 I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's fourth meeting of 2016. Can I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices? No, apologies have been received. Item 1, the committee has invited a great to consider our work programme under item 5 in private. Are you agreed? We now move on to stage two proceedings on the community justice Scotland bill. We'll start where we left off last week, and that's to restart at section 9 of the bill. Our intention is to conclude stage 2 consideration today. Members should have their copies of the bill and martial list and groupings of amendments for today's consideration. I welcome Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and his officials. That was lovely of you. Good morning to everybody. I wasn't ready for that. Are you all ready to begin? I've got your papers out. Okay, okay. I now start with the amendments, and I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister, a group with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Can I point out if amendment 91 in group, the ability of community justice to develop and arrange services, agreed to, I cannot call amendment 56 in this group, which is preempted. Minister pleased to move amendment 29 and speak to the other amendments in the group. At stage 1, the committee and stakeholders wished to see a stronger participative role for the third sector in community justice. I fully recognise that the third sector is vital to the successful planning and delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals, and I am grateful for the positive contribution that the sector makes to community justice at both a local and national level. It was always anticipated that relevant third sector bodies should be consulted, which is why the consultation requirements in the bill, as introduced, include the wording, and I quote such other persons as it or they consider appropriate. However, I have listened to the concerns of the sector and members of the committee, and this series of amendments will make it absolutely clear and put it hopefully beyond doubt that appropriate third sector bodies are to be consulted, thus ensuring that they have the opportunity to contribute their views on planning, reporting, the approach to commissioning of community justice. The key national strategy and performance framework documents. Amendment 31 inserts a new section to the bill, which defines the categories of third sector bodies that will be involved in community justice planning for the purposes of this bill. It applies a criterion so that third sector organisations that provide community justice services or perform an advocacy or advisory role will be given the stronger participative role that is described in the other amendments in this group. Amendment 31A, brought forward by Margaret MacDougall, proposes to alter my own amendment 31 so that the definition of third sector bodies would, if amended, expressly include organisations that represent or promote the interests of victims of offences and their families. However, as I have just said, my own amendment 31 contains a reference to third sector bodies that represent or promote the interests of other persons who may be affected by community justice. That reference is intentionally broad so that it can include bodies that represent the very people that Margaret MacDougall is suggesting in her own amendment 31A. That is victims of offences and affected members of their families. However, my amendment goes wider than that in that it would also include bodies that represent others who may be affected by community justice, such as the families of people who have committed offences. As all those people would be covered by the reference to persons who are affected by community justice, singling out any one group in the way that is proposed by amendment 31A might call into question the intended width of amendment 31. However, I understand very much that Margaret MacDougall is particularly concerned to ensure that victims and their families are specifically referred to in this bill. Although the interests of victims and their families should always be very much at the forefront of our minds, I would also wish to adjust some of the wording in her amendment to make it more comprehensive so as to make clear that other groups are included too, such as the families of people who have committed offences or who have been arrested under suspicion of committing offences. For that reason, in recognising the importance of the issue that is being presented by Margaret MacDougall, I invite Margaret MacDougall to not move this amendment at this stage and to work with me with a view to her bringing an amendment in her own name back at stage 3 so that the Scottish Government can support this, which is hopefully an area that we could find consensus on. I invite Margaret MacDougall to not move this amendment at this stage. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 require Scottish ministers to consult appropriate third sector bodies when they are preparing the national performance framework in relation to community justice and when preparing, reviewing and revising the national strategy in relation to community justice. Amendments 56 require Scottish ministers to consult appropriate third sector bodies when requiring community justice Scotland to arrange a particular service. Amendments 29, 30 and 35 require community justice Scotland to consult appropriate third sector bodies when it prepares its corporate plan under section 9, its annual report on the exercise of its functions under section 10 and when reviewing the national performance framework in relation to community justice under section 16. Amendments 51, 55, 58 and 59 require community justice Scotland to consult appropriate third sector bodies when preparing its annual report on the achievement of outcomes across Scotland under section 25, when exercising their power under section 26 to identify, design or make arrangements for the provision of a service in relation to community justice and when preparing, reviewing and revising the strategy for innovation, learning and development under sections 27 and 28. Amendments 36 reorders section 18 subsection 1 into two subsections to provide greater clarity and amendment 37 is consequential to amendment 36. Amendments 40 and 41 clarify that the community justice partners referred to in section 18 are the community justice partners for the local authority area and that they must consult the bodies covered in the new subsection as inserted by amendment 42 who are not already participating in planning by virtue of existing section 18 subsection 3. Amendment 42 restates the list of consultees but reframed to specifically draw out relevant third sector bodies. Amendment 47 requires community justice partners to consult appropriate third sector bodies when preparing the annual report on their assessment of whether outcomes are being achieved and progress towards achieving outcomes. Finally, amendment 63 is consequential on amendment 32 and adds a definition of the third sector to section 32. I will now speak to amendment 98, brought forward by Margaret MacDougall, which proposes to insert a new section into the bill requiring the community justice partners to provide a report to community justice Scotland setting out the extent of their engagement with the third sector in preparing their community justice outcome improvement plans. Again, I am very grateful to Margaret MacDougall for bringing forward her amendment on this important issue. It had been my intention to set out in guidance that the community justice partners should set out in the plan who contributed to it and how. The purpose of this would be to draw out the level of engagement with the third sector and others, and amendment 98 seeks to express its intention instead in legislation. Therefore, I take no issue with the principle of Margaret MacDougall's amendment. However, I have a concern with subsections 4 and 5, which seek to take a power for Scottish ministers to make further provision about the engagement reports. I see that this is unnecessary and potentially wasteful of parliamentary time and government resources. It would be preferable, in keeping with other provisions in the bill, for the detail to be set out in ministerial guidance following consultation with third sector and community justice partners. However, as I have mentioned, I am sympathetic to the principle behind amendment 98. I would again like to work with the member to achieve the results that she wants, but in what we believe could be a more efficient and effective way. In light of what I have just set out, I would again invite Margaret MacDougall to accept my offer to work with her to bring forward an amendment at stage 3 in her name and to not move amendment 98 at this stage. My view is that the contribution of the third sector is vital to the successful delivery of community justice. Given that the committee called for an explicit, stronger, participative role for the third sector, I trust that colleagues will recognise the significant amendments in my name as a positive response to the recommendations. I move amendment 29. Amendment 31A seeks to amend amendment 31 to add a reference to victims of offences and their families to ensure that victims and their families are given a higher profile in the bill by explicitly recognised. As it stands, amendment 31, section B1, 2, is too vague. It states, other persons who are or may be affected by community justice. This is not an overly clear statement and my small amendment ensures that there is no doubt of the importance of victims and their families being involved and represented within the engagement and consultation process. The amendment ensures that victims are taken into consideration within the bill, something that was promised by the Scottish Government but has not, in my view, been delivered. With the expansion of the definition of community justice to include those suspected of a crime and given bail and others previously not included within community justice, it is particularly important that confusion is kept to a minimum as to victims' rights in those areas. To make sure that the process is as simple as possible for victims, I suggest that victims should have the same rights and be treated in a consistent manner regardless of how the offender is treated. Therefore, I suggest that the main principles of victims and witnesses Scotland Act 2014 be set as standard principles throughout criminal and community justice, while there is a difference between the two pieces of legislation. Those are not easily identifiable by victims. The amendment is supported by both women's aid and victim support, who specifically requested that inclusion. It is very similar to my amendment 95, which was supported by the committee last week. However, I welcome the minister's comments this morning and offer to work with me to try and come to some compromise on the wording, so I will not push that amendment. Amendment 98 is designed to ensure that community justice partners report to community justice Scotland and how they have engaged and consulted with third sector bodies in the preparation and development of the community justice outcomes improvement plan. The bill states that statutory partners must consider which third sector bodies involved in community justice are likely to be able to contribute to the preparation of the plan for their area and make all reasonable efforts to secure the participation of such bodies in the preparation of the plan. Where a third sector body involved in community justice wishes to participate in the preparation of the plan, to any extent, the statutory partners will be required to take such steps as are reasonable to enable the third sector body to participate to that extent. That is to be welcomed. However, my amendment would go further than that and put in place a reporting mechanism to ensure that community justice partners can be held to account by the national body in relation to how they are carried out these duties. Experience shows that it can often be difficult for statutory partners to engage with third sector bodies at a local level due to the nature and diversity of the sector. Similarly, many current planning processes are often out of reach for some third sector organisations, particularly the smaller ones. My amendment would make sure that if there are any problems or issues for statutory partners engaging and consulting with third sector bodies, these problems are deported on and addressed through appropriate means. This amendment complements Scottish Government's amendment 53 on local improvement recommendations, which states that community justice partners to whom a local improvement recommendation has been made must comply with any direction issued by community justice Scotland. My amendment specifies that community justice partners must report to the community justice Scotland on how they have engaged with third sector bodies in the preparation of the plan. If partners have not complied with the consulting and engagement duties within the bill or have found difficulties in doing so, community justice Scotland would make an improvement recommendation with which partners must comply. The amendment is supported by the Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum, which includes APEC Scotland, Barnardo Scotland, Circle, Cornerstone, Syrians, Families Outside, Sacro, Positive Prison, Positive Futures, Women's Aid and Victim Support. However, as in my earlier amendment, I welcome that the minister is willing to meet with me and discuss how we can come to an arrangement or an agreement on the wording of this, so I will not push my moment motion at this time. I'm waiting for you to push your moment. I will not push my motion at this time. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to come in? I warmly welcome the amendments in this group from the minister. I think that they go a long way to meet some of the concerns that we heard during evidence-taking from the third sector in particular. I think that they strengthen the bill significantly. I'm grateful for that. I think that the intention of Margaret Mitchell's amendments is well understood. I support the intention behind it and I hope that something can be resolved around that. I, too, welcome on the face of the bill the inclusion of the third sector. Everybody, including the minister, knows that they are at the core of delivering help to those who have offended or the verge of offending. I very much welcome the recognition that is put in the bill. I also thank the minister for listening to Margaret MacDougall, who has brought forward those amendments. I'm glad that you are able to hope to co-operate and come to range because I think that they are important amendments to Margaret Mitchell. I concur with all that has been said. In particular, I hope that you can work with Margaret MacDougall, because I think that it is important that victims and families are mentioned specifically in the bill. I, too, welcome the continued dialogue between Margaret MacDougall and the minister on these issues, hopefully, with the view to resolving it for stage 3. I was not very keen to have it on the face of the bill. The only thing I would ask the minister is to consider what I said earlier on about the private sector involvement. I'm not saying it should be on the face of the bill, but I would be thankful if he could recognise the contribution. I thank the members for their considered points that they have made, particularly Margaret MacDougall, for showing such willingness to work with me. I am very keen to deliver on the clear sentiment from Margaret MacDougall and the committee to reflect on the importance of the third sector, but specifically in the case of the First Amendment 31A in relation to victims and their families. I think that that was an important point, and I am happy to work with the member to get that wording right. I hope that we can all go forward together with consensus on that issue. We will certainly look to see how we can reflect on the point that Mr Alard makes. I recognise the importance of the private sector, particularly in providing employment opportunities for people who are within the community justice system. That is an important point, and we will reflect on how we can address that point. I think that the amendment 29 be agreed to, and we all agreed. I am sorry, but I am going to call amendment 70 in the name of Elaine Murray, group with amendments 71, 87 and 82. Elaine, please remove amendment 70 and speak to the other amendments in the group. As I said last week, the amendments in my name have been originally proposed by COSLA, and I have submitted them in order to have some discussion about the issues that COSLA wants to raise and that they still feel a matter of anxiety for local government. COSLA are concerned that local government must be involved in the national assurance processes. It welcomes the minister's acceptance of the principle of establishing a joint arrangement involving local government and potentially other partners. However, I believe that that should be on the face of the bill. Amendments 70 and 71 require that a copy of Community Justice Scotland's annual report to be sent to each local authority. Amendments 87 and 92 ensure that local government will be involved in the national assurance processes and puts the commitment made by the Scottish Government onto the face of the bill. The support of local government in its governing elected members is fundamental to the success of the future model for community justice. Local government is also the key agency with responsibility for the delivery of community justice services. To this end, local government must be involved in the national assurance process. As partners in the delivery of the national community justice strategy and its associated outcomes framework, local government has an important role to play in national oversight alongside Scottish ministers. Scottish and local government, which COSLA believes, should be jointly engaged in the assurance process that Community Justice Scotland will facilitate by learning from negotiating, changing and leading what is needed. The minister has accepted the principles of establishing a joint arrangements committee involving local government and potentially other partners and Scottish ministers to oversee delivery of the national outcomes and the strategy that has been welcomed. COSLA also believes that that can only be reliably established as a lasting arrangement if it appears in the face of the bill. I think that the minister may not agree with that sentiment, but he would maybe be able to give some sort of assurance if it is not on the face of the bill to ensure that COSLA feels fully engaged in the process and fully engaged in national assurance. The community justice stage 1 report indicates that there would be value in involving local councillors in the national body but that it would be impossible to find a local elected member who could represent all areas. COSLA believes that the amendment would address those issues by agreeing an arrangement that allowed local government to present itself as a coherent voice. Those amendments would bring ministers and representatives of local government together to oversee the delivery against the national strategy and the performance fragment. If it is accepted, COSLA will continue discussions with ministers as to how that arrangement should take form. In fact, I hope that it would continue discussions with the ministers even if it is not accepted. Amendment 87 requires ministers to meet with representatives of local authorities and other persons to consider the community justice Scotland annual report. The assessment that it has made of the performance relating to achieving nationally determined outcomes. Amendment 92 requires the CGS to report to ministers to each local authority and to others on its strategy for innovation, learning and development, and the frequency of such meetings is not prescribed. I ask you to move amendment 70, please. I will move amendment 70. Anyone else? Minister, please. Thank you, convener. The group of amendments that Dr Murray brought forward relates to the arrangements for community justice Scotland when reporting on the exercise of its functions or when reporting on the achievement of outcomes across Scotland as a whole. I regret that I cannot support the amendments and it will now explain why I would urge Dr Murray not to move them. I do recognise that Dr Murray has raised his amendments largely to try and have a debate about the kind of issues and to seek assurances from ministers about the role of local authorities and I'm happy to engage in that. Amendment 70 and 71, as I understand them, amend section 10 to require community justice Scotland to provide a copy of its annual report on the exercise of its functions to each local authority at the same time as they submit a copy to Scottish ministers. Let me clarify that, as an executive non-departmental public body, community justice Scotland is directly and only accountable to Scottish ministers in a legal sense. The bill therefore provides that community justice Scotland is required to submit its annual report to Scottish ministers who must in turn lay the report in Parliament, which reflects the accountability of ministers to the Parliament, and this report will then be published. As community justice Scotland is not accountable to local authorities directly, it's not appropriate for local authorities to receive this annual report at the same time as Scottish ministers and before Parliament itself receives a copy. It's also not appropriate that local authorities receive a copy of the report before any of the other community justice partners, which might unintentionally thereby create a de facto hierarchy among the partners, which might be unhelpful. Local authorities, as one of the community justice partners, will of course be consulted on the report as it is prepared and will have the opportunity to comment on it then. Thereafter, local authorities may access the report once it's been published and it's been laid in Parliament at the same time as the other community justice partners, thus ensuring that all community justice partners are treated in the same way and are equally involved. I'm happy to put on record the key delivery role of COSLA and individual local authorities across Scotland in delivery of community justice. It's therefore very positive that COSLA is wanting to be engaged and I take that as an entirely positive intent. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 1771, but if the committee were minded to agree to amendment 1771, I believe that a perceived accountability will be created that is simply inappropriate. It would create a hierarchy among community justice partners by elevating the importance of local authorities, important though they are, over that of other community justice partners. I again think that that would perhaps send the wrong message and risk a difficulty in securing buy-in from the other community justice partners if they felt there was a perceived hierarchy from the outset. I therefore invite Dr Murray not to move the two amendments, but I do recognise that she has lodged them in order to have a debate about these issues. Amendment 87 amends section 25 to require Scottish ministers to convene a meeting of certain persons to consider the report from community justice Scotland on its assessment of performance in Scotland as a whole in relation to the achievement of nationally determined outcomes. It has been made clear in our response to consultations on the new model for community justice that the Scottish Government is committed to consulting with local government leaders on any decision which has an impact on local financial and commissioning decisions. That would respect the established procedures for the setting of the public sector budget in Scotland, and that commitment still stands. I am, of course, supportive in general of meeting with key partners to consider community justice Scotland's assessment of how outcomes are being achieved across Scotland, and that is a point that I have discussed with causal representatives. I firmly see that as part of an assurance process that outcomes are being improved upon and best practice being shared. I am happy to discuss a suitable mechanism for that with community justice partners, other partners and community justice Scotland in due course. I do not, however, believe that our requirement to have a meeting should be placed on the face of the bill. If the committee were minded to agree that amendment 87 should bear in mind that, in my view, the meeting would need to have some purpose other than simply to consider a report. A meeting without a clear purpose and without clearly understood outcomes would not appear to be a good use of time and resources. Furthermore, the amendment would only require Scottish ministers to conven a meeting, but ministers themselves would not be required to attend that meeting. I do not believe that this was Dr Murray's intended outcome, of course. It is for those reasons, convener, that I cannot support amendment 87. There does not need to be a statutory provision to require ministers to conven a meeting of local authority representatives to consider community justice Scotland's report. I am happy to discuss with COSELAND and other stakeholders how we propose events to share best practice and identify progress. However, I invite Dr Eileen Murray not to move her amendment. Finally, amendment 92 would insert a new section into the bill requiring community justice Scotland to report on the delivery of its strategy for innovation, learning and development to Scottish ministers, local authorities and other appropriate persons. I agree with Dr Murray about the importance of ensuring that the strategy is effectively implemented. However, the committee should be aware that amendment 92 would require a report to be produced, which is already effectively provided for under section 10 of the bill. Let me be clear about that so that members are clear about the drafting in the existing provisions in the bill. Under section 10, community justice Scotland must prepare an annual report on the exercise of all its functions during that financial year. One of community justice Scotland's functions, as set out in section 3 subsection 1c, is to promote and support improvement. In pursuance of section 3 1c, section 27 requires community justice Scotland to publish a strategy for innovation, learning and development, and in preparing the strategy to consult each of the community justice partners and such other persons as it considers appropriate. Therefore, taking sections 3, 10 and 27 together, community justice Scotland already cannot fully report on its functions to promote and support improvement without also reporting on the delivery of the strategy for innovation, learning and development. The requirement to report on delivery of the strategy is already there in the bill. As I have just explained, the additional reporting process created by amendment 92 is therefore unnecessary. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 92 and invite you not to agree to it. If the committee is minded to agree to it, then it should be aware that this creates an unnecessary duplication of effort for community justice Scotland. It also places a further burden on Scottish ministers, each local authority and others who would be required to consider this additional unnecessary report. I seek to withdraw 70. Amendment 71, in the name of Elaine Murray, has already been made in the name of the minister. Amendment 31, in the name of Elaine Murray, has already been made in the name of the minister. Amendment 31, in the name of Elaine Murray, has already been made in the name of the minister. Amendment 31, in the name of Elaine Murray, has already been made in the name of the minister. I start by saying that, if those amendments were passed, there would be a number of consequential amendments required to other parts of the bill. It did not seem to me to be a good use of either the committee's time or the legislation team's time to go through every single part, amending it when the amendments themselves might never be passed in the first place. There would be a job of work to be done if those amendments went through. Again, those have been suggested from COSLA. The set of amendments looks at what sort of partnership the community justice partners would be involved in. Amendment 72 creates a new section that would place a duty on community partners to establish a local community justice partnership and place local partnerships within a community planning context. Amendment 93 ensures that all community justice partners must co-operate at a local level as well as at the national level, requiring us to be demonstrated. Local community justice partners must have a robust footing so that partners can be properly held account for community justice services at a local level. In COSLA's opinion, the bill does not currently offer this and it offers no obligation for partnership even to be established. The proposed solution that COSLA proposes is a specific amendment to the bill that requires local community justice partnerships to be formally established and to have a clear relationship with the local community planning arrangements. The bill would also be amended to ensure that the duty on partners to co-operate must be demonstrated at a local level. That would allow local community justice partners to be locally accountable with local elected members playing a key role and would achieve a balance between protecting local flexibility while ensuring partnerships were placed on a robust footing. It would make it more likely that individual partners to take the matter seriously, are willing to pool resources and less likely that community justice is seen as a discretionary area of activity. For those who have been involved in the journey of the redesign of community justice, the assumption is that local community justice partnerships will be established along local authority lines or, in some cases, across local authority boundaries. The amendment would ensure that partnerships are established and have a legislative footing. It would also have a place of partnerships in a community planning context, which had been the original tension of the redesign and the concern raised by the justice committee at stage 1. As the cabinet secretary said in 2014, the new model is designed to harness this commitment and the passion as much as possible by encouraging collaborative approach to local service delivery through community planning partnerships, CPPs. Adequate resourcing of these partnership arrangements must also be provided to ensure that community justice partners are effective and COSLA has a commitment from the Scottish Government that these conversations will take place. The intention is not for this amendment to preclude partnerships being formed across local authority boundaries. COSLA welcomed the proposals in the Community Empowerment Scotland Act to improve community planning processes by requiring all statutory partners to participate equally and fully in the process through legislation. It believed that the community justice bill should replicate that. The amendments to section 30 guard against a national partner simply being able to dispose of its duty to co-operate through its activity at a national level. Instead, each statutory partner would be required to demonstrate its commitment at a local partnership level. At stage 1, the committee also considered the idea of appointing a lead partner. While that was understandably rejected, the amendment's provision for local partners to appoint a chair goes somewhere towards resolving the issue. Audit Scotland's report asked for a clear accountability and a mechanism to provide collective responsibility for reducing re-offending. A duty to form a partnership with a chair who is ultimately accountable to the community is one way of providing that. I think that that's probably all I have. Yeah, that's all I have to say, except that you haven't moved yet. Yeah, except that I usually have moved. Moved about amendment 72. Thank you very much. Alison McInnes, please, to speak to amendment 99 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. We've heard a lot over the last few years about the cluttered landscape within the community justice sector. The intention of this bill is to bring greater clarity about the different partners' responsibilities. However, during evidence sessions, there was some scepticism about whether the bill does enough to declutter complex arrangements. Dame Eilish Angelini told us that there was still the capacity for that landscape to persist, and Mark Roberts from Audit Scotland highlighted the complexity of the landscape and suggested that, although some of the proposals on the bill will improve those arrangements, complexities might remain. Our stage 1 committee report said that, on the basis of the evidence received, the committee has some doubts as to whether the bill will declutter the complex community justice landscape, and we consider that more can be done to simplify the arrangements by setting out clear roles and responsibilities for those involved, thereby supporting relevant bodies to interact effectively. Some of the amendments from the minister this morning are helpful in that regard, and I acknowledge that particularly in relation to subsection involvement. I felt that there was perhaps scope to further clarify the relationship between CGPs and CPPs, given that there has been some debate about their interrelationship. Some people have suggested that there should be a lead partner, others have argued that this would effectively result in other partners leaving the lead partner to it. My amendment 99 introduces the requirement for community justice partners from a single area to co-operate with the relevant community planning partnership for the area. The amendment seeks to balance the differing positions of COSLA and the Scottish Government to put this co-operation on a statutory footing, and placing the duty to co-operate on each of the community justice partners. Elaine Murray's amendment 72, and others in the group, attempts to address the same issue in a different way, and I will listen carefully to the minister's response to all of those amendments. John Finch-East, you want to come in. Thank you, convener. In relation to that particular set of amendments—indeed, the previous one— I understand that people are reticent to see change take place, but I do wonder if what the amendments do is suggest a vulnerability felt by local authorities that doesn't need to be there, or I feel is unnecessary. If we go back to the Christie commission, the whole idea of collaborative working and shared experience was what it's about. I personally would find it very disappointing if we need to put that in the face of a bullet at this stage. Thank you very much. Any other members? Minister, please. Thank you, convener. I'll now speak to amendments 72 lodged by Dr Murray, which relates to the creation of an operation of community justice partnerships. I regret again that I cannot support this amendment for reasons that I'll now set out. This amendment proposes an alternative construct to the community justice partners, acting jointly as set out in the bill to be called a local community justice partnership. The amendment requires a local community justice partnership to plan and report similar provisions in the bill. It also assigns a role to Scottish ministers to make further provision about the constitution and governance arrangements of local community justice partnerships, including the appointment of a person to chair meetings and to act as a primary contact in relation to community justice Scotland. While I understand it as well meaning the amendment, I cannot support this amendment for two reasons. Firstly, there is an unintended consequence that the committee should be aware of. This new section does not amend the duty to prepare a community justice improvement plan under section 17, which means that two community justice outcomes improvement plans would be required. One would have to be prepared by the community justice partners under section 17, and another plan would have to be prepared by the community justice partnership established by those partners under this new section. Indeed, there would be several instances of duplication of duties that I think Dr Murray indicated. There would be consequential amendments since she's quite correct. There would be several instances of duplication of duties and requirements, and this is clearly not what Dr Murray was intending. It is nevertheless the effect of amendment 72 as it stands within the context of the bill. Secondly and more importantly, I believe that the bill already has adequate governance arrangements in place and allows for the input of a broad range of relevant organisations by encouraging consultation and collaboration between the community justice partners, the third sector and anyone else considered appropriate. It has always been the intention that the planning, delivery and reporting of community justice would integrate as far as possible with community planning. Further details on that will be given in guidance. The committee should also be aware of the following difficulties, which I believe amendment 72 creates. It's not clear if the local community justice partnership would be an entity in its own right. It's not clear whether a local community justice partner could choose not to join the partnership. It is not clear what the relationship would be between the community justice partnership and the community justice partners who are individual entities. For example, would the community justice partnership have any authority over the community justice partners? Another area of concern for me is that the amendment gives ministers a regulation making power that would allow them to make provision for the constitution and governance arrangements of these new community justice partnerships. Let me be clear, I firmly believe that decisions on how the local community justice partners assign roles to ensure that they carry out their duties effectively is a matter for them. Indeed, in its stage 1 report, the committee was wary of a lead partner being appointed and did not support their being a specific requirement in the bill to this effect. Therefore, the bill is not prescriptive on this deliberately. Instead, it allows for local discretion and flexibility in such arrangements so that the responsibility for achieving improved outcomes for community justice is both collective and individual. Amendment 72 removes that local discretion and requiring governance arrangements to be set out in regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure is not a difficulty-free measure. It takes up valuable parliamentary time and government resources, which I do not think are justified in this case. In summary, amendment 72 adds another layer to the community justice landscape that the bill establishes. I noticed that Alison McInnes was referring to the cluttered landscape. In the committee's stage 1 report, it made a number of references to that. Potentially, amendment 72 could make it more cluttered rather than less cluttered. It compromises local flexibility and the way in which it is drafted. Unfortunately, it does not work, but that does not take account of the further amendments that Dr Murray has suggested to be needed. Therefore, I invite Dr Murray not to move it. Amendment 93 lodged by Dr Murray amends section 30 to require each community justice partner for the area of local authority to demonstrate co-operation with each other, community justice partner for that area. I want to be clear up front that I can see the intention behind this amendment and do not disagree with that intention. However, there are some issues and I will therefore be asking Dr Murray to work with me if she is willing to do so, with a view to resubmit an amendment at stage 3 in Dr Murray's name to address that point. Co-operation and collective responsibility are, of course, core stones of the new model for community justice. I take Mr Finnie's point entirely that this is something that hopefully we would not need to put on the face of the bill, but if it gives additional confidence to people I am willing to look at it. Section 30 in its current form places a duty on each community justice partner and community justice Scotland to work with each other in exercising their functions in relation to community justice. Furthermore, I want to make very clear today that I expect co-operation between community justice partners to be evident through both the community justice outcomes improvement plans and the annual reports on progress against those. On reviewing the provisions within the bill, I recognise, however, that the existing reporting arrangements under section 20 did not, in fact, require community justice partners to state how they had arrived at outcomes. That is why I brought forward amendment 45, already debated in group 2, to require community justice partners to describe the activities that they undertook to achieve the outcomes in order to provide greater transparency over what they did and how they did it and who was involved. Therefore, there is a clear reocross between Dr Murray's amendment 93 and my amendment 45. I believe that amendment 45 would provide the evidence of co-operation that is being sought by amendment 93, but I do accept that there may be room for an additional