evidence was that you heard, but it enjoys a very good reputation. The discussions that we are having in the advisory group are not at the stage yet making recommendations. We are looking at what is the new framework, the new structure that we might need post Brexit in Scotland. How do you operationalise that? How do you make that relevant through laws, policies and practice? That is a messy area. There are all kinds of public bodies, inspectors, regulators, adjudicators and tribunals, each of which would have to have an increased human rights capacity, if not powers or duties. If we were going to realise the human rights leadership and create a culture of human rights, everyone has to do something to improve the outcomes in everyday life for people. Those kinds of bodies and ombuds institutions are meeting with our ombudswomen next week. Those are critical actors in turning human rights commitments into practice that lead to improving people's lives. Anything that we can learn from the experience of others where it has worked, we should be completely open minded to that. I am sure of what you said, you already are. One of the things that interests me is the role that education can play in all of this. It was interesting to the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton made about human rights rapporteurs in each committee, because it would obviously be our desire to see human rights as a thread that completely runs through this Parliament and every piece of scrutiny or legislative work a committee does, it takes account of human rights. In order to do that, we as parliamentarians need to have a full grasp of what human rights means. There is that thread of education that will run through it. Committees almost need the framework that you talked about earlier to be able to measure and assess what they are doing against that framework. How important do you see the role of education? What suggestions would you have, first of all, for properly educating parliamentarians in Government to have a real understanding of what human rights are and what they mean for the people that we are doing a job for? The other thing is the role that schools play in this. I know that some schools are very successful in some of the programmes that they do about raising awareness of human rights. We have had young children in here that would really surprise you at the knowledge that they have, but we need to make human rights tangible to make it understandable for parliamentarians, for children and also for the public. I know that that is a very large question that I have asked you, but how do we go about doing that? I remember once walking along a street in Glasgow on a dark night just nearing the end of my term as chair of the commission, and I was approached by a young woman who I vaguely knew from the past and she said Alan, your term as chair of the commission is coming to an end. I just want to thank you. I said, well, that is very nice. It does not happen every day, but why? She said, because you told me several months ago about the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. I am a councillor in a poor part of Glasgow dealing with mental health problems of many of the residents. She said, I actually went home and I googled it and I read it, and she said it was transformative. She said it brought out the best in me that it sort of justified what it was I was trying to do every day, and then when I tried to put it into practice and let the people that I was working with know that they had rights to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, it brought out the best in them. They literally just sort of, you know, sat up right, so I am no longer asking for things for charity or whatever. I have a right to this. She said, I know that you go off to Geneva and New York, but it actually makes things better on the streets. Thanks for introducing me to it. I think that with MSPs, there are two things. One is that I think that there should be some programme put in place on introduction to what are human rights and not in general abstract terms, but to your work, to your role, how are they relevant, how do they help you to do what you want to do, but then there should be an on-going resource because, you know, we are all very busy people and you are not going to become a human rights expert overnight, but you need to have some independent authoritative resource at your disposal as and when you need it that can translate all the treaty stuff into this bill or this particular policy area. In part, that is the role of a national human rights institution and that is what it has tried and is trying to do, but I think that your committee might also need in and of itself a strengthened human rights resource expertise on an on-going basis. In terms of the schools, that is what I said about the Scottish Youth Parliament. I mean, I have been in and out of schools over the years and the great thing there is and no disrespect to any of us here or myself, but there is no world weary cynicism amongst young people. They are open, they are fresh, they empathise with young people around the world in a way that is just as it should be and they are very sharp and they ask questions that an adult doesn't really ask you because we've all been so conditioned over life that you just don't bother with some things because nothing is going to happen, but they are the jewel of the crown and the more that they are encouraged to have that open, inquiring mind, the better. I was in, I go to Berlin quite a lot and I went to the Museum of Torture, which gives you how Naziism came