I welcome back. I apologise for that breakdown in the broadcasting system to witnesses and also to our thousands of viewers at home. I always say thousands of viewers at home. I was in the middle of asking Elma a question round about integrated health and social care boards. You were saying that, since their establishment, the way things that have been done have changed. My question was why has it taken the establishment of these integrated health and social care boards to make that change rather than coming from community planning partnerships since their inception? I would like to emphasise first of all that in some places in Scotland clearly integration of health and social care had taken place prior to the new legislation. Some of that will have been happening in parts of Scotland where they had already decided that that was right for their particular area. What the new legislation has done is put really a legislative requirement on everyone to do that now. That is now being progressed certainly in relation to adult services, but in a lot of areas on a voluntary basis for both adult and children's health services as well. I could not say explicitly why it has not happened before. For me, the issue is that it is now starting to happen on a much more widespread basis across Scotland and I think that that is to be welcomed. Maybe the lesson for the committee when it comes to dealing with this legislation is that rather than hoping that certain things happen on a voluntary basis, it may well be that we should put a legislative mark down at the very beginning. Would that be a fair statement? I think that the point that Professor Hastings made at the very start in terms of the intent and what you would want to see as the outcome as a result of the bill will be very important to make sure that that is clear. The statement of intent is probably important. Before the break, Annette, you were wanting to come in. Do you still wish to do so? I just wanted to say a word in defence of strategic overviews in this debate. I am not suggesting that people who are advocates of community empowerment do not think that strategic action is important, but it is worth a reminder. It is at the level of the individual, public body or the community partnership that the learning takes place so that it is not mental health, but it is not smoking, it is mental health, it is not the community centre, it is not the housing that is the issue. Learning can take place at the level of the institution and the same mistakes cannot be replicated. There is that sort of issue about how you aggregate the learning from the different community empowerment activities that are going on and institutionalise it within public bodies, but there is also the issue in relation to thinking about the need for strategic co-ordination in action around avoiding perverse outcomes as a result of participation. In my evidence, I talked about the example of street sweeping and how the processes of participation can lead inadvertently to more services being provided and better outcomes in more affluent areas. The local authority that we did that research with then took action and said that that is not what we are trying to do here and that they have prioritised poor areas and a deliberate strategy. It is important to think about the sum of the parts and maintaining capacity at the centre to undo some of the wrongs that might be done. Combination of legislation, cultural change and good old gumption. And the recognition that sometimes decisions will be made which appear to be anti-participatory. Thank you. Harry, please. Okay, David, please. Perhaps what the legislation needs to be doing is focusing more on what the outcomes should be. It is absolutely right that the government decides that, for example, we want to see a reduction in the difference in life expectancy. For example, we want to see a reduction in the amount of children who are living in poverty. That is the type of thing that is absolutely right for central government to be involved in. So certainly outcomes is probably a good thing for legislation, but they should not necessarily get into the nitty gritty. Again, I get back to the point that I was making earlier. One size does not fit all and it is not necessarily the same model that will apply everywhere. Thank you. Ian, please. The challenge for the bill is how we empower communities from the top down. That is quite difficult. I think that there is agreement around the room that there is no one blueprint that communities are very different in nature and that such activity can be quite messy. There is a real danger in trying to do it from the top down and that you crush the creativity in the enterprise that has contributed to a lot of the community-led regeneration, which has been largely organic happening in communities all over Scotland. It seems to me that this bill builds on the experience that has happened. It is not just middle class or rural communities. I am also talking about working class and disadvantaged communities. It seems to me that the task in hand is how we inspire, encourage, nurture and support communities to try and engage in such a process. I think that what the bill does is offer a range of, by introducing new duties and new powers, a framework that makes it a bit easier for communities to engage in some of those activities. We will hopefully encourage more communities to take part in such a process, but it is certainly something that you cannot impose on communities. I think that the cultural change is crucial. I would hope that the bill does influence the culture, but it is a two-way process. I think that cultural change needs to take place in the public sector because there is