 I welcome you to the 24th meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2014. Apologies have been received from Claire Adamson this morning and Joan McAlpen is due to replace her as a substitute and hopefully she will be here soon. Can I remind all those present that electronic devices should be switched off because they do interfere with the broadcasting system? Today we will hear from Tam Bailey, Scotland's commissioner for children and young people. I welcome you, Tam, to the meeting. Good morning. We last heard from Tam in the context of scrutinising the children and young people bill last year when our discussion focused on children's rights and, of course, your new powers that were contained within the bill. Today we would like to follow up on that discussion by hearing about the work of your office more generally and, of course, your annual report for 2013-14, which all members have received. Before we start on the question, can I just invite Tam to make any opening remarks on what she wishes to start with? I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I have to say I really welcome it because one of my ambitions is for children's rights to be owned right across Scottish society and the role of this committee. I see it as very important, not least of what she passed legislation, but it's got a much wider brief in terms of children's wellbeing and the realisation of children's rights. I'm optimistic, I'll say at the beginning, in terms of where we're going with children's rights in Scotland. I'll comment on the bill, which you know very well. I'll also give a view about where we're at with education in children's rights and I'll have the opportunity, hopefully, of filling in some of the proactive work that I'm involved in in terms of domestic abuse, particularly in terms of closing the attainment gap, because I know that the committee has got an inquiry coming up in this letter in the year. I want to tell you a little bit about respect campaign in relation to school toilets and some of the developments there, and of course another bit of work is disability. I'll give you, if I get the chance, some overarching issues that I think either promote the wellbeing and the rights of children and young people or hold us back as a society. That's really, I mean, there's quite a lot to try and cover. I know that we have a number of members who have questions in those, covering some of those areas at least, so I'm sure that we'll get through quite a lot in the question. Thank you very much for that. I'm going to start by asking George Adam to begin the question. Your annual report describes quite a lot of detail about what your actual role is, what you do in a day-to-day basis and what you do within various communities in Scotland. Can you give me three specific improvements that you've made to children and young people's lives in Scotland? I'll give you more than three. Three is a good start. I want to talk about culture change in terms of our approach to children and young people. I spent a lot of time engaging with education and I sense something changing quite significantly in terms of children's rights and the curriculum within education. One of the examples that I would give on that is that we currently have more than half of our local authority schools with 40 per cent or more of them signed up to a programme called Rights, Respect and Schools in Scotland. We've also got Education Scotland who have got CPD training for teachers. They've engaged through particular training programmes with 23 of those local authorities and more to come. They've got online training as well, so I think that there's something really significant that's under the radar right now in terms of our approach to children and children's rights within the curriculum. I'll add to that. We've published a document called Golden Rules, which is about participation. We put a very heavy emphasis on it. Our first run was about 3,000. We've now distributed 11,000 of those. That's on demand. That's an indication of professionals' preparedness to engage with children and young people on the basis of listening to their views. If you want some specifics, we published a report just after the publication of the annual report, which was called Learning Lessons. We had employed peer researchers to canvass views of about 800 youngsters about what was the impact of poverty in their education and what should be done about it. In the publication of the report, the Government allocated 1.5 million specifically to follow up on the recommendations about how individual schools could alleviate some of the impact of those children who are living in poverty. Most recently, there's been a lot of disquiet about police stopping search in Scotland. I've been quite outspoken on that. The police have actually changed their practice in regard to stopping search for under 12s, but there's a long way to go here, because we're still sitting at very high levels of stopping search. The last one I'll offer up just now is that I've long spoken out about the need for additional health visitors to make the early years or our ambitions and early years a reality. Thankfully, the Government has announced 500 additional health visitors to make sure that some of that core service provision is there. The problem is that I do lots and lots of work in partnership. The more you do in partnership, the more you do alongside other agencies, the more difficult and more challenging it is to have direct attribution for the efforts of my own office and myself. I go back to what I said. I want everybody to own children's rights in Scotland. I want everybody to recognise that they've got a responsibility. It's through that that we'll have better, more better adjusted children growing into being mature adults. A lot of what you've answered there, Tam, is basically what's in the report, was your engagement, your constant engagement with young people. I know that I've taken board the stopping search in additional health visitors. It's making a difference in young people's day-to-day lives, but a lot of other stuff is just the engagement that you've made with young people here. How do you gauge your success in making that into a plan of action to influence Government policy or anything else? If you want me to talk about Government, I spent a lot of time developing a right bladder for that to be the largest consultation ever. I've been pressing the Government since then to be much more ambitious about their consultations with children and young people. Just recently, there's some evidence of that, where we assisted them. I don't want it to come through me, but we assisted them in terms of consultation and their sport strategy. We very modestly said, we can assure, using our contacts, that you'll get 300 responses. We had to stop at 1700, and we did the analysis on that. That's a model for an example of how easy it would be for the Government to think big in terms of listening to children and young people and to think big about their engagement with consultations and listening to their views. I sense a change right now. Ten years ago, you had to have argued to take on board the views of children and young people. That doesn't happen nowadays. The question is how do we make that happen in as meaningful and as widespread a way as possible. People accept that you should be engaging and listening to the views of children and young people, because they have a particular perspective that's unique to them. Ten years ago, you had to have argued that really hard to spend resources on it. Not now. The issue is how do we make sure that we do that in as effective a way as possible. Tam, you say that we probably saw an example of that engagement with young people with the 16-17-year-olds with their engagement in the political process during the referendum, because I personally saw the difference in the tone of the campaign and the enthusiasm coming from young people and the fact that they could participate in the political process. The answer is yes. I can't claim credit for 16-17-year-olds getting the vote, although I supported it from the outset and supported it very strongly. Everything that happened in the referendum confirmed the maturity with which those 16-17-year-olds brought to the election process. I hope that 16-17-year-olds in Frenshite voting extends to all elections. I know that there are issues in that, but as far as I'm concerned, the genie is out of the bottle and youngsters are positively engaged in that and well done. Well done to them and well done to us as a society for putting our faith in the capacity of 16-17-year-olds to engage in democratic processes. We are laying the seeds for enhanced engagement of that age group. The research tells you elsewhere that the younger you vote, the more likely you are to continue to vote. Tam, you quite rightly pointed to the problem of how to directly connect to the work and outcomes, but I have to ask you. Effectively, can you give us specific examples of outcomes, because we are all trying to be very outcome-focused of the work that your office does and the actual outcome that came from that work? What I am thinking about is that there are other examples of where, effectively, bullying has been reduced, the amount of violence on young people or on other young people has been reduced, whether there has been an increase in rights and information and knowledge among young people about sexual exploitation, a whole range of issues. Is there any specific figures that you can point to that give us an example of outcomes that have actually improved the lives of young people? I have already given you numerous examples of activities that are taking place in schools right now. To back up that business, there is a piece of research that we are looking at just now where we know that there are some youngsters who, despite living in trauma, do remarkable well. There are some schools that, despite serving poor areas, do remarkable well. We have a piece of research right