into being and what it did. Every school kid in Berlin has to go through that Museum of Torture. They used to then tell the kids, you know, this is what happened in the name of your country, make sure you don't do the things your grandparents did and the kids have got that, but then they stopped doing that, they stopped telling the kids about it and they just let the school students go through it themselves, saw the photographs, listened to the testimony, they could ask questions, but they formed their own impressions, which usually were actually much more taking it on board than when there was a guide taking the wrong thing, this is what you should be thinking about this. So I think empowering young people to have that kind of attitude, that is the future and as I said, within the SYP you see that in space. You mentioned the conversation that you had with a councillor, do you think that COSLA has an important role to play in that as well? They are at the coface, they have the hard, hard tasks of, with limited resources, trying to make sure that people's rights are respected, protected and fulfilled, so they always have to be in the minds of when you are passing laws, thinking of how is this going to be operationalised, what resources needed, what skill sets and capacity is needed. I think that one of my reflections over the years as chair of the commission is that lots of good laws have been passed, lots of good policies developed, the follow-up, the follow-through checking that it actually works and that those who are expected to deliver it, whether it is care workers, nurses or whatever, have they got the capacity and the time and the skill set and the leadership to fulfil the potential of the legislation or the policy. So, like a traffic light thing, we found that laws, green light, policies of green amber outcomes, having a positive impact on every day of life, amber into red, that was the sort of disconnect. Professor Miller, one of the things that we have talked about in the committee is when policy has been formulated here in a bill, it starts its process through the bill team. You always need to have a financial resolution with a bill, so why don't we have an equality and human rights impact assessment with every bill? At the very earliest stages, when a smart idea that would be turned into a law starts that journey, that journey starts from a very firm foundation of being through that filter of human rights respecting a process. What are your thoughts on that? I think that the journey that the Parliament is on will be given renewed impetus, I hope, by the recommendations that come out the advisory group and dealing with the realities post Brexit, is moving from a compliance culture of checking things that we're not doing it wrong to a culture that is more not reactive, but proactive. Starting at the very beginning, how do we make sure that the right to an adequate standard of living, high standard of health, adequate housing, how do we make sure that that is what's at the very beginning of this policy or bill that we're contemplating? It's less reactive or proactive. How do we fulfil these rights and therefore the impact assessment, if it's just like the old ones, is this compliant with the ECHR? The lawyer says it is. Let's hope it doesn't get challenged to saying, well, we're legislating in the area of health or social care. There is a right to the highest attainable standard of health. What does that mean? What does the UN Treaty and the general comments and the interpretation and how other countries have tried to fulfil this? How can we do that? So it's like a positive impact assessment and not a negative impact assessment or both. I would say, yes, fuller human rights impact assessments, but with this fulfilling positive motivation and not just what we all know in our day-to-day-land, the box-ticking stuff. That's going to be very helpful, thanks very much. Fulton MacGregor. I'm interested in your views on human rights and immigration law and policy, particularly in the context of Brexit. Is that something that you'll be looking at through the advisory group? Immigration largely is a reserved area. I think what we'll find, and this is where I think there's a big role for you, and I'm very glad to see your adviser being who he is and here, because I think the relationship between this committee and the joint committee in human rights at Westminster is very important. There are a lot of rights which the EU has looked after for a long period of time. In part, it's some immigration, not a lot, but in the area of immigration equality, data protection, consumer standards, workers' rights. When you take away this comfort blanket and then it's left with Westminster, but there are devolutionary differences of aspirations or legal systems or whatever, then I think there's going to be a necessary constructive relationship between Holyrood and Westminster to make sure that in those reserved areas like immigration we don't regress and therefore people living in Scotland are not enjoying the rights to which they have been entitled or others elsewhere are increasingly being entitled to. I don't think we'll have any specific recommendations in immigration because it's a reserved area, but I think the context in which we're doing our work is that Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland are all going to be looking to Westminster and basically saying, look, we don't want the ball dropped here and we want to go forward. Standing still these days is actually going backwards, so I think there's going to be that kind of conversation that needs