provision within the bill to mandate the requirement to demonstrate that evidence. My view is that any such amendment needs to be clearer and more precise in what demonstrating such co-operation involves. It is not clear whether there should be an obligation to publish a report on how often or how such co-operation is to be evidenced or whether the obligation is on community justice partners individually or collectively. If Dr Murray agreed not to move amendment 93, then I will have further discussions with Dr Murray to propose a suitable amendment at stage 3. I will now speak to amendment 99, brought forward by Alison MacKinnis, which inserts a new duty of co-operation on the community justice partners when carrying out their functions with the community planning partnership for the area. I recognise the sentiment behind the amendment as eloquently expressed by Alison MacKinnis. However, I have a number of concerns about this amendment, both with the principle of what has been proposed and the detail. I acknowledge that there is an important relationship between the community justice partners and the community planning partnerships. As Alison MacKinnis mentioned, clearly the third sector is now very much part of that mix. Six of the eight community justice partners are indeed existing community planning partners and in practice there will be important links between them. They share ambitions of joint working to improve outcomes, prevent harm and tackle inequalities and envisage a considerable amount of overlap. The transition work that we are currently taking forward with community planning partners and community justice partners is to build that relationship. We will further cement this important relationship in guidance. However, amendment 99 as drafted does not work. The duty to co-operate is only placed on the community justice partners. There is no reciprocal duty on the community planning partnership to co-operate in return. In addition, there is no such legal entity as a community planning partnership and so the duties would have to be placed on the individual community planning partners. A number of community planning partners have no functions relevant to community justice. For example, the Scottish Natural Heritage or the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. However, community justice partners would have to be able to demonstrate that, in carrying out their functions in relation to community justice, they had co-operated with all of those bodies. Those bodies that do not have a direct interest in community justice are already community justice partners. The amendment is effectively requiring the community justice partners to co-operate with themselves. If amendment 99 were to be agreed by the committee, in my view it would be unworkable in view of the problems that I have just described. Although I do sympathise with the sentiment behind it, it is not in the interests of the Parliament for this amendment to go forward as it is. I hope that Alison MacKinnisbal will be able to recognise that amendment 99 is not necessary in policy terms and may have difficulties in practical terms. I would ask her not to move this amendment. Thank you very much, minister. Elaine, please to wind up and press on withdrawal. No, I will wind up that formally. Are you seeking leave to withdraw or are you pressing? No, I am not pressing. I will seek leave to withdraw 70. Are the committee agreed to that? Thank you very much. I have asked for the second and now will be the third time for the windows to be closed and we have not yet had them. I think that if you are feeling the cold in minister MDL, it is not the fault of the committee here. Let's just see now that I have put it on the record if ending facilities management is listening. If you could please, for the third and last time of asking, have the windows closed and the gale excluded from this committee meeting. I now move on to call amendment 97 in the name of Alison McKinnon's group with amendments 73 and 75. Can I point out that amendment 74 in the group Outcomes and Performance in relation to community justice is agreed to? I can't call amendment 75 in this group because it's preempted. Alison, please to move amendment 97 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. This group of amendments relates to issues that I believe should be addressed in the national strategy and the performance framework network. My amendment 97 would allow the national strategy to contain information and statistics on the action taken regarding early intervention to prevent offending, diversion from prosecution and youth offending to inform the national strategy and it goes hand in hand with the amendments we passed last week regarding the scope of community justice. Last week we also agreed that amendments that expanded the definition of community justice to make it explicit that crucial services such as the provision of appropriate housing are an integral part of community justice. Complementary to my amendments from last week, amendments 73 and 75, recognise the crucial importance of safe and appropriate housing and reducing further offending. Those amendments will add the requirement for housing to be considered in the national strategy and when drawing up the national performance framework. I continue to consider housing to be of such importance that it should be part of any local or national strategy to prevent further offending and I was grateful for the comments of fellow committee members last week. I will press my amendment 97. You've got to move it. Move it, sorry. It's all right. It's fine. It's just the cold getting to you. Any other members wish to speak? Margaret Mitchell, please. I'm very supportive of this amendment. It does complement what we decided last week. Gathering statistics and the lack of statistics being available to analyse the problem, to see the extent of a problem, is something that's dogged the whole tenure of this Parliament since it was created in 1999. I'll be very supportive of making sure that that was included within the national strategy. Like Alison McInnes, I can emphasise how much or how important housing is to tackling re-offending and making sure that that's foremost up there in everyone's minds. I have no one else indicating minister, please. Thank you, convener. I thank Alison McInnes for bringing forward amendments 97 and 73 and I do understand the positive intention behind them. I do believe that both amendments require Scottish ministers to act in a presumptive manner with regard to the preparation of the national strategy for community justice, thereby undermining the collaborative process in drafting this important document. I will therefore be asking Alison McInnes not to move this amendment, but let me explain my reasons for this. Those amendments seek to amend section 13 of the bill to insert early intervention, diversion from prosecution, youth offending and access to housing into the list of the material that the Scottish ministers may consider appropriate for inclusion as I will speak to each of the four important issues in turn. As I stated in my opening speech to the stage 1 debate, the driving community justice to reduce re-offending is part of our wider approach to promoting social justice and tackling inequality, which includes action to improve early years experiences, raise education attainment for all and continue to promote the whole systems approach to youth justice. The new national strategy for community justice is currently being developed in collaboration with a broad range of partners and stakeholders. However, it would be premature for me to guarantee which topics will be prioritised in the strategy now and forever more as to do so would pre-empt the collaborative process. However, I am clear that the community justice national strategy will link with other strategies to ensure a joined-up approach. Given that I proposed through my own amendments in groups 1 and 2 to broaden the definition in section 1 of the bill to more strongly reference intervention at an earlier stage, prevention and diversion from prosecution, I suggest to Alison McInnes that we can and indeed would be right to rely on that broader definition to ensure that those matters will be reflected in the national strategy anyway. Youth justice has its own strategy preventing offending, getting it right for children and young people and the community justice strategy will naturally link to that strategy. In my view, amendment 97 is unnecessary and I would urge Alison McInnes not to move it but I do note the sentiment from other committee members. Turning now to amendment 73, let me start by saying that I fully recognise that suitable housing and support to sustain a tenancy are vital to providing stability to people with a history of offending and to helping them to assist from committing further offences. As you are aware, over recent months there has been a great deal of engagement with stakeholders on the development of the national strategy including housing stakeholders. One of the four themes of the strategy will be access to services which is intended to cover a range of services which evidence shows are key to reducing reoffending including housing, welfare and health. In the material around the scheme, the national strategy steering group will outline their suggestions for improving housing outcomes for those in the criminal justice system. Building on the thoughts and ideas gathered at the national events and on the recommendations of the ministerial group on offender reintegration of which the Minister for Housing and Welfare is a member. Convener, I can confirm that housing will feature in the national strategy which is currently being drafted in the national strategy. That said, housing is not the only support service which has an impact on the likelihood of reoffending. Access to healthcare, welfare and employment assistance are also important and I would also expect to see them featuring in the national strategy. I believe that if this amendment was to be agreed by the committee then we risk singling out only one of these important services for inclusion on the face of the bill. I believe that this could lead to housing being prioritised to the detriment of the equally important services which would not be desirable. For those reasons, I would ask Alison McInnes to agree not to move her amendment 73 given that I have confirmed that housing will feature in the current national strategy. Finally, amendment 75 proposed by Alison McInnes refers to other indicators which are provided for under section 15, subsection 3 of the bill and seeks to ensure that one of the other indicators would relate to and I quote access to and use of housing services. Indicators are the means in which the community justice partners will measure whether community justice outcomes are being achieved. The suite of indicators which will apply is currently being developed with stakeholders and again I do not want to pre-empt this process. The other indicators are specifically provided to allow flexibility should additional indicators that are not currently anticipated be required in the future. If in future an additional indicator were required for housing then the bill currently allows for this without specifying it. The other indicators unspecified maximises flexibility for any future changes and does not favour any aspect of community justice over another. I fully recognise the importance of housing and supporting assistance and I agree with Alison McInnes and indeed Margaret Mitchell who said that housing is very important to preventing re-offending which is why we have been developing a housing related outcome with stakeholders. As I've just said, no other form of support service is being specifically provided for in this way and I do not believe that it would be constructive to do so for one specific service area. I again ask Alison McInnes not to move her amendment 75. If amendments 73 and 75 are moved I urge the committee not to agree to them. I think I missed you. You wanted to come in before the minister so I'll let you in. I was so distracted by the Gale force wins which by the way I'm going to suspend I'm getting an engineer to come up so when they come up I'll suspend. Believe it or not that's the only way and it takes five minutes. What a design. John. Is it about the wind or is it about the wind? No, I'll spare you any comments about wind. I would like to comment and speak in support of my colleague Alison McInnes as a member of my convener particularly in relation to 97A. The minister talks about a desire not to behave in a presumptive manner if I recorded them correctly. Let's be very specific that's been asked here. Information about the action ministers are taking or proposed to take or consider that others should take about what? About early intervention to prevent offending diversion from prosecution, youth offending which supports or coordinates with the achievement of those aims. I understand that we always are lobbied to have various elements placed on the face of the bill and people put various weights into the overall legislation based on the specific references that are made, but I don't think that there's any difficulty with that at all. Likewise, yes, it's an argument and again may appear to be arguing against myself with this about only singling out housing, but the one thing I see colleagues nodding, the one thing that we all have is we all have to stay somewhere. We may or may not require some of the other services at any given time, but we all require that's what makes it unique. So I would like to speak in support of 97. I'd like to come back and respond because I'd like you to wind up before John came in. If you don't want to, it's not necessary. Then I'll go to Alison. I'm happy to wave my right to reply. Alison pleads to wind up and press a withdrawal. Thank you, convener. I will go ahead with