now that identifies schools that are high-performing against what you would expect in terms of the socioeconomic area. We know some of that is about CPD, some of it is continuous improvement, some of it is about quality of teaching, some of it is about leadership in the school, and some of it looks as if it is about participation in schools. I think that we will be able to demonstrate that. I do not want to spike the results of it, but all of the activity that I am talking about in terms of increased participation in schools actually improves outcomes of children in those schools. That massive change and that sea change that I am talking about I believe that we will be able to demonstrate that that will result in better attainment for children in schools. You know that I have an inquiry service, so there are lots of individuals who will come, who will seek assistance, either in terms of advice, information, or indeed me, who is engaging with public bodies. I could give you examples of young people who may have been excluded from a sports club because of a minor argument in the parents and the parents are contacting them to know what their rights are in terms of making a complaint on that. I gave evidence to the SPCB of youngsters where the boundary change was going to have a really detrimental impact on their care packages, and I get involved with that, and they shifted the actual boundary as a result of that representation. There are lots and lots of examples where, on an individual basis, we get involved, but I am looking for systemic change through the office, so that will still be there. Of course, the committee knows about the plans for extended powers of the commissioner's office, and we are gearing up for that right now. I listened carefully for an answer, and I think that we are still waiting for it. If I may say, I thought that your follow-up was very good. Your response to George was cultural change. You are engaging with education, and Education Scotland is doing training. You are working in partnership with your pressing government. I still have not heard a definite outcome. Education Scotland could well have improved their training anyway. That is part and parcel of what they are about. The main thing, convener, was that Mr Bailey said once everybody to own children's rights. When I read through this, it seemed to be more about Tam's plan. If I could go to, first of all, T is for Tam Bailey. Page 6, T is for Tam Bailey. Page 12, we want to make sure that children in Scotland have an opportunity to talk to Tam. Page 38, we ensure that office runs smoothly and Tam's aims are projected to children. Throughout page 40, I work in the sector, I recently became aware, I believe the golden rules and I would like this. In actual fact, I find it difficult to get an answer to George Adams and the convener's questions, but it seems to me that this is more about Tam Bailey than it is about children's rights. Apart from the fact that there are over seven photographs of yourself in here, I think that one would have been enough. I have been on the corporate body for three years, as Liam McArthur is, and the questions there are different to the questions here. If I may say, convener, it is easy to measure the public sector ombudsman and the information commissioner because they are getting appeals all the time. Your office, as a children's commissioner, is more difficult to measure, so it provides a challenge. The committee has a very powerful position in holding to account the £1.25 million of taxpayer money that goes there. I think that this is more about Tam's plan than it is about children's rights, and that seems to be about promoting you personally. If perhaps you would like to get the opportunity for the third time, in my personal opinion, to answer George Adams's question, which I thought was very reasonable, and indeed to conveners, because I did not see anything that was specifically attributed to the commissioner's office that probably would have happened anyway. I am only the occupant of this role. I get one shot at it in terms of eight years, and my objective is to make sustainable change. Sustainable change cannot come with it just being through my office. It has to be owned by other organisations. That is why I started off by telling what I perceived to be changes in other organisations. When I came into post, you would not have had a presence about children's rights or children's rights training within Education Scotland. When I came into post, you did not have a children and young people's bill that had whole sections in it about duties on ministers and duties on public bodies. When I came into post, for the early part of it, there was a very weak presence within the Scottish Government, and I am heartened that the Scottish Government has increased the number of staff that have got responsibility for children's rights. All of that, I think that my belief is that that is sustainable change for the future, regardless of who is sitting in this chair or who is sitting in this role right now. If it truly was all driven by my office, that would not be a good place to be. It has to be driven through other institutions and bodies in Scotland. That has been the whole approach. I make no apology for quoting what is happening in other areas of institutions in Scotland, because they are the people who will make the difference in children's rights in the longer term. They will be here long beyond the period of time that I am in post. That has been the whole strategy. My question was—I lectured for 20 years before coming in here—and we were constantly doing additional CPD. We were constantly looking at what was out there, constantly looking at how we could change and how we could adapt to serve the people that we were paid to serve. My point is that, would those things have happened anyway? Is it because of the Children's Commissioner that Education Scotland is speaking and bringing in training on children's rights? My second point, which you have not answered, convener, if I may, is Tams Ames. The Children's Commissioner's office is not just about you. You may head up the Children's Commissioner's office, but it is Tams Ames talking to tears for Tams. Those are about children's rights. It is not about self-promotion, which this booklet definitely seems to be about. I would like to ask you why it is focused on you, rather than on the children. Really, I go back for the fourth time now, what has happened as a specific—I mean the legislation, to be fair, I do not think that you can claim credit for it. That was the Scottish Government legislation. Is there something that you have done that has resulted in a positive outcome for children across Scotland? I think that all the things that I mentioned cover that, but I will give you another one. One of the results of a right blerror was to look at children responding by saying that they wanted to be safe and respected in their communities. When I went back to them, they said, what would make the difference in terms of you feeling respected in your community? As it happened, they said, school toilets. We have been campaigning on school toilets, and we have been pressing the Government, who have now agreed to produce new guidance on school toilets. That will result in improved approaches, improved ethos in school with regard to school toilets. I mean, that has captured the attention of the World Health Organization, who have a campaign called Wash, which is water and sanitary health, and they are interested in the developments that are taking place in Scotland with regard to school toilets directly as a result of that campaign. A school toilet is not the responsibility of local authorities, and there are standards there, so it is their responsibility. If it is not being upheld, do we need you to go in and inspect the toilets in order for children to feel safe? Is that not something that councils do have a responsibility for? It is all very well said that it is the responsibility of the education department. Of course it is, but if it is not happening, you need a light shine on that, and you need a response. Thankfully, the response of the Government has been that it will take that on. There are lots and lots of areas in Scottish life with children and young people where the responsibilities are quite clear and they are not being upheld. That is one example where, in my view, it was not universally being upheld and we had to shine a light on it. As a result, there has been a positive response, and it has captured the attention of the World Health Organization in that particular response. A school toilet has not had an answer to the points that I have made about TAM's plan for TAM and that it is more about self-promotion and that TAM's aims are rather than children's. Children and young people identify with who the children's commissioner is. Very early on in my tenure, I visited schools and it became apparent that children genuinely want to know who the commissioner is. Who is that person? What does that person look like? What engagement is he likely to have with that person? I have made it one of my own aims that, in any one year, I will have contact with 5,000 children and young people. That is pretty steep in terms of the number of schools that I have to visit, the number of social care places that I have to visit and the number of youth clubs that I would have to visit. That is my commitment. Children and young people tend not to identify with an institution and office of a children's commissioner, but they identify with that person. I have the privilege of being that person for this period of time. For the next person that comes in, I have given them the advice that you have to be a person that is recognised by children and young people. Some of the evidence on that was when we did the right blether and we did some polling with regard to the recognition of the children's commissioner. Much more recognition of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and much