to take place, not least in the area of immigration. Yeah, but I think it comes back actually to Mary Fee's point as well in terms of MSPs, councillors and the public in general, knowing what their rights are and how they can take it forward. I've been dealing with a case just now, people in the table might have seen some coverage on it, but we're a young family. We're facing deportation. It turns out that it was actually a mistake, which is another issue altogether, but we're facing deportation, we've been facing this for quite some time. You're talking about a young child here and her mother being separated and sent home. They're coming to me as MSPs, they're going to the MPs as well, they're coming in to the Parliament, they're asking questions to the First Minister and Government officials, wanting their rights exercised. They're here now, but this is a reserved matter. So there's that kind of issue as well. How can we make sure that people are able to exercise their rights in immigration circumstances? When I said earlier that people buying large in Scotland don't know well enough what their rights are or what to do about it when their rights are not being respected. If you take the case that you're involved in, it's not within the competence, presumably, of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government, it is within the competence of Westminster. That doesn't mean that you don't or can't do anything about it, it means that you have to bring it to the attention of Westminster and public opinion, because if you look at the Windrush experience, for all of the negative interpretation of the Brexit vote, that there was some virulent anti-immigrant sentiment running riot throughout the UK and in some areas more than others. When the human dimensions of getting immigration wrong are presented to the British people, like in Windrush, dramatically, it touches a chord. When that human dimension is seen, people see things differently than the rhetoric and the populism that they're fed day and daily. Bringing those cases to the attention of the public and then of the competent authorities, whoever they are, is a very important part of the work of an MSP. I think that we can see what's happened with Windrush is that people are fair, they are decent, they don't like stuff like that going on in their name and sometimes we don't give people the credit that they're entitled to and we think that we voted Brexit there for all that kind of Windrush stuff is somehow condoned or accepted by the people that it's not. Oh, thank you, convener. Excuse me a second. Good morning, Professor Miller. Can I start with a technical question? I think that you said earlier that you're a lawyer, which is great. Can I ask what your understanding is of the implications of the UK withdrawal from the EU legal continuity Scotland bill that was passed in its relationship to how the continuation of policies, which continue in Europe but not in the UK after the end of the transition period, how those aspects cannot be incorporated into Scots law if they are devolved or reserved competencies and I think one of the debates that we had around that piece of legislation was which pieces of EU law could be transposed into Scots law directly in a post-Brexit scenario and I think there was still no clear answers at the end of that but in relation to human rights and qualities what is your understanding of which areas could or could not be incorporated into Scots law? Well, schedule 5 Scotland act 1998 lists what are reserved and everything else is non-reserved. That includes human rights. Schedule 5 also provides Scotland with an exemption from foreign affairs and international obligations being reserved and Scotland under that Scotland act has the duty to not breach international obligations and the power to observe and implement them. So, within the devolved areas of competency there is a broad scope for Scotland to implement what it wants and takes from the United Nations treaties, from developments in EU law and therefore my reading, and I am not a constitutional law expert, my reading of the continuity bill was that was what it was trying to enable the Scottish Parliament to do, to be able to not fall behind, keep pace with developments within its areas of competence. I think more broadly, this is a reserved, devolved issue. I think that this is just the beginning of it being a conversation that is going to be taking place day and daily because, as I say, when you remove the EU comfort blanket then the realities of devolutionary developments over the last 20 years, not only in Scotland, are laid more bare and when the UK Government is seeking common frameworks that are easily understood the necessity for common frameworks, then devolved reserved matters and the 20 years of development of devolution now perhaps being a bit clearer than they had been before because they were mitigated by the EU framework. Those are very real conversations and the fact that a lot of the EU rights do sit within reserved areas, there is no jubiety about that, then it means that these conversations between Westminster and Holyrood are very, very important conversations to make sure that there is no regression and that we keep pace and the mantra that I have been talking for the last 40 minutes. I think that the continuity bill was trying to reflect that. I guess that leads nicely into my next area, which is around areas which notwithstanding the situation that I presume the purpose of the advisory group was to focus on the post-Brexit scenario and scenario building around that. The purpose of our