this group of amendments. I understand that I listened carefully to what the minister has said and he says that amendment 97 is unnecessary. But one of the recurring themes that this committee has dealt with over and over is how patchy services are and how much early intervention would make a difference. Although he says that it's unnecessary, he doesn't say that it's unworkable, so it seems to me that we, on many occasions, used the statute book to emphasise the need for a particular course of action and therefore I think asking for information about what people are taking in relation to early intervention to prevent offending or division from prosecution and youth offending is a sensible way forward. In relation to the other two amendments, I think that, as my colleague John Finnie has said, housing is pivotal to reducing re-offending and I think that it's important that we recognise that role that it has if the minister needs feels the need to extend the provision in the bill at stage 3 to include healthcare and other issues then I would be supportive of that but I think it's important that this committee underlines the role of housing and I will press these amendments. Thank you. Y Llywydd Minister, you lose if you might be saying something. No, I'm fine. I certainly can read or I recognise the points that the committee are making. We'll obviously reflect, depending on how the vote goes, reflect on whether we can amend at stage 3. Perhaps saying something substantive, not saying that's insubstant but, you know, unsubstantive but substantive. So you've pressed at questions amendment 97 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there'll be a division those in favour, please show. Five, those against, please show. Five, four, four against that amendment is agreed to. Call of amendment 73 in the name of Alice McKinnis already agreed to amendment 97 move or not move. The questions amendment 73 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there'll be a division those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. That's five, four, four against already debated formally. Minister to move formally. Questions amendment 32 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Questions at section 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I'm listening to the sound of something remote happening that wasn't supposed to happen. Call of amendment 33 in the name of minister already debated with amendment 29. Minister to move formally. Questions at section 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that call of amendment 74 in the name of Elaine Murray already debated with amendment 21 to move or not move. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I beg your pardon. My turn to make a mistake just to show I'm in a team where you're making a mistake. I call amendment 75 in the name of Alice McKinnis already debated with amendment 97 to move or not move. Move. The question is amendment 75 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there'll be a division those in favour please show. It was against, please show, 5 4 4 against, that amendment is agreed to. Call of amendment 34 in the name of minister already debated with amendment 29 minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Questions at section 15 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 35 in the name of minister already debated with amendment 29 minister to move formally. The question is amendment 35 be agreed to, are we all agreed? amendment 76, name of lane, worry, already debated with 21, move or not move, the question is at section 16 we agreed or not moved, amendment 78 the name of lane, worry, already debated with amendment 21, not moved, amendment 79 the name of lane, worry already debated with 21, move or not moved, not moved. Amendment 18, which is the name of the land, is already being called on by the amendment 21. The question is that section 17 be agreed to, so are we all agreed. Amendment 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 are all in the names of ministers whom we all previously debated. Minister, I invite you to move them on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? Amendment 36, 42 are agreed to, so are we all agreed? siwrd. 1. Vol 1—2下 ниw 48 스fיisiadol, fawr ychydig i mwynhau aelod ac nid yw? Vol 1—85 Kearnagh yn Tyd Lywodraeth Lyn, rydyn ni'n gweithio i ffalu 11— Vol 2—6— Vol 2—86 Kearnagh ydw i… Vol 3—4— Mor fawr a chyglion gyda hynny, roedd yn iawn i'r gwahogol hwnnaed. Vol 4—3— Vol 5—4— Vol 6—4— você. A fyrddwch. Fa un gwaith ei wneud am pausedci ddمoden nhw. Des dim gof哈哈. C �érdataeth 84 yn y lleid-ynghyrch ynopeid â gael y maesed na 1898, 1991...] pap времени 57. Rhyw bach am udda�odol jagoedd eich ang esimerk mwy oesid gan瀋 GMC56 i'n sprn y rolafisis examples 3 oifeid, yn y cyngynthaint yn bleid. addysgau, ti'n casyniadau? Eluned Murray, who is pleased to move amendment 88 and speak to the other amendments in the group? I'll start by moving 88. I remember to do it. The amendments relate to the involvement of local government and local partnerships in the commissioning process undertaken by CMMG Scotland in section 26. Crawl Slore concerned that the ability for CGS to commission services Asset out in section 26 must neither duplicate work at local level nor undermine local prioritisation of what is needed. That was a key message contained within our stage 1 report. The Scottish Local Government already takes a sophisticated and informed approach to local and national commissioning. While there is a need for community justice Scotland to be able to commission certain services, that should be limited to functions that are currently delivered by the Scottish Government and its agencies, not encroach upon local work. In order to protect local services, those amendments would enable the bill to draw clear programmes around the territory of local and central government and the possible agencies of government involved. Gausler believes that it is important that this is reflected in the bill and not simply left to guidance, and therefore assurances are required that local authorities and local community justice partnerships will be fully involved in the national commissioning process. While there will always be a case for shifting competencies around between different spheres of government that affect democracy and accountability and should be the subject of full and robust debate whenever they happen, amendments 88 to 91 to section 26 of the bill would ensure the involvement of local authorities and local partnerships in the national commissioning process. The Scottish Government has said that it will instruct the CGS to develop a commissioning framework with Gausler, but because that has not happened so far, obviously, Gausler is hoping for safeguards within the bill. Three amendments are accepted. The provisions contained in section 26 can be referred to within the national commissioning framework and will ensure in legislation that services are commissioned by CGS also receive local buy-in. Those amendments are intended to respond to the Justice Committee's stage one report where it said that we were on against a one-size-fits-all approach. Community justice arrangements must be flexible enough to allow decisions to be taken at local level based on local need. We noted the position of some witnesses as CGS should, in developing and arranging services, avoid undermining local needs. The Scottish Government's publication, What Works to Reduce Re-offending, a summary of the evidence 2015, found that one of the most consistent findings of the evidence review is that one-size-fits-all interventions are ill-suited for reducing re-offending and that there are differences between individuals who offend. Those amendments would go some way to responding to Audit Scotland's concern that community justice funding should ensure that there is more flexibility to meet local needs and priorities, and that CGS should not be an obstacle to that. Amendment 88 removes—I do not think that I probably need to go through the detail of the amendments, but that was the actual policy intention of it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Shaleen. You are doing well against the odds of the lurgy, which I did not give to the deputy convener, by the way. We have got it all by ourselves. Minister, if you will forgive me, I am going to continue this session. We are nearly finished. I know that you have that worrying noise at the back, but we can deal with that when the committee takes in five minutes, believe it or not, with a screwdriver and a wrench and a hammer. I do not know what else. I will see what comes in if you are happy with that so that we can get through this. Minister, please, to speak to amendment 57, the other amendments in the group, then I will call in other members. Thank you, convener. Section 26 of the bill makes provision for community justice Scotland to develop and arrange services. To fulfil this provision, one of the community justice Scotland's first actions will be to work with community justice partners and the third sector to develop and agree a strategic approach to commissioning. This strategic approach will ensure an evidence-led and co-ordinated long-term approach to commissioning for community justice in Scotland. Amendments 18, 8, 8, 9, 9 and 91, lodged by Dr Murray, would significantly alter the role of community justice Scotland in the commissioning of community justice services in a way that we feel is contrary to the purposes of the bill. Amendment 90 inserts a requirement for community justice Scotland to have regard to the desirability of working in collaboration with not only other parties as currently provided for, but also specifically with local authorities. I cannot see a good reason for the local authorities to be given such prominence over other community justice partners and stakeholders. Given the importance of their role in relation to community justice, I would fully expect that local authorities would be included in the others that community justice Scotland should consider working in collaboration with under section 26 subsection 4. Therefore, there is no need for local authorities to be specifically named in this provision of the bill, and indeed it would be inappropriate to be believed to do so. I cannot therefore support this amendment. Amendment 91 removes altogether the provision for Scottish ministers to direct community justice Scotland to develop or arrange services. The committee will not be surprised to hear that I cannot support this proposal either. As priorities change or the community justice landscape shifts, Scottish ministers may require to direct community justice Scotland to develop specific community justice services at a national level, and it is crucial that ministers have the ability to do so. I have already given assurances that where a new or national initiative needs to be established by Scottish ministers, they would consult with causal leaders as appropriate with a view to seeking their agreement. This would respect the established procedures for the setting of the public sector budget in Scotland, and I therefore urge the committee to not agree to this amendment. Amendment 88 seeks to prevent community justice Scotland from encouraging or assisting community justice partners in the commissioning of community justice services. I believe that the provisions within the bill at section 26 subsection 2 will provide a positive support to local areas' ability to commission and procure by enabling community justice Scotland to encourage and assist these partners in this work. I believe that amendment 88 would deprive the partners of an important source of support. Amendment 89 seeks to add words to section 26 subsection 3 part B. Section 263 states that a service in which community justice Scotland may identify, design or make arrangements for the provision of, may be for either all of Scotland or for the areas of particular local authorities. Amendment 89 would provide that where such provision is for the areas of particular local authorities, it should require the agreement of those local authorities. It would seem that the purpose behind this amendment, taken with amendments 90 and 91, is to ensure that community justice Scotland cannot undertake its powers under section 26 without the agreement of local authorities, unless such a service were to be national. That means, convener, that if community justice Scotland wants to commission a service for community reintegration or via the third sector for a particular area or areas of the country, then the local authority, one community justice partner alone, would have the power of veto. And this is contrary to the entire spirit and direction of the new model. I cannot imagine that this was the actual planned effect of this amendment and would urge Dr Murray not to move amendment 89. I've already given assurances that where a new or national initiative needs to be established by Scottish ministers and in any decision which has an impact on local, financial and commissioning decisions, they would consult with COSLA leaders as appropriate with a view to seeking agreement. This would respect the established procedures for setting the public sector budget in Scotland. Indeed, section 26 subsection 7 of the bill covers this very point. If these amendments reflect a concern that community justice Scotland could duplicate work at a local level or undermine local prioritisation, then let me provide reassurance on this point. Local ownership of community justice is absolutely vital to the success of the new arrangements. Under the new model, the default is for the majority of commissioning to take place locally and organisations will be expected to work together to commission services where benefits have been identified in doing so. Where community justice partners have expertise in commissioning, they are invited to share this with their fellow community justice partners and community justice Scotland. The new model does, after all, seek to promote the sharing of good practice. If the committee is minded to accept these amendments, then the consequences for commissioning arrangements would be as follows. To give local authorities preeminence over the other community justice partners, to stop Scottish ministers directing community justice Scotland, to develop community justice services at a national level where that's appropriate, to prevent community justice Scotland from encouraging or assisting community justice partners to develop and arrange services, and to effectively hand local authorities a power of veto over the commissioning of local services in their areas. Convener, that completely undermines the collaborative spirit of strategic commissioning and constrains flexibility for local community justice partners by bringing local commissioning under their control effectively of local authorities. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 88, 89, 90 and 91 and invite the committee not to agree to them. Convener, I now turn to my amendment 57 in my name. Amendment 57 corrects an ambiguity in section 26 subsection 8 and makes absolutely clear that community justice Scotland will not provide community justice services either acting on its own or in collaboration with others. Amendment 57 does not, however, affect community justice Scotland's ability under section 26 to commission a service in relation to community justice for all of Scotland or for particular local authority areas. Mr Rondrick-Cure wants to come in. Thank you, convener. I just wanted to speak in opposition to Elaine Murray's amendments. It seems to me that the flavour of the bill is one of encouragement, assistance and working together, and these amendments seem to restrict the ability of community justice Scotland to provide any assistance in relation to commissioning on occasions. I would agree that the majority of commissioning needs to take place locally, but there must be some provision for assistance from community justice Scotland on occasions. So I think that the kind of turf wars that seems to be behind these amendments is not the way forward. Elaine, please, to wind up and press or withdraw. I'll not press amendment. Thank you very much. So you seek leave to withdraw. We agreed. Thank you. Amendment 89, the name of Elaine Murray, already to the amendment, is it move or not move? It's not move. Amendment 90, the name of Elaine Murray, already to the amendment. Amendment 88, move or not moved? It's not move. I've called amendment 55, the name of theCliff of the Minister, already to 129 ministers to move formally. Amendments 55, be agreed to, are we agreed? Amendment 91, in the name of Elaine Murray, already to the the amendment is not moved. Read a loop. Amendment 56, read amendment 29, minister to move formally. invalidation of the mentioned sought Amendment 56, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Amendment 57, the name of the minister, in the name of Elaine Murrell, ready to amend at 70 to move or not move. Amendment 60, in the name of the minister of group, with amendments 61 and 62, minister pleased to move amendment 60 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Amendment 60, 61 and 62 make minor changes to section 29 to put beyond doubt what is referred to by the provisions in that section, which relate to developing and providing education and training. Section 29, subsection 4 of the bill, currently provides that community justice Scotland may charge for any education or training material developed or provided by virtue of section 29, subsection 1. Amendment 60 removes the word material from the section 29, subsection 4, so that community justice Scotland may charge for education or training in general. Amendment 62 then makes clear that references in section 29 to education and training also include educational material and training material. The upshot is that community justice Scotland may charge for the development or provision of education or training or any material relating to those. Amendment 61 clarifies that community justice Scotland can only charge where it is provided the education or training or related materials itself. Amendment 60 on read the minister and I read that Brucella asked about the Amendment 64 yn y sector ym Mwneud Fygrifesol 50, am y sector ym Mwneud Fygrifesol 50 yn dweud. Thoes, yn cwerth i fy Ym Mwneud Fygrifesol 64 a 35, efallai hynny yn gynorth o ddarl â darloedd yn y sector 11 i'r rei ffermdd o farmerl, et cetera, y ddigidol Llan effeithio Rwm 2005. y sector 11 i'r Kynghweithiaethau'r Fygexer o gynnig oedd y ffrifio ar y sector ym Gynghweith i'r cyfnod hynny mewn lwyllau oedd yn cyfnod i ddigidol i ddarl â gyfnodau for the area. Paragraph 5, sub-section 3 of schedule 2 to the bill, as introduced, amends section 11 to require the responsible authorities to submit their report on the discharge of their functions under section 10 of the 2005 act to Community Justice Scotland instead of the Community Justice authorities, which are, of course, being abolished by the bill. Community Justice Scotland would then be required to send a copy of that report to the Scottish ministers. Paragraph 5, sub-section 3 of schedule 2 to the bill, as introduced, also adjusts the publication requirements so as to require publication to be in such a manner as it will ensure that the report is likely to come to the attention of the other community justice partners for the area of the local authority. However, the planning and delivery of community justice services in the local area will be the responsibility of the relevant community justice partners rather than Community Justice Scotland. Therefore, on reflection, it has felt more appropriate for the community justice partners to consider the content of their report as it develops and reflect any observations on it within their area, in their community justice outcomes improvement plans and indeed in their annual reports on the achievement of outcomes, without there being any further requirements to send the reports to Community Justice Scotland. Accordingly, amendment 64 removes the requirement in Paragraph 5, sub-section 3A, of schedule 2 for responsible authorities to send the report to Community Justice Scotland. It also repeals section 11, sub-section 2C of the 2005 act as a consequence of the disestablishment of the community justice authorities. Amendment 65 proposes to remove the requirement in the bill for Community Justice Scotland to then send a copy of that report to the Scottish ministers. As ministers are one of the responsible authorities, they already have access to the reports. Paragraph 5, sub-section 3B of the schedule 2 is not changed by the amendment, so the responsible authorities will, in the future, be required to publish their reports in such a manner as will ensure that the report is likely to come to the attention of the other community justice partners for the area of the local authority. I move amendment 64 in my name. No other members have indicated the wish to speak, and I take the minister to open to wind up. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to, are others agreed to, call amendment 65. In the name of the minister of readyed wait, it is meant to be formulate. Formal moods. Question is amendment 65 be agreed to, are we all agreed. Questions of schedule 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed. The question is that sections 3040 and 37 is agreed to, are we all agreed. Questions of long title will be agreed to, are we all agreed. It ends the stage B of the bill just one minute over time. I congratulate I congratulate the committee and I suspend for five minutes. Our next item of business is an evidence session in relation to the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I welcome you to Professor Alan Miller, chair of the Human Rights Commission. We will be asking Professor Miller about the Scottish National Action Plan on Human Rights 2-year report, which was published in December. As members know, Professor Miller will attend to spend some time asking for Professor Miller's observations of his time as commissioner's chair, at least what he can put on the record. What he may say to us privately is another matter. We look forward to that. Questions, please, from members. Good morning. Thank you very much, convener. Just one observation that I would like to expand on is your relationship with the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and local authorities and the public bodies in Scotland. How well it works in this working relationship. What about the challenge that a lot of the legislation is either reserved or, even if it is devolved, part of it is even reserved is devolved and talking about the immigration bill or the best kind of bill. How much is challenging and do you see any positive remarks that you could make? Your success could move forwards. That is a lot of questions, but I will just pick your answers. Two for the price of one. I first of all thank you, convener, and all the members of the committee and your predecessors for the interest and support that you have given to the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and to myself as chair over the years. I just want to put that on the record. I am looking forward to this ultimate session with you. In direct answer to the question, relationships are absolutely critical in the work of the commission, indeed the work of any body or organisation. In terms of the specific relationships with the Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament, public bodies, etc., I think that this is probably one of the I would hope accomplishments of the commission over the last eight years that, starting from literally nowhere, it has developed over the years very constructive and honest relationships with all of these bodies. I think that that is probably best represented in the development of Scotland's national action plan for human rights, which set out to be collaborative and built on that shared confidence and trust. Very good relationships. Certainly from my point of view, you may get a different point of view from those in government or yourselves or public authorities. In terms of the reserved, devolved issue, we all sometimes have difficulties with the grey areas and we want to ensure that nothing falls in between what is reserved and devolved and sometimes it is a bit complex. Again, another key relationship in that issue though is with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and in Scotland we cooperate closely with them to ensure that nobody falls in between these gaps and by and large that has worked well. It is not to say that there aren't frustrations that come up from time to time when matters that are reserved are regressive and clearly have an adverse impact on the rights of people in Scotland. You just look at the trade union bill just now but we all live in this world. Margaret Mitchell, please, followed by Gil Paterson. Good morning. Can I ask how the commission balances its international interests and its focus on domestic work? From day 1, when I was first elected by the Parliament, it was crystal clear to me that if, as chair, I was to build a national human rights institution in Scotland, I really did have to learn from the experience of others who had done something similar in different contexts around the world. From the beginning, I was very open to learning everything that I possibly could about what lessons could be learned to establish the commission. From that, for example, Scotland's national action plan for human rights is something that comes from the international community, there's best practice, there's experience, which the commission in Scotland has benefited from and indeed enriched. It's now regarded internationally that SNAP, Scotland's national action plan, is set the bar as to how a plan should be put together and its potential realised. Over the years, that interest and interaction with the international community has continued because the Paris principles from the UN requires national human rights institutions to be a bridge between their own countries and the international human rights system. We will monitor the extent to which, in Scotland, international human rights laws and obligations are realised and we will contribute Scotland's good experience in some areas to benefit the international community. For example, in an area, I know that you have been closely involved with survivors of historic abuse. The way in which Scotland has finally tackled that problem effectively, excuse me, is of considerable interest to many other countries around the world. It's a two-way street. It's a necessary dialogue that takes place. If I could ask more specifically about some of the challenges that you mentioned in the 2015 report, in particular the need for a step change in the public sector and the need for a snap to be embedded in Scotland's institutional fabric? We've reached a stage where a lot of the early work of the commission had to be increasing awareness and understanding of how to apply human rights on a day-to-day basis in schools, hospitals, care settings, workplaces and communities. We've spent a lot of time working with those bodies that have responsibility for delivering public services and have assisted them in understanding what they need to do to respect the rights of those that they are providing services to. I think that we're now getting to a stage where those bodies now have to be increasingly held to account that they actually do it. I think that that's where we've reached in terms of snap, the capacity building, the tools, the know-how has been shared, but now we have to see it being put into practice. Particularly in times of austerity, because if you use a human rights-based approach, it's much more