lesser—it was 25 per cent—of who the children's commissioner was. One of my ambitions is that all the children in Scotland know exactly who their children's commissioner is. It is a person— It is not more important that all the children in Scotland know what their rights are rather than knowing what your name is. No, absolutely not. It goes cap in hand. I have already said that one of the ambitions that I have started with is that children's rights are owned right across the board. I am very pleased that there is now curriculum development that allows children to know about the UNCRC. Teachers are confident in dealing with the children's rights. They are not going to shy away from it, and the advice that I was given early on in the right blether was that that would not work. You will not get teachers engaging with children's rights. That just was not the case. I will introduce other questions. Before I move on to Liam McArthur, I know that he wants to come in. Just for clarification, I double-checked in the report on page 19 about the success campaign. As part of the campaign, schools are self-assessing, etc., taking part in the success of the campaign. Since the launch, a total of 32 schools have taken part. Signed up. That does not seem very many times. No, it is not, because we have got over 3,000 establishments in Scotland. Those are the schools that would inform on what will go into the guidance, and it is the guidance that will make the difference. The guidance from the Government to the local authorities, that is the difference. Obviously, I can see the importance of that. That is clearly important and has an impact. It is just the way that you were expressing it there. It sounded to me like a lot more were involved. I double-checked the numbers, and it is 32, which seems very low. Low in numbers, but in terms of being able to use the quality of information that those children and young people provide to be able to input to what will then be the guidance that is given out to the schools. I suppose that my point is that it is 32, a representative sample of 3,000 institutions. You have to get some information. Previously, and in many instances right now, we have produced guidance that does not have any reference to children and young people's views on it. There is an opportunity there to use the pupils who provided that information. That is one of the changes that I would like to see. When we are routinely producing guidance for the impact on children's lives, we have got them involved in the process. It is 1 per cent. Yes, I know that. I think that you have quite rightly pointed to the fact that, over a period, the understanding, awareness and acceptance of the need for children's rights to be understood and respected has been established. There will be areas in which that is not necessarily as well-founded as it might. In terms of ensuring that we get beyond just recognition to the delivery of good services treatment and so on that flow from those rights, are there any areas that you think particular attention needs to be focused on, whether that be geographically within Scotland, whether it be for certain groups of children and young people, whether it be from specific groups of professionals? You quoted earlier the issue of police stop and search. George, your attention to some of the changes around health visitors. Some of those areas have been identified. Are there others where you would have particular concerns and that you believe that a specific job of work is needed to be done to ensure that we move from simply the recognition, the understanding and the acceptance through to the delivery? Yes. Quite a long list here. I will start with the overarching issues as I see them. The two big overarching issues for me are cutbacks in service. If Parliament was to do something in terms of how it monitors services to children and young people, I would suggest that we need to look at budgeting in terms of children and have a clearer idea about how much resources are spent on children. The evidence of the 80s was that children's services suffered disproportionately. I think that the discourse on that and the statements that have been made are people are trying a lot harder to not cut back services, but we simply do not know, so we do not have the information there. The second thing is that I lied to that. It got a very good airing during the referendum debate, social justice in terms of the inequality in our country. For me, that is the most corrosive impact on children's wellbeing and children's rights. We have got massive evidence that tells us that. If we were looking at structural issues, those were the ones that I would look at. The committee is well versed in where some of our failings are. We still have very much lesser outcomes for children who are looked after, despite report after report after report. We need to keep the pressure on how we better serve our looked after children. Likewise, the area of disability, which is one of my proactive areas, is that those children need constant focus on. For example, the play facilities that children with disabilities get access to are very poor. When we do serving of children with disabilities and ask them about their school, it tends to be that they are satisfied in terms of their school life. If we ask them about their social life and the life outside of that, it is very poor. We are not doing nearly enough on that issue. You know the issue, and you are well versed with transitions for particularly looked after young people. Despite what is in the bill, we have to be really attentive and assertive in making sure that we really make the difference in terms of those youngsters' movement from childhood into adult services, from child-focused services into adult services. Those are some of them are structural, and some of them are specific to groups of youngsters. I know that we are going to come on to the specific issue of poverty shortly, but in following that up, the points that you make in relation to service cuts and issues of poverty are new, and they are rehearsed in the report as well. However, you indicated at the outset in your opening remarks that there are examples of individual schools performing well in areas where poverty is clearly more prevalent than in others. There are individuals who are perhaps confounding expectations. Is there anything from the lessons that you can draw on from that that allows us to perhaps look at ways in which progress can be made in improving the delivery of children's rights? Absolutely. Every local authority knows the skills that are bucking the trend, and there has been some research that has been produced, thankfully, from HMI or Education Scotland now, about some of the reasons for that. There is some research from down south that one of the other reasons for that is the capacity of the school that we engage children in and the normal running of the school, a bit beyond school councils. We are testing that just now. I am hopeful by the end of the year that we will publish on that, because that would be another behaviour that you could look at developing to reduce the attainment gap. We fail miserably to reduce the attainment gap, and the more that we know about that, the better. We know a lot enough about the impact of inequality in children's attainment, but we do not know as much as we should about those areas that are doing remarkably well. Obviously, there is not really any way of getting around the issue of budgets being more constrained at the national level or local level. In a sense, what you have described would suggest that perhaps some local authorities or service delivery agents are coping better with that or taking decisions that are impacting less adversely on those most in need. Are there lessons that we can be drawing from that that can be rolled out across local authorities across Scotland? The answer is yes. Look to those centres of excellence where they are doing remarkably well. That is partly what I am doing just now to add to that volume of knowledge about the kind of behaviours, the kind of approaches that we should be promoting—we are talking about schools just now—that should be promoting within our educational establishment. I think that there is a growing body of evidence about the kind of things that we should be doing there, and I want to add to that. In answer to the question, will I be responsible for a reduction in the attainment gap? No, because it will be the responsibility of those people who have the responsibility of providing for education. Do I want to add the weight of my office, the knowledge, based on that? Absolutely. I will do what I can on that. I would like to explore some of the issues around the new powers and the investigations. You have existing powers, which are pretty consistent with the new powers, if you like, of general investigation, but you have never used the existing powers. Presumably, you are resourced to do some investigations already. I note that you are looking for additional funding per the financial memorandum of about £160,000 a year to hire more staff. You have never used the previous powers that you had. The legislation makes it clear that any investigation can only be undertaken if the issue does not come within the remit of any other public body. You are estimating that you will need three further full-time members of staff. How do you work that out? You have never used existing powers. Some of the powers that you are getting are actually similar or the same as existing powers. The additional powers are limited in terms of its scope. How do you calculate out three extra bodies? On the use of existing powers, you say that you are resourced. If you look at the way that the existing powers are framed, I reckon that I would need to harness the resources that we currently have to those existing investigatory powers and not be able to exercise all of the other duties that I have under the current legislation. That is the reason that neither myself nor my