inquiry is to actually look at what is currently being done and I think, as Alex Cole-Hamilton said, is the things that are already within our power and devolved competencies. My view on this after a number of weeks of taking evidence and meeting various stakeholders is that it is less around the wording of what the qualities of human rights are but more around the everyday application, I think that is something that we have explored somewhat today. The provision of human rights in everyday life in areas such as healthcare, social care, education, access to justice, housing, et cetera, et cetera, are already devolved to this Parliament and to the Scottish Government. What I am getting at is how do you think we, as committees and as parliamentarians, can better exercise the powers that we already have within devolved competencies to ensure that at the policy making level, because bearing in mind that legislation is generally reflective of the policy decisions of the Government of the day and the bills that we are dealing with are mostly Government-led bills rather than members. How do we ensure that those existing competencies have human rights and qualities at the forefront of the development of that policy? I think that that is something that is more practical to us as MSPs. I think that you have to ensure that the legislation in draft form of the policies that convener was earlier talking about, you know, a human rights impact assessment, both negative and positive, that clearly is part of your role. I think that there is a bit of a gap in Scotland in terms of the follow-up, you know, did this well-intentioned policy or law actually do what we expected it to do? If not, why not and what lessons can be learned from that? I think that maybe as good a way as any of ensuring that a bill or a policy is as good as it should be is the participation of people in the framing of the policy and the law. Those with lived experience of the problem that you are trying to solve, be it in health or social care or housing, the greater their meaningful participation is at an early stage in saying, these are the problems from our lived experience, these are the solutions that would make the biggest difference on an everyday basis to us. We recognise that the resources are limited. Here is the most effective way to deploy these resources and you know, here are ways in which they should be measured and reviewed on an on-going basis by the participation of people with lived experience who are supposed to be the beneficiaries. I saw a presentation of these user panels for the social security bill. How can we make sure that the treatment of people by a Scottish social security system is what it should be and that their dignity is front and centre? Therefore, to have those who have lived experience of what they do not think has worked very well in terms of the social security system and what they think would work better from their point of view and how they are treated, that is probably as good a help as you would get from any source as to how to frame the policy and law, but then to have it constantly being reviewed again by those people who are living day and daily with it. Is this working? Are there unintended consequences that we should be aware of? How can we improve it? The meaningful participation of those who have lived experience, the rights holders, which I think that the Parliament and Government and a lot of bodies are more cognisant of, and it is not easy to find real ways and means and not just tokenistic, but I think that that is a big way forward to be built into the lawmaking, policymaking process. That is reflected in the work that we are doing as a committee. We are holding various focus groups around the country and it is those very individualised experiences of talking to people at the cold face of everyday life that has helped shaping our views as well. It has been a very helpful experience. I think that one of the things that you mentioned a few times throughout this morning is the important need for improved or continued relationships between Scottish parliamentary committees and Westminster structures. At the moment, the only formal protocol for that is via the GMC, which is not, to my understanding, something that we get terribly involved in and really is very much centred around the constitutional discussions around Brexit at the moment between the relevant ministers and both parliaments. In the two years that I have been here, we have had very little discussion with sister committees. I am sure that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes with clerks and research, etc. For example, the expertise that we have taken on board is very helpful and useful, but it is something that I am acutely aware of that we do not do much of in the Scottish Parliament across any of the thematic committees. How do you think that we can better improve that situation? I think that we are all going to have to do that better. For all the reasons that I have laid out post Brexit, there will be an awful lot more interaction needed than has been the case in the past where we had the EU as the umbrella for it. I think that finding the ways and means of having regular meetings, communications, not only with Westminster, but I was speaking to a colleague from Wales. There is a lot to be learned from the Welsh Assembly and what they are doing. Equally, they are very interested in some of the things that are happening here. Beyond the UK, if we are going to try and keep pace within the devolved areas of developments in Europe, it would be good if you had a relationship