certainly a lot of this activity that involves a degree of risk. I think that, understandably, public organisations can be quite risk averse. Equally, there is cultural change that is required in the community sector. If we are going back to disadvantaged communities, what strikes me is that two of the challenges in disadvantaged communities are, one, that they are very grant-dependent, and two, that they are very public sector-dependent. We have to begin to change that a bit. I think that there are opportunities within the bill to begin to do that through encouraging people to take a more enterprising approach, looking at ownership of assets, looking at community enterprise and so on. I think that what is required is different sorts of interventions and different approaches to support the implementation of the bill. It is interesting that you talked about the word cajo, which sometimes can be seen as being forcing. Callum, I was going to come to you anyway, because your organisation has been very vocal about forcing folk into voluntary positions. Is there a danger that, if we try to force people into participation, there will be a backlash? I am not sure about a backlash per se, but it is the same principle that supports what Ian was saying. We cannot force participation, but the point is that the legislation could be an opportunity to create the best possible environment for participation. What I would encourage the committee to look at is how you can drive into the system much more of a duty to involve that you can measure against, because I do not think that that is imposing it from the top down. You are not saying exactly how that should happen, but you will then be able to test whether processes and means by which involvement and participation were supported. However, not for one second, but I suggest that you would want to do anything to take away from the creativity of the grassroots activity. In fact, what we are trying to get to is a system whereby that flourishes even more than it does now. Ian, you want to come back in. It is going to balance with how you encourage and inspire, but not force. I made that impression, and I am going to correct that. Stuart McMillan, please. It is a question for Ian. First of all, I want me to go in your comments, you mentioned about the cultural change and the grant dependency and the public sector dependency. I asked a question to Mr McCulloch regarding the FSB and other business organisations assisting within the communities. Are you aware of details organisations being in contact with local FSBs and local other business organisations to see what joint operations, joint working could be done to help within communities to help those communities to help themselves? We have got lots of examples of that kind of partnership taking place. When part of the development trust approach is encouraging partnerships and redefining what we mean by partnership. It is partners to achieve whatever aims the community is trying to achieve. A lot of them are private sector partners, and quite often it is small and medium sized businesses we are talking about. Sometimes they are informal arrangements, but they can range right through to joint ventures. I can give you lots of examples of that happening. If we are trying to encourage a more enterprising approach, there is a good—lots of lessons and experience to draw from that particular sector. I ask Eric. Obviously, in terms of big lottery funding, you have put money previously into community capacity building. What more can you do to help disadvantaged communities to participate? There are various things that are involved in so many different levels and the area that I am interested in is community asset transfer. Obviously, this comes from a background that started in rural communities, but it has developed over the 13, 14 years. We have been involved in this now. As Iain was talking about, there are a lot more urban communities. Deprived communities as well are not just the well-to-do communities that are doing this sort of stuff, and we try to help them right from the very early stages all the way through. We provide the feasibility study money—the £10,000—that they can go and consult with their communities, go and visit other projects as well. It is a two-stage process that comes into us. If they get through stage one, we can give them more development funding to go and do lots of the technical stuff that they need to do. As I have spoken to the committee about before, we have a social enterprise that is there to help them with the financial side of things. That will kick in between stages one and two, but we do not just leave it there. If they get an award, that social enterprise will work them after they have got the award as well. That is just one example of how we deal with it in one investment area. I am getting into jargon again, sorry. I have talked to you this morning about our place, which is a different approach. We are trying lots of different things than to learn lessons from these. We are very much taking this asset-based approach and fitting that to a community of learning. We had the first meeting of that about three weeks ago, where we were bringing people together to learn from each other's experience and pass on the lessons and see where a wider community goes—not just a big lottery fund but a wider community—can go with it. Thank you. Felix, please. I will answer Stuart's question about the grant dependency. It is worth highlighting. We were from Community Land Scotland recently, which looked at the community land trusts and the role they have with the grant funding compared to their business income. What it showed is a lot of economic development through community energy