predecessor, Kathleen Marshall, was able to exercise that particular power of investigation. There are examples elsewhere of how the use of that investigatory power drew all the resources of the office into the use of that particular power at the expense of the exercise of the duties. That is the first one. That is the reason that it has not been used. I stand that that power has never been used, so there are more resources being put behind it from your office. Well, the resources that I have put into the exercise of the duties that I currently have have prompted the questions about the difference that we have made, whether there is any impact on children and young people, whether we have any measurable success. I would not have been able to answer any of those questions if we had put all of the resources into the existing powers. Are you saying that you have never used the existing powers? Although there were occasions when you might have productively done so, you did not because you did not have resources. Yes, because the resources in the office were servicing the duties that I have about promoting and safeguarding children's rights, about scrutinising legislation, about trying to make some differences in children's lives in Scotland. So, yes, absolutely. To come back to the estimations, I am not quite sure how and what level of discussion you are wanting on this just now, because there is a submission to the SPCB. I think that I provided evidence to the committee previously about, in my estimation, the hundreds of cases that would actually come the way of the office and having to respond to that, and having to have the capacity to be able to respond to those cases. That is on that basis. We submitted evidence that was based on a comparison with the commissioners offices in Wales and Northern Ireland, which is really the best comparators that we have got. We could not use England because they do not have any powers of investigation. I am looking at page 6 of your report, and you are talking about moving to new office accommodation this year, 2014-15. I wondered what the reasons were and what the cost is. The cost is that we get more accommodation for less cost. The case for that was already agreed through the Scottish Parliamentary corporate body. We actually get better premises, more spacious premises for less money. It is a much better value for money, and it has already been agreed. Again, looking at page 6, you said that the corporate services team has had to react to external demands on the basis of our public body status. I was wondering what that meant. As a public body, there are certain additional responsibilities that I have. For instance, on the equality act, we have to respond to that. On all the responsibilities of a public body, I have to respond to it, even though we are a very small office. There is one commissioner and 14 staff. We have to respond to FOIs and make sure that our governance is in line with what you would expect to any other public body. I was just looking at the new powers that you are getting. Can you give an example of the type of complaint that you think that you will be faced with and that you will be proactively looking forward to investigate? I have had occasion of people, for instance, where they care for children with disabilities. There is movement of that child, transition of that child from childcare services to adult services, and people are absolutely bereft of any notion about what those services would be in terms of the future of their child. It is very difficult for them to know where there is no pick-up in terms of complaints, because what they are getting in terms of an adult service is what they would normally get. However, whether that is suitable for a child who is moving from childcare services to adult services—and that comes up frequently—I mean, there is—sorry. I was just going to say that. That seems more like information and guidance as much as an investigation. Well, if this is happening for our children with disabilities and there are gaps in service provision, we spend time and energy trying to provide for a good childhood for the youngster, and then it falls down when we transfer into adulthood. I think that it is a bit more than just providing advice and guidance. I think that we should be shining a light on that to try and do something about it. Given the new powers that you are getting, do you think that there should be any further powers that would enable you to more effectively perform your duties? I have quite a bit on my plate just now, making sure that the exercise of the new powers is as effective as the Parliament wants it to be. For just now, I have plenty on my agenda to make sure that I am true to the exercise of those powers. Are you satisfied that, with the additional resources that are apparently coming your way, you will be able to fully maintain your core functions and achieve your strategic objectives, that there will not be any impingement on that? I have made representation in terms of what might be additional pressures on the office. I have to submit an annual budget, so there will be an opportunity there to assess whether there are sufficient resources to be able to keep all the operations that are on the go, as well as the exercise of the new powers. I want that to be reviewed, so we will be keeping very close record in terms of the impact of the new powers in the office. Those powers came into play in 2016. I see myself laying the ground for somebody else to come in because my term of office ended in 2017. In fact, I have to be mindful that it is for another commissioner to come in and make those powers effective beyond the first year. I have a couple of points to clarify before I bring them in. You said that, if you had carried out investigations previously, you would have sucked the whole resources of the office, and that was the phrase that you used. Is that not a danger going forward that the effect of the same thing will happen again? I have already made representation to the committee and to the Government about allocating sufficient resources to ensure that the exercise of the new extension of powers is properly resourced. I suggest that that has to be kept under review, because, in my estimation, there may well be a requirement for additional resources over and above that, which was allocated through the financial memorandum. I have already made representation on that. However, having said that, we know what was in the budget and the financial memorandum, and I give my absolute commitment to try and make that work. There are two questions that arise from that. First, I want to clarify what investigations you have taken on that you were unable to take on because of the resources that you said originally you could not do because of the resources that you had. I am not looking forward to the increase in the changes in your powers, but, as they currently stand, what would you have investigated that you did not? I will go back to that example again. Instead of offering advice and guidance to parents who are trying to cope with their children with disability, remember that the investigation is held in public, and it is like a public hearing, there would have been an opportunity to have many parents present their case as to the kind of lack of service for that particular group of children. That would have been quite a big exercise, quite a big undertaking. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but Mr Beattie seemed to be on his line of questioning talking about the information that you would be providing would be more of an information and advice rather than an investigation, which I kind of agreed the line of questioning that he was asking you. That seemed to be what it was like because people were unsure of what services they would be getting if they were moving from child services to adult services. Is it feasible to provide that kind of information and advice and support from your office with 14 staff at the moment? Just to correct, the purpose of an investigation would not be just to provide advice and guidance. It would be to seek changes in the way that we deal with children, for instance, in this instance, with disabilities and make sure that they have a proper transition into adulthood. In fact, the advice and guidance is already given right now, so the committee will be aware that I have run an inquiry service somewhere between three and four hundred inquiries a year where I do not have the capacity to follow up in individual cases, but we give advice and guidance on numerous cases that come to the office, either in terms of parents seeking advice with regard to the schooling of their child, or with regard to the health of their child, or with regard to housing or rights of their child. We give that advice and information right now. We do not call them investigations, I cannot call them investigations, I do not have the power of individual investigations on those. So what is the difference between what you do now and the advice and information that you provide and an investigation? What is the additional benefit? It would be similar to the powers that are exercised by other complaints bodies where you would actually be able to request papers, you would be able to actually get full information rather than us just dealing with the parent or the child and listening to that side of the story, you would be able to properly investigate on the basis of the paperwork that you would have access to. Well it's just a small brief supplementary convener and what I would like to ask is how many investigations did you turn down? You've mentioned the parents with children with disabilities, now as a member of Parliament I would be very concerned if there's a serious serious need out there and that desperately needed an investigation, your office were unable to deal with it because all of the resources of 14 staff would go into that investigation. So how many did you turn down? Did you discuss turning down investigations into particular