Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is really helpful. Thank you.

Ruth Maguire has asked most of the questions that I wanted to explore. I understand why most of the witnesses are quite sceptical of some of the aspects of the bill in relation to MRCs, but they jumped out at me as a potential opportunity for a young person. Perhaps I am being naive, but if the case for the young person going into secure accommodation was borderline, perhaps a less severe restriction could be placed on them, which might be provided by the MRCs.

I would like to turn the whole thing on its head, if that is okay. What might you see as positive about using movement restriction conditions—with regular review, and with appropriate legal advice and advocacy—instead of secure care when less restrictive orders have been rejected as inappropriate? So far, all we have heard is the negatives. What are the positives?

That is helpful. I will bring in Meg Thomas in a wee second, but first I want to put something on record—I hope that I will get nodding heads and will not have to go to three different people to get the same answer. We heard from the first panel that movement restriction conditions can be used when young people are stepping down from secure care back into the community. We heard a concern that, if there is no wider support package, we might be setting up the young person to fail or not meet the conditions. It might escalate their interaction with not just the children’s system but the adult judicial system if we do not get the wider package correct. Do you concur with that?

I have one final question. Meg Thomas can come in on this.

I just want you to bring to life how movement restriction conditions could provide some comfort for the victims, who are usually other young people. Are we talking about restrictions from the local high street, if that is where a lot of the offending and risky behaviour has taken place, or from parks or train stations? I hope you can bring to life for us a little what the conditions would be used for, because at the moment it is an abstract concept for the committee. What kind of restrictions are we talking about? What benefits might there be, if information is communicated properly and effectively, for the reassurance of victims?

That is my final question. Meg, you have been very patient.

I see that Sheriff Mackie wants to come in. I am breaking my own rules now, but do you want to add something, Sheriff Mackie? I will take you in a second Meg, if that is okay.

Commissioner, before you move on to the rest of the potential scope of consultation or, indeed, legislation, I will ask about the section 60 code of practice, although I have to admit that I am no expert on it. Maybe I will read it out, because it is in front of me, but I now know that it exists. Is there a need for greater clarity?

Referring to the “Hancock clause” was a glib comment. I have no desire in the slightest to defend Matt Hancock, but I will make a serious point. I can imagine people who are in positions of power wanting to communicate quickly and freely with a range of officials and stakeholders in very short and condensed formats, just for speed. They need to be really careful about what they put on those platforms, because not everything is captured in a text or an abridged WhatsApp message. It is not just about having shining, absolute transparency about what people in power are really thinking; it is also about making sure that people who are in power are very clear about expectations. With that caveat, do we need clarity? Does that code, which I now know exists, need to be clarified or updated?

Thank you for your evidence so far, which has been really helpful.

At the start of your contribution, you mentioned that we are going through a period of change. At some point, you will demit office, and we wish you well for the future when you are no longer in office. It is a day for changes.

I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying, commissioner, but it is almost as though you are saying that the Government and the Parliament should take a considered and almost incremental view of how we can extend FOI on a sector-by-sector basis by considering the implications, getting the balance right in each sector, and implementing changes accordingly rather than looking at everything all at once and trying to legislate in haste. We have to consider the evidence that we have heard this morning, and I do not want to misinterpret or analyse incorrectly the points that you are making.

We are not trying to get rid of you early. [Laughter.] Mr Mountain was suggesting that this is your last day; I was not doing that.

There are other transitions. The Scottish Government has been consulting on changes to freedom of information. A number of changes have been suggested—for example, a change to the number of organisations that are subject to FOI; a change to the use of section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to add bodies to the list; and the introduction of a gateway clause by which third party organisations that fulfil public functions and currently avoid FOI could be brought into its gambit. There are quite a lot of potential changes. I understand that an update to the section 60 code of practice to provide guidance for informal communications such as those on WhatsApp and whether those should be subject to FOI—what I might refer to as the “Hancock clause”—is also potentially within the scope of the changes.

Quite a lot is within the scope of the consultation. I am not necessarily trying to draw you on your views on those things, commissioner, but did the Government get the scope of the consultation just about right? Do you have any other reflections, not on the Hancock clause in particular, but more generally?

That is incredibly helpful, but I want to be sure that I do not misinterpret that. The current situation feels very process driven. It seems that people say, “I’ve got a policy, I’ve got a document, I’ve got a process. It’s published, it sits there, I’m compliant—tick. Let’s move on and brace ourselves for what requests come in now. We’ve got a policy for how we process those requests” as opposed to turning the whole thing on its head and saying, “We’re an open public body. How are we going to actively publish the information that we think is in the wider public interest to have that transparency?” I want to be sure that I have captured that correctly, because the committee will need to consider the evidence that we have heard this morning.