Seòmar agus comataidhean

I echo what Mr Simpson said. I am on the record already as saying in the committee and elsewhere that I have policy concerns, practical concerns and concerns about civil liberties. That is not what we are being asked to consider, although the minister’s letter to us does not reassure me that the concerns that we raised prior to the regulations being laid have been addressed. However, that is for the lead committee to consider.

We are considering whether the use of the made affirmative procedure is the right approach. We are the arbiter and gatekeeper in respect of that and it is right that we do that. The question falls on whether the regulations have been implemented in response to a serious and imminent threat. Given the fact that the Government has been talking about vaccination passports for three weeks and has now delayed their implementation, I echo Mr Simpson’s concern that the regulations do not meet that requirement. They are being put through the made affirmative procedure not because of urgency but because of political expediency, to avoid the due scrutiny that would show that the policy is deficient in many respects and, to be honest with members, simply will not work.

I have concerns that the Government is not going down the right route in that respect and I will follow Mr Simpson in voting against the regulations.

Before I go on to my next question, I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which details that I am a member of the East Lothian Council education committee.

How effective do you think the Scottish index of multiple deprivation is as the measure of poverty to target additional support? Have you seen any deficiencies in the outcomes that its use has resulted in?

I do not want to pre-empt the cabinet secretary’s announcement, but I have a very quick question. How can we expect the £1 billion investment that has been announced to be targeted? Is it the Scottish Government’s view that that sum is sufficient in light of the pandemic?

Do you think that that sum is sufficient in light of the pandemic?

Good morning. One of the key issues that was identified in your briefing is that Community Justice Scotland has reported that data deficiencies mean that progress against national community justice outcomes is still not being effectively measured. Have you been able to ascertain yet whether Community Justice Scotland has identified where those deficiencies exist and who is ultimately responsible for them?

You have broadly answered the second question that I was going to ask. When you said there was little evidence of a shift towards the use of community-based sentences or of improved outcomes, is that due to a lack of data? You have pretty much said that is not the case. I want to broaden that out. As we look at the wider use of community justice and community payback orders, if that trend is achieved , will that be a more difficult environment to audit and to benchmark and in which to assess outcomes and people’s experience than a custodial environment? Obviously, if somebody goes into prison, you know the amount of time that they are in for and you know their release date, but, in relation to doing community justice payback orders, for example, how easy is it to monitor the hours that an individual has undertaken?

Finally, in relation to that, community payback orders and the performance is not included in the victim notification scheme. Is that a policy decision or does that point to any doubts that you may have about the integrity of the data?

I have a final question about the complexities of the data and comparing apples with apples and pears with pears. As community justice grows as a concept and, presumably, first offenders and those who have committed less serious crimes go down the community justice route, whereas repeat offenders and those who have committed more serious crimes go down the custodial route, how will you continue to compare the two? Obviously, a repeat offender of a more serious crime is probably more likely to offend again than a first offender of a relatively minor crime. In terms of accountability in presenting the data, will we have to be more granular and maybe add more caveats to explain that we are not comparing apples with apples and pears with pears between the two forms of justice?

From an almost philosophical or top-line perspective, what factors do you believe make the biggest difference in closing the poverty-related attainment gap? What are the key barriers to making more rapid progress? Although progress is being made in some areas of the country, the issue persists, and it is clearly a stubborn problem.

Exhibit 4 on page 28 of the report shows the gap between the most deprived and least deprived gaining five or more awards at level 5. I was aware of the problem in East Lothian but I was slightly shocked to see it presented in such graphic terms. When you see a very large gap with very low levels of attainment at SIMD quintile 5, are you concerned about the somewhat blunt approach of effectively having attainment challenge councils with high deprivation throughout the council area? In East Lothian, there is a very variable level of deprivation, particularly between the east and the west of the county, and it strikes me that we are seeing the product of an indiscriminate and blunt system.

To a certain extent, we could wonder what on earth is going on with the attainment adviser. East Lothian has the lowest attainment among the most deprived anywhere in the country, and the second largest attainment gap. Is that not a cause for concern? If you are looking at every child in every part of the country, that shows that the current system of funding to try to close the attainment gap is clearly not working in the areas where there is a very wide disparity between the wealthiest and those with the least.

Good morning, Lady Paton, and thank you for your very clear and full opening remarks. I think that they may have dealt with some of my questions as well. However, for the record, I have one question and perhaps a supplementary to it.

Given how outdated the present framework is, you have welcomed the recent Scottish Government announcement that a moveable transactions bill will be brought forward in the coming year. Although the bill has yet to be introduced—and, of course, only at that point will we find out which committee will become the lead committee—will you give us a short summary of why you consider the reforms to be so important? Is there a degree of risk that the benefits of that could perhaps be underachieved if we do not look contemporaneously at trust law, which you also spoke about?