needy issues with Government ministers? Or did you indeed discuss it with the corporate body of which I was a member prior to sitting on this committee and just my final point convener is looking forward to the future and obviously I've got information from the corporate body here. How many cases do you anticipate will be investigated annually in future for your three new members of staff? Okay it's not a matter of turning down investigations and people coming saying we need this investigating and you need to use that collective power or that power of investigation that you have. Just recently for instance you want to know where things have been flagged up to Government, there's been a report produced which flagged up, I seem to be concentrating on youngsters with disability but it is a big bit of the work, where there are questions over how effectively we interview children in terms of child protection investigations, children with communication difficulties and I've already flagged that up to the Government because I think the Government actually needs to look at how we improve services on that. You're asking the estimate of number of cases that would be made in terms of referrals and complaints and based on the estimates from Wales and Northern Ireland and the number of children that we have in Scotland we've estimated over 800 complaints would actually come to the office to be dealt with. They wouldn't all result in investigations because we would actually have to deal with that number of cases. My understanding was in your answer to Colin Beattie was that if I understand it correctly you have a power to investigate prior to the Children and Young People's Act, you would have carried out those investigations only you were not fully resourced for it and it would have sucked in all your resources. So what I was asking was what should have been done that you weren't able to do because of resources and also your anticipated cases in future. Now if I'm right from memory it's not 800 investigations in a year, if I remember correctly it's probably one or two or maybe none. That would be right. That depends on what you call an investigation. I'm talking about complaints that we've made to the office that have to be assessed where we have to get information and where in many instances we'll give advice and information and signposting and there's been an estimate provided by the Government in terms of somewhere between one and four investigations would result from that. That's part of the reason that I want this to be kept under review because I think that there will be a very heavy workload in terms of complaints that are made to the office which will result in the office having to respond to them. You're not allowed to undertake any investigation where that would duplicate the work of any other complaint handling body, that's Scottish Government's words. So where is there in Scotland where there is not a complaint handling body that would undertake these investigations that would have to come to you? Where is that gap because you're not allowed to duplicate? Absolutely and you have to go back to the definition of what would be the basis of a complaint that would be made to my office and that's on the basis of rights, interests and views of children had not been properly taken into account and there's lots of scope there in terms of the number of complaints that would be made. Just looking for an answer, convener. I'm sorry but I'm not getting it and I'm trying quite hard and I think I'm being quite respectful here but you know where it was a straightforward question, where is there... The commissioner may not undertake such an investigation where that would duplicate the work of any other complaint handling body. Where is there in Scotland that we do not have a complaint handling body that would justify you undertaking investigations? Just give me one. I've already given you, I think, one but I'll give you another one. So a young person leaves care at age 15. There's no continuing care responsibility for the local authority and at 17 finds themselves homeless and without any support and wants to complain about the behaviour of the local authority in terms of the exercise of their duty. Now the local authority may well have exercised their responsibilities at that age but whether that is the kind of outcome and whether that takes proper account of that child's best interest at that age is open to question. That's the kind of thing that they don't neatly fall in to a complaint being made on that basis. To any one of our bodies. Perhaps start by partially answering Colin Beattie's question in relation to office base because I think it's probably one more fairly directed to the corporate body. I mean against an attempt to decrease the budget of the corporate body by about 11 per cent over five years. What we've done amongst other things is asked all of the office holders and commissioners to look at opportunities for co-locating and sharing back services. So part of the office move is a reflection of a responsibility, a requirement that the corporate body's placed on time and the other office holders. In relation to the issue investigation, I mean this came up during the consideration of the children young people's bill. I think at the time you pointed to a role in terms of almost mediation prior to a complaint being made. But what you seem to be talking about now in response to Mary Collin and the convener's questions is actually an investigative power over complaints. The examples that you've used seem to me to fall largely into the category of the sort of complaint that ultimately the ombudsman would look to investigate after local avenues had been exhausted. It may well be that you point to your role in overseeing rights and the views of children, young people etc. But that looks like it's looking at a distinct aspect of the same case that the ombudsman would be looking to or required to investigate. I'm struggling to understand whether or not there are distinct roles or whether you'd end up having a complaint that was simultaneously been looked at by the ombudsman by yourself, albeit looking at slightly different aspects of the same case. No, I think, I mean one of the tasks between now and setting up of the power is actually to develop memorandum of understanding with our existing complaints bodies, including the ombudsman, because I think in many instances there will be signposting to those other complaint handling bodies. But we will still have to have resources to be able to assess what the advice and information would be and whether it's appropriate to actually signpost. I think going back to your earlier points about the role that you have in raising awareness and raising understanding etc, it's quite a high profile role and there's been some success with that. Is there not a danger that whatever the memorandums of understanding are saying, for those with a complaint, there's going to be an incentive, an attraction, an inevitability that they gravitate towards yourself rather than actually going down the route of pursuing the avenues that currently exist? Yeah, well that will be for us to work out with the ombudspersons. I think I try to reassure the committee. I'm not interested in setting up parallel processes, I don't think that that would be helpful at all. But I do think that by having an individual complaint handling function that will attract young people to come to the office and then it will be up to us to do proper assessment on that and proper signposting in those cases that is appropriate. You've drawn on the examples of Wales and Northern Ireland in terms of estimating the likely workload that this may result in. Is there anything from their institutional landscape of commissioners and other bodies that will give us some confidence that those memorandum of understanding can be applied in a way that makes sense? Yes. In fact, one of the main lessons to be learned of this power in Northern Ireland and Wales is that the intervention of the children's commissioner prompts a resolution and gets the matter resolved rather than having to go to formal complaint. That's one of their main findings that it helps children and young people before it has to go through formal complaint. That's just by the very intervention of the commissioner's office. Sorry, isn't that back at the mediation? Well, I've never used the word mediation. Well, whatever we want to call it, I mean, Liam McArthur asked you, right? I think that his first question was on this point about that we'd previously discussed, let's just call it mediation, because that's what I've used at that point. Now we're talking about a different form of investigation parallel to or not. I'm just trying to understand it. I've never used the word mediation. In fact, I think that Scottish Government have made representation at the committee that they don't see it as a mediation role. However, the evidence is that when referrals are made or when complaints are made to the commissioner's office and the commissioner's office becomes involved, then that prompts people to look at how they would resolve it before they need to go through complaints. In that sense, that could be a good outcome, because it gets some resolution before it goes through formal complaint. I'm not saying that it's a bad outcome. I'm just trying to understand what the role is, because I'm now slightly struggling between intervening at that point, whatever we call it, and that prompts the resolution, which on the face of it would appear to be a good outcome. The discussion that we've just had about investigatory role parallel to but investigating something slightly different through memorandums of understanding with the ombudsman. I was trying to say that I don't think that there should be parallel investigations at all. I think that the memorandum of understanding should be about separating out those times when the commissioner's office becomes involved and when the ombudsman comes about. I don't