with your peers in the European Parliament or in the Council of Europe and the relevant committees there and other parliaments throughout Europe and beyond. All of us are lifting our heads in these new times to learn as much as possible and to be a constructive actor and to share. Scotland also has various stories to tell that are helpful to others as well. The more interaction there is among parliaments and human rights committees, I think that you are going to hear from the inter-parliamentary union. These are all very, very good initiatives to take time and capacity and resources to do that. I think that you need strength and resources in order to take on what I think will be additional responsibilities post Brexit. Thanks very much. We had a visit to Strasbourg last week, Professor Mills. We met with a number of organisations, including the legal affairs committee in the Council of Europe. Parliament has one delegate to the Congress of Local Authorities and Regions in Europe, not to pace. Last week, we realised that there are many parts of the institution of the Council of Europe that we have to strengthen our relationship with. We are already looking at that, so it is helpful that you put that on the record. Are you okay to stay for another few minutes? I know that we are running over our time, but I was not sure whether you needed to be somewhere else. We have a couple more questions and that should be us. Annie Wells. The sort of route that I want to take is about how to balance human rights. We have said that it is important to get the people in the lived experiences that we have to look at the community as well as the individuals. One of the bits of evidence that we took was that some rights are absolute, but not all rights are. Sometimes we have to find the balance between rights. As parliamentarians, how do we know that we are making the right decision about what rights are? Does one trump another? Do we have to take into account everything? Should we have legal advice when we make decisions? Really, it should be the judiciary that makes that decision. No, that is a great question. It comes up all the time. I came up yesterday at balancing competing claims, competing rights, the public good, the public interest and the individual. Human rights law and practice has, over the decades, developed means of reconciling those competing claims and interests. For example, proportionality. What we want to achieve is improving that area. If we do it in this way, it might have a negative impact on this part of the community. Is there another way in which we could achieve that aim? I remember years ago, I was asked to do work to try to change the culture in the state hospital at Car Stairs because it was not a happy place. I went in and I said, this will take some time. The chief executive said, how will I know when it is better and there is a culture? I said, there are various measurements that you could put in place, a number of complaints of it, but you will feel it and you will see it and you will hear it when it is there. I said, okay, I am not immediately impressed with that answer. Six months later, she said, I was in the coffee break today, there were two nurses talking to one another and one was explaining to the other that they had to restrain a violent incident of one of the patients. She said to the other nurse, just having a cup of coffee, I am sure that I handled it right, I am sure that I restrained him properly because I was using proportionate force and the chief executive had never heard in a coffee shop chatter between the nurses about proportionality. It is getting that into our minds about how you make these balances. Having a resource on hand would help, but it is not that complicated. It is by and large how we live our lives and how we develop relationships in a family or a neighbourhood. It is a lot of common sense. I think proportionality and what that means in the various specific contexts that you are confronted with. Human rights over the years has developed these ways of thinking to resolve competing claims on rights and it is not that tough. Mary, you have got a supplementary question. Yes, convener. It follows on very nicely from the question that Annie Wells has just asked you. Since I came into Parliament, one group of people that I have been very vocal in advocating on behalf of are Gypsy travellers. It is quite clear to almost everyone that Gypsy travellers' rights are not being upheld and they are still extremely discriminated against group in Scotland. When you are taking forward the piece of work to develop the framework to ensure that rights are upheld and there is no regression, are you taking account of any groups like Gypsy travellers who are currently the rights are not being upheld? How will you ensure that there is a level playing field when this framework is put in place? It is a good follow-up to the question because there you have a perceived public interest and the interest of Gypsy travellers to decent conditions on sites. How do you reconcile those two legitimate perspectives? It is one that we have all wrestled with not effectively enough over the years. It is a good example, as you say, of getting things right and being honest with ourselves that today we have not got things right, so we will construct something for the future. We should understand why some of the things today we have not got right. My own experience over the years has been, for example, one of the biggest pieces of work that I was involved with this chair of the commission was the survivors of historic child abuse, which had a