and situation like that. It punctures that myth a bit about community land trust, development trust etc. being grant dependent. It is well worth looking at that piece of research. To the point about joint working between business organisations and the community sector, the business improvement district model is a good example of that. In Kerluk, which has been recently passed, it is development trust led, but with the involvement of small business owners and within the bill in any associated documents, there was a slight omission in that the bid model brings people together in a specific locality to deliver additional services for the business community, which also benefits a wider community. We are a grant giver, but we are not in the business of trying to create grant dependency. It is our grants that kick things off and get things started. We are also looking a lot more at social investment. We are asking projects to take a much more enterprising approach. Quite often, those things will not get off the ground unless they have some grant. It is not grant dependency that we are talking about here, it is injecting grant into it until it gets started and then making them enterprising. Stuart, you want to come back briefly? Very briefly. Thank you to Mr McCulloch. I gave the example of Kerluk, but do you have any examples of that type of activity in places like maybe Easterhouse or Craig Miller or elsewhere in the schemes across the country? Craig Miller. To be completely honest, in many areas where there is deprivation as local authority led in many cases, because the capacity has not been there in the past, but as the bill represents and shows community empowerment and involvement, it requires a step change. From our perspective, it is how small businesses play a part in that and contribute to that process where they can. Mark Ruskell, please. I think that it is just thinking about the outcomes that we were speaking about and how the success or otherwise of the legislation would be measured. Obviously, empowering communities is one thing, but those communities then, using that empowerment and how they use that empowerment is something very different. Different communities will have different ideas about what they want to do. Sometimes ambition and what can be achieved will not tally, and that is going to be the case whatever legislation is put in place. So I guess it is about how do we ensure that when we are looking at how the legislation is operating in practice once it has been passed, how do we ensure that we are measuring correctly what is happening so that we do not say that either it has been a runaway success and that does not match what communities are saying. Also, we do not say that because some communities have not been able to realise the ambitions that they would have had for perfectly valid reasons, we do not fall into the trap of suggesting that the legislation is therefore either failing or has not met what it was supposed to be doing. Any comments on that? I will make one specific suggestion. In my last comment, I talked about a duty to involve. In guidance, you could suggest something that we talked about in the commission on local democracy is more citizens' juries approaches. Why not drive into the community planning system and annual citizens' jury process or in terms of setting the agenda for community planning, but also testing against what has been delivered? I think that what you can do is set the enabler in the legislation but then in the guidance look at the specific suggestions about how you would test that in an on-going fashion. In which case, I thank you very much for your evidence this morning. I think that that has been extremely useful. I apologise for the breakdown in the broadcast system. What I would be interested in hearing from you and if you could feed it into the clerks is whether or not you think that the round table way of taking evidence suits you. I know that many of you have given formal evidence before in different ways. As a committee, a number of members like these round table sessions, but I am keen to get your feedback and empower you in that regard. Thank you very much. I suspend until 25 past for a change in witnesses. I now welcome our second panel. I welcome Alistair McKinlay, head of community planning and community empowerment unit. Alistair, I understand that you are going to introduce your colleagues and tell us what their remit is when it comes to the bill. Thank you, convener. In fact, I will ask something to introduce to myself if that is okay. I know that there are quite a few of us and we each have different responsibilities, so maybe we can start with Norman. I am Norman McLeod. I am from the Scottish Government legal directorate. I am the building leader. I am Amanda Fox, food and drink team, and I have a responsibility for the allotment section of the bill. Dave Thompson, land reform and tenancy unit, I am responsible for the part 4 elements right to buy. I am Rachel Rainer from the Scottish Government legal directorate. I am dealing with the allotments and the right to buy provisions. To make any opening statement, first of all, no thanks, convener. In which case, obviously, you heard the evidence from our previous panel. One of the things that was raised by Annette was a roundabout statement of intent when it came to dealing with empowering disadvantaged communities. Has there been any thought to that? Certainly, it is something that we have been conscious of in the wide ranging engagement that we have done on the bill. The first thing to say is that the bill provides opportunities for all communities in Scotland around asset transfer and participation requests, but we recognise that capacity