cost-effective and targeted than otherwise. There's really no excuse. Let's pick up on something that you talked about the elderly. I think that one often has concerns about the human rights of the elderly are not respected. I know that there's other sectors as well, but they're not respected, particularly if they don't like to speak out and so on. It can be quite vulnerable. What's the relationship, for instance, with the care inspectorate and human rights commission who are not just looking at quality of physical care but of the way older people are treated and respected as individuals? A very close relationship with the care inspectorate and particularly in helping them shape the new national care standards and ensuring that human rights and the dignity of people who are in care is front and centre in the national care standards and how the care inspectorate goes about its work. A long-standing, very close relationship, which really came into being several years ago when the commission took the initiative with the sector to develop a capacity building training package called Care About Rights as to how do you provide services to older people in a way that respects their dignity and is person-centred. From that day until now, we've continued to enjoy a very close relationship with them. How does that filter down to the front line to the actual carers within our various care homes, residential homes or people with learning difficulties? How does that filter down because we hear some dreadful stories and see dreadful images captured by secret filming and so on, the way people are treated when they're most vulnerable? How do we get that down to that so that it's delivered properly in services? It goes back to Margaret's question just earlier that it's now time for those bodies who have been provided with a lot of know-how to apply it on a day-to-day basis and be held accountable for doing that. For example, the Care About Rights project that we did was about 1,000 care providers were given this training. It was then independently evaluated and was regarded to be extremely successful, so through SNAP this now has to be scaled up and all care homes make sure that they take advantage of this capacity building. And then we have the Care Inspectorate coming in to ensure that that's front and centre. Can you tell us what you believe are the commission's main achievements during your term of office? I think that it's relevant today. Parliament established it back in 2007 with a fair degree of hesitation as to does Scotland need a human rights commission? What value or relevance would it have? I don't hear those questions anywhere, any longer. You hear other questions about why did the commission not do this, and why is it concentrating on that, etc. But in terms of its relevance and credibility, I think that that is now beyond question. Scotland's national action plan for human rights also has made human rights more relevant more broadly in health, social care and other aspects of real life, whereas when the commission was established, human rights was seen as something that belonged in criminal justice only and was maybe problematic as seen by some anyway. So it was in a bit of a silo, and within government it was in a bit of a silo, but I think now it's broadened out and its relevance is recognised and SNAP is the embodiment of that. So I would say the relevance of the commission and the relevance of human rights to everyday life has been two of the accomplishments. I follow up to that. Where would you see that you've added most value to what you do? Well, one of the things that I certainly personally would be proudest of is the very challenging work that we did with survivors of historic child abuse. This was a tough, tough area that hadn't been effectively addressed by Scotland at all, no matter who was in government or who was trying to tackle it. By using a human rights-based approach of putting survivors at the centre, making sure that their experience was understood around the same table where both cabinet secretaries were sitting, survivors, representatives of religious institutions and local authorities, all needing to understand each other and place each other in the shoes of the survivors. Then the commission provided a human rights framework in which what needs to be done to give access to justice for survivors. Then an action plan was consensually adopted and now we're seeing the early stages of its implementation and through SNAP the government and others going to be held to account for that implementation. So the power of a human rights-based approach in a tough, tough policy and human area is probably one of the things that I would take away as one of the best accomplishments. That's good. Can I just follow on from Margaret's question in terms of the international perspective? I'm wondering if you have any concerns with regards to the upcoming referendum in Europe and how that may impact on human rights. Have you any concerns in that area? Yes, the commission will be publishing a paper prior to the EU referendum on what are the human rights implications of an exit or in staying within the EU and how could they be improved. From the point of view of how do we progress human rights, the commission will be producing a briefing paper as to what the implications are, both for an in or an out vote, in the same way that we did for the independence referendum. So not taking a position for or against, but just saying these are the human rights implications that everyone should be aware of and then vote according to how they think they should. You talked about the care about rights projects and how you got the providers involved with that, the care inspector involved in that, and you also had buy-in from patient support groups and friends of care homes in the right. Who can say a very clear link, the hydration of residents as a fundamental human right? Are there examples in other walks of life? I know you want to have a rights-based approach to everything. It's maybe not so easily transferable to other spheres, but are there any other examples like that? Well, I think when we went around the country when the commission was first established and asked the people what do you think your human rights commission should prioritise, it was dignity and care, not only for older persons but as we've seen with survivors of historic child abuse, children's welfare when they are in care. I think one of the things that's happened over the period that I've been in office is the shift to see the relevance of human rights in health and social care and not only in criminal justice. For example, yesterday afternoon I was in a housing project in Leith, and there we're working with residents in very, very inadequate housing conditions. I know you've had problems with not being wind and water today, but that pales in comparison with the structural problems they have in their apartment building. We're working with them to make them aware of the rights they have under international human rights law, the right to adequate housing, and what they're now doing is armed with this knowledge and being empowered. They don't have to ask for things. They've actually got a right to have decent housing. They're going around all the residents with a survey. What are the most critical things that need to be improved in order that you can live with dignity in your housing? With that, they're going to then develop indicators of progress that the city council should work with to achieve, over the next few years, not an overnight panacea, but to progressively realise this right to adequate housing so that they can participate in the decisions about how money can best be targeted to make the biggest impact in improving the living conditions in a very deprived area, which, in the 21st century, is simply unacceptable. Human rights-based approach has unlimited potential across all kinds of areas. That's one, I think, SNAP 3 report will have interesting news to share with you next year. Can I ask about you, because you've mentioned criminal justice a couple of times. My former colleagues in the police service have been a couple of issues around stop and search and arming, in particular where there's been a comment from your good selves about that. I like the comment from John Scott Goosey, who says that the police should be front-line defenders of human rights. Have both those issues tested or did you like the comment? Again, as part of the SNAP process, Police Scotland has committed to be accountable in terms of what it is doing to provide human rights training and shift the culture within Police Scotland and also on stop and search. The commission and I personally have engaged with Police Scotland over the past year, 18 months, on both the issues of armed policing and stop and search, and we've taken it internationally to the UN Committee, which has then called on the UK and Scotland to fix the problem. I think that progress has been made and no lease due to your own efforts to hold Police Scotland to account and the whole governance framework surrounding policing in Scotland. That's one of the areas that we've best seen the co-operation between the commission and yourself in terms of identifying that non-statuary stop and search has no place under a rule of law and should be stopped. Over the next year, we'll scrutinise the code of practice and the statutory basis that the Government is now committed to introducing. Police Scotland are active participants in your leadership? Yes, they have attended twice to provide accounts of what they are doing in terms of training and in stop and search and a delegation from the justice and safety action group in SNAP has gone out to Tullialan to begin a process of understanding what human rights training police officers are given and how that can be improved. Finally, if I may convener, the A status that we understand that the commission has, why is that important? I think that it is important, but are you able to articulate what it means? Under the UN Paris principles that govern national human rights institutions, which are now in over 100 countries, you're graded by your peers and by the UN in terms of your independence from your government, your effectiveness and other criteria. If you're given top billing A status, which the commission has now twice been given and you're reviewed every five years, it means that you have speaking rights at the UN. You can go and have speaking rights at the UN Human Rights Council before the treaty bodies and are given that particular status. That matters in a whole range of ways because it means that you're able to hold your state to account and provide shadow reports and enable the UN to dig a bit deeper than the official state report might suggest that it needs to do. In a whole range of areas, not least with the bedroom tax and right adequate housing, where I spoke to the Human Rights Council straight after the UK ambassador and the special rapporteur who had come, you might remember, she came to Scotland and the UK and had some very robust things to say about the bedroom tax, got rather short shrift from the UK government, but we were able to speak before the Human Rights Council and support her criticisms of that. That then led to an increased public debate here about the need to get rid of the bedroom tax from a human rights point of view. I'm waiting for a final, final, final. Reference to Gypsy travellers, we like to think that we're very high standards in Scotland. The position of the Gypsy traveller community, does that give cause for concern to the commission? It gives cause for great frustration that not more progress in real terms has been made despite the best intentions of the Equal Opportunities Committee and other bodies. The need for progress to be made in that context is critical. In responding to Margaret Mitchell, you said quite rightly that relationships were important and collaboration is important. I hope that we would agree that that is critical analysis and it would be interesting to hear a little bit more about how you've used the powers that the commission has, particularly in conducting inquiries into policies and practices of public authorities. To date we haven't. I'm not going to speak on behalf of my successor, but that's entirely for what happens after I leave. The inquiry power we have not used really for two reasons. One is that where doors are opened to you and there are open minds who are prepared to listen to what you say and to take seriously your suggestions of what needs done, then to go to the lengths of having an inquiry doesn't really add anything or take you somewhere that you wouldn't get through collaboration. We haven't yet come across a situation where an institution has said, no, we're not interested to have a dialogue with you, in which case we would then look to our powers. It may be that they know that we have these powers and that therefore it's better that they cooperate rather than have us use them. The other thing is very pragmatic. We have a very limited budget, limited resources, inquiries, as we all know, can develop arms and legs and can be a big drain on capacity and resources, so it's something that we would think very seriously about doing, but certainly would do it if there were no alternative to making progress in whatever the area was. Can I ask you to reflect on that? There's been some fairly major policy shortcomings that John Todd touched on in one stop and search, armed officers, the use of segregation in prison, I'm thinking of the treatment of women offenders, perhaps it's the benefit of hindsight. Do you think that any of those would have benefited from a more formal investigative inquiry? I don't think so. On stop and search, for example, we did commission a legal opinion from the highest legal place you could get one, which we had needed to use. If the John Scott-led report and its recommendations