think that it would be helpful. Is it after the ombudsman has completed their investigation then? No, I would excite. If it was the ombudsman that was conducting the investigation, that would be it. I mean, they've conducted it. I've previously said that I don't want or I don't foresee this as being some further adjudication. The ombudsman's got a very clear role there, and that would be… Sorry, I'm more confused now. I mean, I'm genuine. I'm trunny. So, if the ombudsman is dealing with a case, then you definitely wouldn't be involved. We haven't worked out the detail in it, but that would be my… That's how I'm going into these discussions. If the ombudsman is dealing with a case, your understanding is that you wouldn't be involved. So, what are the cases then that you would be involved in if the… Except… The examples that you gave seem to be cases that would go to the ombudsman. That's what they sounded like. Okay. I'll give you another case where I don't think there's any clear place that it goes. There's an issue coming into the office just now, a youngster with disabilities, who has been asked by the bank because of their disability for additional safeguards to be made before the bank allowed a bank account to be taken out. The inquiry to us is this, does this in any way infringe this young person's rights? Now, there may be a bigger issue here about the behaviour of our financial institutions in terms of discriminatory behaviour where children and young people… I can't see that going to the public service ombudsperson. Liam McArthur. If there's a successful resolution that avoids the need for a complaint, obviously that would appear to be an objective that everybody would wish to see, but the office holders at the moment, including the ombudsman, can only intervene at a point where all local avenues have been exhausted. Now, the example, the response that you gave to the convener there suggested that in the sense that this was to be prior to a complaint being made. All avenues, local avenues, would necessarily have been exhausted. Perhaps in the cases that you were citing there, there may be an engagement by you and your office with a local authority that had been taken an approach in terms of the transition to adulthood in terms of delivery of services that wasn't respecting of the rights, but that would suggest that you have a right of involvement that isn't necessarily an investigation, but isn't akin to the right of investigation that the other office holders have, in particular the ombudsman, because you're not waiting for local avenues to have been exhausted. It might be that that's the best resolution in the case at that point, but that's where the memorandum of understanding the ground that it would cover to make sure that we weren't dealing with something that should actually rightly go to the ombudsperson in the first instance. I've given you the example, for instance, of the behaviour of financial institutions. Earlier, I gave you an example of parents who felt that the young people were being excluded from sporting activity on the basis of what looked like quite a resolvable dispute. It's not clear that that would go to the public service ombudsman person, because that's not part of a public body. There are a number of other areas where they're just not covered by our complaints' landscape right now, especially when you're looking at where the rights of children would have been infringed or not by bodies that are not public service that are not covered by the public service ombudsperson. I don't want to drag this out, because other members have questions or other areas, so I want to finish on a quick question, if you don't mind. You mentioned financial institutions there, a bank. I was mentioned a bank, yes. And your role could be in supporting this individual, maybe with disabilities, who's being perhaps discriminated against in terms of activity of the bank. That's an interesting example, but the bank has no duty to engage with you or effectively you can ask them. You mentioned earlier what you bring is the ability of an investigation to look at the papers and examine the evidence and all that, but a private institution has no duty whatsoever to engage with you or provide you with any evidence papers or anything else, so it sounds more like almost a kind of voluntary advocacy role rather than an investigative role in the formal sense. Yes, and there'll be a whole number of issues that come which are about infringements or rights, where I would expect the commissioner to get involved. Now the extent of the involvement will depend on the nature of the complaint, and it will depend on, to some extent, the co-operation of those bodies. I agree with that. Okay. I didn't want to drag that out, but thank you for that. Gordon MacDonald. Thank you very much, convener. Tam, you said in page 70 of your report and your opening remarks that one in five of our children live in poverty, and you also recorded your extreme disquiet about the failure to make sufficient progress in reducing the number of our children who live in poverty. What do you consider your role to be in helping to tackle child poverty? There's a role on the extent that my job is about promoting and safeguarding children's rights, so there's a responsibility there to highlight issues that I think are impinging on children's rights. I said earlier that it's my belief that there's evidence that demonstrates the negative impact, the corrosive impact that I would describe it, that child poverty has on children's life chances, and that translates to their enjoyment and their rights. Those are children who have got lesser attainment levels at school, who's mental health is impacted as a result of living in poverty, who, in fact, the longevity of their life is impacted because of poverty. For me, that is the single most influential factor in whether children in Scotland, all children in Scotland, have got enjoyment in their rights or not. I am supportive of actions where we take seriously the reduction of the income inequality that we experience in Scotland. Are you in agreement with the efforts to deliver on children's rights being undermined or even negated by child poverty? That's another way of putting it. The evidence is international. It's not just in Scotland, it's not just in the UK. It's right across the board. Also, in your opening report, the remarks have said that despite our efforts, remedial actions do not counter the destructive impact on children born into families living in poor circumstances. That will continue as long as we live in an unequal society. Child poverty is the single most negative factor in too many of our children's lives and the eradication of it is the single most significant influence in the better realisation of their rights. Given the devolution settlement that welfare and the level of the minimum wage is reserved to Westminster, what engagement have you had with the UK Government on those issues? The engagement has been jointly through the four commissioners, because those are reserved matters. We chose to do that jointly, making representation to the Government, the publication of joint reports, which formed the basis of the report to the committee in Geneva, and particularly making a meeting with Lord Freud prior to the implementation of the cuts in terms of welfare. We focused on the areas that would affect children and young people. How would you measure the success of that level of engagement? This is yet another one of those, where there are a number of bodies, institutions and individuals who want to make their views known in terms of child poverty. We are not a lone voice, but it is appropriate that we make that joint voice of the children's commissioners heard in the whole field. That is to the UK Government. I think that there are things within the Scottish Government, within their power to look at alleviating the impact of poverty as there are at local Government level. That is the most complicated area of social policy, because we need the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the local government to all point in the same direction and to pull in in the same direction. Given our constitutional position, that can be quite a complicated matter. What changes would you like to take place to tackle us then? I think that there are things about the wage levels. Half of our children who are living in poverty are actually living in families where there are early wages, where there is somebody working. We have levels of payment for childcare, which actually mitigate against. In many instances people have been freed up to go to work. We still have children who, in Scotland, are turning up to school with lesser cognitive development as a result of living in poverty. There is a real urgency here. One of my hopes is that the focus on early years and improvements in early years will help to counteract some of our structural inequality. However, unless we do that, unless we tackle that, and unless there is a will right across the board, as I said in the report, I think that we will continue to produce some children who have got lesser life chances as a result of living in poverty. You have just touched on the early years collaborative and you, as a commissioner, are a member of that body. Given that you have said that many people who are in poverty are working families, what is the likely success of their early years collaborative given that background? We can go so far with the collaborative. I have already given a welcome to the additional health visitors. I think that there will be significant progress made as a result of the collaborative. We are much better attuned to good parenting. We now know about the impact of good parenting on those positive outcomes for children and young people. Particularly in the early years, people are harnessing resources to be able to support families better in those early years. The health visitors will provide regular checks to be able to pick up on children where there