lot of similarities. People had wrestled with that problem for a long time and had not caught it. In the commission, we developed what we called a human rights-based approach interactions. We got around a table like this for the first time ever. Survivors, representatives of religious institutions, local authorities, the Government, and said that survivors of various rights were going to listen to them as to what their experience was. Then we developed an action plan that gives them access to justice. We had a series of meetings. The relationships that were developed over the series of meetings, you could see it in the body language from no trust and suspicion to an understanding of each other's point of entry into trying to find a solution to that. An action plan was developed with complete consensus, and it is now being executed in various ways. It is like we were talking about Windrush earlier on. It is when you get people together within the framework of human rights to understand and put themselves in the shoes of others that you can find solutions. If you just have policy makers here and Gypsy Travelers there and local newspapers and communities there, it does not work. Being quite bold and ambitious, I am getting around the same table and having a real understanding and a commitment to follow through with an agreed action plan. That can be done at a local level or a broader and a national level. Those kinds of tools are proportionality, human rights interactions. If they could be scaled up as we go forward and learning the lessons of what we have not got right and where we have got things right, how can we scale that up? Colleagues, I have a final question for Professor Miller. Although we talked about not just having a compliance attitude, how do you think that this place could monitor and audit compliance and also the roles of the different organisations in ensuring that there is an overall monitoring and audit process in everything that we do? Again, that is a big educational shift for public bodies. Your example of the work that you did at Carstairs is a perfect example of that, but are there any ideas that you have that we can take forward in this place and how we do that? One of the essence of this inquiry is how we make the Scottish Parliament the guarantor of human rights for people. There are obviously different aspects to that. There is education, there is awareness, there is the work that we do in committees, there is the work that the Government does, there is the work in formulating policy, but there is also the work about monitoring and auditing and making sure that we are making process. Do you have any ideas on how we can do that? It is one of the areas that we are looking at in the advisory group. There are various names, such as participatory governance. What would that look like? Is it practical and proportionate use of resources and time? There are a lot of lessons that I am certainly interested in. I met Minister Jeane Freeman yesterday in the Social Security Bill, because it contains quite a lot of interesting, innovative stuff, beginning with the user panels to frame how should the system function, what can we learn, and then the establishment of a social security commission to have an oversight of the regulations, the secondary legislation, how the charter is actually applied on the ground, referenced to the international covenant on economic social cultural rights, the right to social security, and making reports to the Parliament as to how the system is working. Is it meeting its desired goals, coupled then with access to independent advocacy and complaints that need to be to the Ombud's office? How that plays out in the next few years would be very interesting, because it is quite a serious attempt to apply a human rights-based approach. Everything is not perfect, and I know that there are critiques of it, but I think that there is a lot of learning from that that we can take. The essence of it is participation, meaningful public participation, and the ways and means of doing that. If you can crack that here, there are a lot of people around the world who can tell you who would be beating a path to your door to learn from that, because that is what everyone is trying to do in different contexts. If we can make some progress, as I think that we are here, we are contributing internationally. That is a good place to finish up. Thank you so much for your evidence to us this morning. I know that you stayed on a wee bit later, and we are very grateful for that, because this is a topic that you can see that we all have clear areas of interest. If you go away and you think that you know that I should have informed them of this, I told them that, please do not hesitate to come back to this. The inquiry will be running for it a wee bit longer, so we are hoping to have the fullest report that we possibly can. Any other evidence or information would be very grateful. I am very appreciative, and I really look forward to looking at your report, because our recommendations will be beginning to be shaped September, October to then give to the FM by December. What comes out of your work will be very instructive for us. I am just sorry that we cannot share more of ours with yours before you meet your deadline, but we will certainly pick up anything that we think could help us in our recommendations from your report. I think that we have a lot out of you this morning, and we are very grateful for that. Thank you so much. I will go to the Suspend Committee to get into private, a quick five minutes break, and then back to the table, please.