and its acceptance by the justice secretary, if that had not happened, we would have certainly published the legal opinion that we had and been a lot more assertive than we needed to be. Unfortunately, there was no need for that, because the process came to the right conclusion, but we were poised to do that if it had been necessary. Roderick, followed by Alene. We're into year three of SNAP, obviously nearing the end of the first month. Can you give us a bit more information on what the likely priorities of the various action groups are going to be this year, or is that still being developed? Well, the action groups themselves will develop that, but I don't know if you have a report. Page 41 lays out in broad terms the areas that are likely to be reported on at the end of SNAP 3. They are quite wide-ranging, but I would refer you to that. The one in particular interest, I think, is developing human rights and budgeting, which people being able to participate in how resources are allocated in local communities or the country as a whole. This is something that its day is coming very soon, and we'd like to see some more progress in that. This housing work in Leith, I think, will be reporting on what effect it has had and how it might be rolled out to other communities around the country. This past year, we've also done an interesting piece of work in Perth and Conross, where the providers of services and the elected representatives were brought together with representatives of the community to explore what would a human rights culture look like in Perth and Conross, and who needs to do what to improve the reality of human rights right across a range of public services. This next year, we'll see what comes out of that and the extent to which that can be replicated in other parts of the country. Developing Parliament initiatives around human rights budgeting, can it be helpful to explore that a wee bit further as to what's involved in that? Yes, at a macro level and a micro level. The micro level is what we're doing in Leith with the residents in the housing estate, where funds are available to improve the housing stock, but it's not done without the participation of the residents who know best what would make the biggest difference and be the most cost-effective way of doing it. That needs to be progressed, and people at that level need to have the participation at the outset as to how resources can be most effectively allocated to enable them to live lives of dignity. At the national level or local authority level, when a country says that it embraces human rights values and then has a national budget that prioritises what it's going to do with the national resources, if human rights aren't part of that budgetary process and the priorities that are decided upon are not based upon realising the right to highest attainable standard of health, adequate housing, adequate standard of living, then the country is not walking the talk. The best way of getting the most informed priorities and how money can be spent is by asking people themselves from their own living experience to bring that to the table and be part of that process. It's quite a new area, which is being explored in different parts of the world, but it has big potential. Just now we have a situation where, for example, the UK budget, there can be no discussion about what's in the budget until it's revealed on budget day, which is really trying to turn that on its head and have a much more participatory process of budgeting and ensuring that rights are on the table. That's beginning to happen to some extent in Scotland. There are a number of pilots and projects of participatory budgeting and we want to contribute to that being developed. Excuse me, when you talk about participatory budgeting, you're talking quite often about local authorities that seem to me that some local authorities are trying to do that and to ask the people within it what they would like to see as prioritising with our limits within our budget. Is that not a good place to start from your housing to the local authority? Yes. That's what we're seeing happening in different parts of the country and it's trying to build that up. It's where we want to start. One of my colleagues referred to the EU referendum. Rather, more particularly, we were waiting with baited breath for the UK Government's proposals on a British Bill of Rights. What kind of plan, as the Scottish Human Rights Commission got as and when these proposals are released to participate in a dialogue about that? The commission has published a paper setting out the test that should be applied to any proposal to replace the Human Rights Act with the British Bill of Rights. The test is progressive or regressive and it looks at a number of criteria that objectively should be the basis of assessment so that when the consultation paper does finally emerge, the commission will be applying those objective tests to measure its progressive nature or its regressive nature. Everything would indicate that it's a question of how regressive it is, whether it's going to be regressive, but those are the objective tests that will be applied. I want to reflect on something slightly broader. Although progress has been made in a human rights approach in a variety of ways, whether it's budgeting, service delivery and so on, it seems to me that we still haven't won the war of ideas within the general public. That's why human rights are still vulnerable, because the UK Government can think that repealing the human rights bill is going to be popular and that human rights reductions are dressed up as ways to fight terrorism and all the rest of it. That's quite an intractable problem. I just wondered whether, with the hindsight of having been in office that period of time, you have any reflections on how we can actually get the person, if you like, in the number 35 bus to understand what human rights are about and that they're not about offenders getting better treatment and all that sort of thing, but it's actually something that affects all of us. I completely agree. Public awareness and understanding of the relevance of human rights, and if you took it away from the fabric of our life, we would all feel the difference very quickly. We can take a lot for granted and we do have a toxic debate that's been running for several years now at Westminster and is reflected in a lot of the press and media that clearly plays in Scotland as well. There is a challenge, and for a small body like the Scottish Human Rights Commission, to develop a mass public education programme of the scale that would be needed is unrealistic, but something needs to be done to address that. I think that a couple of things. One is that starting where you have to start, which is with the Scottish Parliament, Government, public bodies that deliver services, civil society and non-governmental organisations, we have seen an increased awareness of what is human rights in that kind of political world, the formal world, you could say, out there in the informal world. I completely agree that that's still to be taken with the same degree of success. I would, on the other hand, say that it's quite superficial, the confusion or the mistrust about human rights. In my experience, whenever you have a serious conversation with anyone from any walk of life and you just strip away some of the illusions and just look at the facts and the evidence and their own life experience, it doesn't take very long before that person changes their views about it. It's not, I don't feel weighed down by it, but it is something that does need to be addressed and I would hope that progressively that's what will take place. A big debate is going to happen on the British Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act, SNAP, which way do we go, progressive or regressive. So the public is going to be caught up in this debate and it is a big opportunity, I think, for us in Scotland and to share that around the UK to present this much more progressive alternative understanding and vision for human rights needing to be at the front and centre of any country's way of governing itself. It doesn't fall to the Scottish Human Rights Commission to do all that work for the whole of Scotland and so on. Is there preliminary work that should be being done by, not necessarily by, SHRC but by others in terms of preparing the ground for this debate? Obviously, there's quite significant forces who are going to be making the opposite arguments when the time comes. People aren't necessarily going to listen to politicians, they're not everybody's favourite people, so, you know, how other others would be saying that. I think the debate will be an opportunity for and the commission, I'm sure, will do its utmost to try and influence that debate. On the broader sort of leaving aside the British Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act debate, what was being explored in SNAP in this coming third year is what kind of education in the schools can be most effectively promoted, because that is the area where you really do want to focus as part of the education and preparation for life, and where children have minds that are very open. My experience going into schools, you have the most honest, straightforward, challenging questions, because their minds are free of a lot of the stuff that you pick up as you go through life, and they're very keen to understand and to look around the world, and they've got information technology that none of us had when we were at that stage. I think in the schools that it's right for making some progress over the next period. I would never have thought that, as a Human Rights Commissioner, you'd been at a housing project in Leith. One knows you might go and speak to UN and one might go and speak to various big organisations. I'm curious how you got involved in that, because that's important in that people see its pragmatic human rights as practical and not something philosophical, although it's that as well. How did the commission become involved? Is somebody right to you from Leith and say, can you help us? I mean, how did that happen? It's a good story, actually. Thanks for the question. When I was elected by the Parliament to become the first chair, I was contacted right away by Mary Robinson, with whom I'd worked for a number of years and had close relationship with, and she said, congratulations, Alan. What are you going to do? I said, well, I'm going to be coming around, asking people like you what should I be doing. And she said, well, go to Belfast. And my immediate reply was, Mary, I've just been elected by the Scottish Parliament. You know, Scottish taxpayers' money, I can't the first thing I do, just go off out the country. And she said, well, as soon as you possibly can, you should go to the Seven Towers housing estate in North Belfast, where I've just visited last week, and there's some very interesting work being done about making human rights a reality in everyday life. You should go on and understand what they're doing and think about doing the same thing in Scotland. So I did go, did learn, and then it's maybe taken me longer than I would have liked, but we held an event in Govan in Glasgow last year on the first anniversary of SNAP, and I invited those who've been doing this work in Belfast very effectively to come, and I introduced them to the Edinburgh Tenants Federation, and it's just taken off. So it's the commission with the Belfast NGO and the Edinburgh Tenants Federation that are now, again, going back to their, learning the lessons about what has worked somewhere else and adapting it to see if it can work to the benefit of people in Scotland. I think that's a good place to stop. I'm just curious because I'd never have pictured you being down there, and it seems that that's a very good example to people of that it's not something for others, it's for everyday life. Well, thank you very much on me. Wish you well, and if you have anything you don't want to say in public about your job, we'll be all happy to hear and mum's the word. Thank you very much. And now I'll wait for a second to let you and just to spend a couple of minutes, please. And do item 4, subordinate legislation. It's a negative instrument. The Management offender Scotland Act 2005, specification of persons amendment order, SSI 2015, stroke work 431. This instrument extends multi-agency protection arrangements beyond registered sex offenders and restricted patients to other categories of high-risk offenders. It does this in tandem with the management of offenders, etc. Scotland Act 2005, commencement number 8, order 2015. The commencement order is not subject to parliamentary procedure and was not drawn to Parliament's attention by the DPLR, so we're not looking at it. Members who were at the first meeting of this year will recall that the DPLR committee had trenchant comments—I love the word trenchant, I haven't seen that very often—trenchant comments in the instrument that preceded this one. Principally in the grounds it was ultraveries, the Scottish Government accepted this view and went on to the other instrument we're looking at to today as a replacement. The DPLR committee agreed that there was no need to draw this new instrument to the attention of the Parliament on any grounds within its remit. Do you have any comments on the instrument? Yes. Can I personally welcome this provision? I think that there are individuals out with the categories that have previously been covered by this who pose a far greater risk in the extension to people who have propensity to extreme violence, for instance, it's something that I welcome strongly. I think that we might praise the DPLR committee too, they could do the publicity because they did their job properly. So I take it, you're content to make no recommendation in this instrument. Thank you very much, we're now going to private session market.