may be delays in development, so that they can respond to that quickly. However, unless we live in a society that has a much narrower gap between the have and the have nots, we will still have some families and some children who struggle in the circumstances in which they live. There is a great deal that can be achieved through early years endeavours, early years collaborative endeavours, but that overall structural inequality has to be looked at and dealt with. It all comes down to money and you are talking about inequality. What is the Children's Commissioner's Office lobbying the Scottish Government to target its resources on children living in poverty, given that we are living in a time of street and finances? The quote that all comes down to money is a quote from a parent with a child with disability. That almost was going to be the title of... Well, that really summed up the kind of experiences of those parents who have a much higher chance of living in poverty. In terms of government actions, I have been actively encouraging the Government to look at how we can alleviate some of those costs in terms of childcare and looking at how, in particular, they could alleviate the burden on families with youngsters who are particularly vulnerable. I have already mentioned a focus on children and young people who are looked after and certainly on families where there is a parent with disability. Like I said, those are complex matters. There is not any one action that is going to bring us that more equal society. My urge really is to all politicians to be focused on how we become a more equal society. Given that we are going to see the roll-out of free school meals for all pupils, primary one to primary three, I do not know if you are aware, but Remfisher Council provides meals in a non-stigmatised way to pupils living in poverty during school holidays. Moving forward, would you like to see... You are talking about there not being one fixed issue of poverty. Would you like to see the Government take a targeted approach to supporting children living in poverty, or is it a more universal approach that you would like to see moving forward? It is both. You have to use your universal resources wisely, but you also have to have in reserve some additional resources for those families and those children who are in the most difficult circumstances. If I was to say that the roll-out of free school meals should be accompanied by some assessment of the impact that that has had on children's eating habits, on children's wellbeing, because those are measures that are universal, so you want to test whether that is having the impact that the Government would desire it. You mentioned parents with children with disabilities earlier. I will ask a quick question on that. A number of education departments across the country who are reporting overspends on additional support needs budgets. You have been critical of local authorities in the lack of support. Are you actively lobbying the Scottish Government on the issue of additional support needs? I have staff who are involved in working groups in additional support needs to make sure that our legislation is implemented as faithfully as it was passed. In most instances, when we are reporting to the UN Committee, it is not about not having sufficient legislation. It is about failed legislation and our additional support for learning is a good example where we had a very ambitious additional support for learning act and where we have consistently struggled to implement that to the full extent. I will continue to press to make sure that the provisions in the additional support for learning act realise the ambition that people have passed many years ago. As Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, how do you see your role working alongside the children's lobby? In Scotland, I understand that your role is largely about safeguarding and promoting children's rights, but there is an active and organised children's lobby. Do you have a formal relationship with them? How does that work in practice? We are jointly involved in the monitoring of the UNCRC in Scotland along with the Together, which is a representative organisation of children's rights. We work with many organisations in terms of how we would position ourselves with regard to particular issues. Although we have a close relationship, I am mindful of the fact that the Children's Commissioner's Office is quite unique. I will be very supportive of our children's sector, but it is not a voluntary organisation. It is the Children's Commissioner with particular responsibilities and a particular relationship with Parliament, particularly in terms of that I am responsible for budgeting, but the Parliament, to its credit, has set the body up in a very independent way, and I am always mindful of that. I can say things in an independent way, but there is a relationship there, but not solely with the children's sector. I mean, sorry, the children's lobby, as you put it. There is a relationship there with local authorities. I am trying to change hearts and minds. I have already talked at length about that, and with the larger bodies who have got responsibility for implementing legislation and policy. You have made a number of references this morning to parents and parents' rights, and I think that that is very interesting. A phrase that you often use is, it is hard to reach, and I prefer to think that some parents are easy to ignore. I wonder what your view is of promoting parents' rights in the context of it being of benefit to their children. I am thinking of the rights to additional support needs, preschool education, placing requests, religious observance—there are a number of things in education where parents have rights. They might not be aware, and if they had a greater awareness, it would have an impact on their children. All of those are children's rights, actually. In Scotland, we talk a lot about asset-based approaches. My view is that the biggest asset that we have are the parents of our children. In fact, much of what I have been talking about in terms of early years provision of early year support is geared towards the better assistance of parents in developing a good attached relationship with their children, because that is our best hope for those children becoming the well-adjusted adults of the future that we want them to be. I do not have a difficulty in focusing on how parents can provide, particularly in the earliest years of children's lives, better environments, better attached relationships and better understanding and attunement to the needs of their children. For me, that is a fundamental requirement to ensure that children have the care and attention and development and nurturing that we expect them to have. Have you had the opportunity or would you like the opportunity to articulate that more formally? Have you had the chance to say that there is an issue about parents' rights and that they need to be promoted more formally? I would not put it in terms of parents' rights. I would put it in terms of support that we would give to parents to make sure that they have the best chance possible to rear their children. For me, it is just one of the fundamental building blocks of producing children who are the best adjusted that they can possibly be, and parents are key in that respect. I agree. On page 46 of your report, I think that it is the very last page, you make some reference to the work of the European Network of Ombudspersons, and I understand that you are the chair at Elect. It says that your office is going to co-ordinate the international work programme, focusing on the impact of austerity on children and young people in Europe. What will that mean in practice for your office? I have had a lot of discussions this morning about the impact on resources. What will that mean that your office will do? It has just happened. On Friday, the Enoch meeting took place here, in this very room, and the annual conference in the General Assembly and the co-ordination of the international work programme were funded jointly by the European Union and the Council of Europe. In terms of financial resources, it was very modest in terms of what we had to contribute to that. In terms of the outcome, there has been the production of 32 two-minute films of children in eight European countries depicting what it was like for them to be living in poverty. The Council of Europe is keen to assist in developing that into an educational resource, but it is a bit early to say that just now because it only took place on Friday. It was a great honour to be hosting our 100 guests on dynamic earth and a lesser number because it was a close meeting with the network on Friday. What would be the impact on your organisation if the UK withdrew from Europe after an outreferendum? I think that there would be significant changes in terms of the kind of society that we had in Scotland. I will quite know what you want me to say in response. You talked about some of the support that you get from Europe and I just wondered if you could talk specifically about whether there was a threat to that support when we left Europe. Our office gains a lot in terms of that European network. What has become apparent in the production of that international work is that the similarities of children who are living in austerity and poverty across Europe are much greater than any of the differences. My estimation is that a withdrawal from Europe would have a significant impact on Scottish society or on the UK society. Beyond that, we have got lots to do in the confines of where we are at with children and young people in Scotland. Obviously, there is the other issue about the UK Government's current attitude to the human rights act. Do you think that that would have an impact if the landscape changed there? That would, and in fact we will be making representation to the Smith committee on that because the Government of today has made statements and intention on the human rights legislation that would impact on human rights bodies, and particularly the impact of the act, because even though there is an opt-out in terms of Scottish Parliament, there would still be public bodies, national public bodies, that would not be covered by the human rights act if there was a repeal of that. In fact, we will be making representation to the Smith committee on that. Is there any possible way to illustrate how that impact might have on individual children? Is it possible to give an example of a negative impact that we would be concerned about? The level of debate that is now is much more about our approach to human rights and children's rights. I perceive a very different conversation taking place within Scottish Parliament and within Scottish society than that which is taking place in Westminster, which I perceive to be much more hostile towards human rights and children's rights. I would be concerned if there were any actions in Westminster that had some repercussions in Scotland. As I said at the beginning, I am hopeful for the direction of travel or where we are at in Scotland for children's rights, and I certainly would not want that to be affected by any roll-back or any actions that we are taking at Westminster that would negatively impact on that. I have already said that the repeal of the human rights act would negatively impact on that. Joe McAlpine did not mean to set a misleading tone there, but the position in relation to the human rights act, as I understand it, is in relation to the position of the Conservative Party rather than the UK Government. I am sure that Tam Bailey would agree that, in relation to— I stand corrected. I thank you. I would that my colleague on the committee would do likewise, but in terms of the interventions of Westminster, that debate is as it is, but it finds as many fierce advocates in defence of the human rights act as it does those who, for their own bizarre reasons, wish to undermine it. That was a question. It was more of a statement than a— No, no. That is right. I stand corrected. Just to finish off, I want to add two points. The first one is that, in your strategic plan 2012-16, there were four strategic aims. One of them was about the efficiency, effectiveness and fit for purpose of the office. Taking those three points into account, do you think that you have achieved those aims during this period of the plan and does your office provide value for money? I have already given some example of that. In looking at the accommodation, for instance, we are now looking at getting much better value for money in terms of accommodation. I think that the overall impact of the office is that we are part of that movement in terms of better children's rights and better approach to children's rights. The answer is yes. I do think that it's about— I suppose that that might have been my fault in the way that I worded the question, but I did not really mean how much the office rent costs. What I meant was value for money in terms of the impact of your office, the office of commissioner. We have already made comparisons with Northern Ireland and Wales. In fact, we are a smaller office serving larger communities of children in those constituencies, in those jurisdictions. Already, we are having good value for money in terms of the presence of the office. I would relate that to the progress that has been made in Scotland with regard to children's rights. I appreciate that. Having read the 47 pages, I was looking at what you have done in the past year to justify value for money and an effective office. Out of the 47 pages, I could find one paragraph on the plans for 2014-15, which was what the commissioner intends to build on the website. It did not seem very much. Not only are we scrutinising what has been done, but I was looking for some gems of the plans for the future. I have a paragraph on the website, and I thought that the commissioner might take this opportunity to thank you. Future in terms of this year, we are halfway through the year. I have already given you detail of the activity through the European Network of Ombuds Persons for Children. I have already given you the international work programme that we have been co-ordinating. We have produced, and I have covered some of it here, the learning lessons on children's poverty. We are about to produce a report that looks at the high-performance skills and what are the characteristics of those. We are about to pick up on the domestic abuse agenda. We published a report last year, which was highlighting the tendency of courts in terms of whether they granted contact with the alleged perpetrator or not. I am committed to looking at how we improve the way that the views of children and young people are taken into account. Given greater confidence in the courts about the views of those children and young people in terms of campaigning, I have given you some of the detail of the school toilets and I have given notice about continuing to shine a light and campaign for changes in our stop and search. In regard to disability, there is a whole work stream there, which is continually to try to keep the focus on the impact of service cuts on those children and young people. There was one final question that I wanted to ask, which is on a different issue. You have mentioned disability a number of times quite rightly so. I presume that you test effectively the material that you publish for accessibility to people with disabilities. One of the key responsibilities of the Office under the quality act is to make sure that there is accessible as possible. In fact, we have been doing some work on the website, and we are about to commission a piece of work to make sure that our communications are as accessible as possible. The reason that I ask is because I have to be honest and say that I do not think that this was a particularly accessible document. I am not sure that purple on purple with small-sized text would be particularly accessible to somebody with a difficulty with their site, for example. I just wondered. The other pages are the same. You have got blue on blues. It does not seem to me that—I might be wrong—we mean correct me if I am wrong, but it does not look like this has been properly tested for somebody who would have difficulty with their site to be able to read this. I will take note for next year. Thank you very much for coming along today. For your evidence, it has been very welcome. I will just let you know that before we met today, we had a quick discussion. We think that this has been a valued piece of our work to bring you along each year in the annual report. I know that we have not done that in the past. It is a regular occurrence, but I think that the committee is quite keen that we do that, because I think that both yourself and us gain enough a lot out of this kind of session. I have already said that I will welcome it in future years as well. Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Our next item today is to consider the teachers pension scheme Scotland regulations 2014. As members will see from the papers, the Scottish Government has indicated its intention to revoke the instrument and replace it with a corrected version. This move is in response to the concerns highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in its report on the instrument. The process of finalising a replacement instrument has already begun. All the corrections have now been made to revise the instrument, which will be signed by the relevant Scottish Government Minister this week. Following that, the instrument will be issued to HM Treasury for its consideration and signature. The Government expects the revocation date to be 1 January 2015. However, we are being asked to consider the instrument that is before us today. Two sections of the instrument come into force on 1 December, parts 1 and 2. Part 1 is interpretive and no changes are being made to what is in part 2. That means that, on 1 January, an identical part 2 will replace the provision that will by then be in force. Do members have any comments to make on this instrument? Merri. I just went back to the evidence session on 18 March. There were questions that I raised there, which I would be very grateful for clarification. If I may just put them on the record. In 2011, the Auditor General suggested where there are differences among schemes and contribution and level of benefits. There should be a clear statement of aims and objectives. I find that helpful. The second question that I asked about is the scheme affordable. In 2011, there was a £240 million deficit and the Cabinet Secretary said, responded. A review and evaluation is due later this year, so I would obviously welcome that looking forward. The next point is, and I just quote the Cabinet Secretary. I am once, well, only once we had an actuarial valuation of the scheme over the long term would be able to answer my question about whether we are continuing with a £240 million deficit, which is obviously considerable, given that it has to be taken from other budgets and really how far the increased contributions go towards addressing that deficit. The final point is really an update. Given that I was talking about figures in 2011, it would be helpful if we could get that. I do note that there is a policy note at the back of the which does refer to the financial effects of the instrument, sentence in line with the reform of public sector pensions, etc. However, I do take on the points that Mary has made. This is obviously a negative instrument, but I think that, in general terms, the committee would be quite happy for me to write to the Cabinet Secretary raising the questions that Mary has raised today. I will do that, Mary, if that is suitable. We will do that. Given that the Scottish Government intends to correct the instrument, does the committee agree to make no recommendation to the Parliament on the instrument? That is agreed. Thank you very much. That concludes our business for today, and I close the meeting.