to benefit from those opportunities will not be evenly spread across the country. Although I was particularly heartened in the earlier discussion, the recognition that just because people are in disadvantaged communities, it does not mean that they are not able to do a lot of things for them. However, at the minute, the Scottish Government already invests in a range of things that some of which were mentioned earlier. The community ownership support service, which provides some of that technical expertise that was mentioned as important, is focused on disadvantaged areas around asset ownership. The strengthening communities programme would be another one to highlight, which was again mentioned, which is doing direct investment in the community anchor organisations to use the shorthand jargon briefly in those disadvantaged areas. It is something that we are conscious of. As you said at the outset, convener, the bill will not do everything, and those are policy responses that I suppose to try to address that issue. The final thing is that we have been conscious, and it is in the legislation, that the public authorities, the duties that they have in the new legislation, also have to fulfil their equalities duties set out in other legislation. We heard a lot about culture change in common sense, and although it is possible sometimes to legislate for culture change, it is not so easy to legislate for gumption. How do we ensure that, as we go through this process, we get the maximum amount of gumption out there? Beyond the bill, what do we need to do to ensure that logicality comes into play? The first thing to reflect on—again, it came up in the discussion, so it was helpful—is that the bill tries, in the way that any legislation can, to find itself on some gumption. It does try to reflect some of the things that we know are already happening. Beyond that, I think that we will have a very important job to do. Again, trying to adopt the approach that we have taken to be inclusive in developing the legislation on promoting the bill and recognising that it is a piece of legislation, some people will struggle with some of the language and concepts. In the clearest possible language we can, in the way that we did with the easy read version of our policy memorandum, we have a big job to go out and promote what the bill is about and what opportunity it provides, and perhaps explain to people the committee's interest in the fact that a lot of that is common sense. In terms of framing the draft bill, how much attention has been paid to stakeholders? Let's look at the allotments scenario, Ms Fox, where, obviously, we have had a number of responses back from folks who are involved in allotments and the various societies. How much attention has been paid to what stakeholders have said in terms of coming up with the draft bill? We have had quite a substantial amount of consultation specifically on the allotments area. The first was through the consultation on the community empowerment and renewal bill back in June 2012. Subsequent to that, we had a consultation that solely looked at potential duties and powers relating to allotments. That was in April 2013. The individual provisions in different areas were then again consulted on in November 2013 through the community empowerment bill consultation. In addition to the written exercises, we have also gone out to stakeholders and had quite a lot of meetings with both the growing community and our colleagues in local authorities and COSLA. One of the more complicated aspects of the bill deals with common good. Fourth right opinion is about common good funds and what should and shouldn't be done. Can I ask what stakeholder consultation there has been in terms of that part of the bill? That was not addressed separately. It was part of the two consultations, the explorality consultation and the secondary consultation. It is important to say at this stage that, because the nature of the bills is around community empowerment, our focus there has been on participation and transparency in common good—what it is, helping to establish what it is in local authorities and how it is used. It was not done separately from the board of consultation. I stay on the topic of allotments just now. We had received evidence from the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society. I will summarise what they are saying. The bill repeals the existing legislation, so some of the protection for plot holder and allotments sites contained in the provisions of the old legislation appear to have been lost. The bill updates quite a lot of provisions. There are a number of powers and duties that have been removed from the bill. I can just go over those briefly if that would be helpful. The duties and powers that have been omitted. There has been a duty to provide access to allotments that has been removed. That duty was not restated in the bill, since it is already provided under a general law of landlord and tenant. In terms of powers that have been omitted from the current draft of the bill, the use of local authority rooms for discussions on allotment-related business has been removed. That was as a result of consultation with local authorities, who indicated that buildings for this purpose could be made available, but there should be a requirement to pay, as is the case with other community groups. Also, the powers of entry on unoccupied land for the purpose of providing allotments, the powers for compulsory purchase of land, the power to enter unoccupied land for the purpose of providing allotments reflects the post-war area in which it was written. It came into force to drive an increase in food production, and it was viewed that this was unnecessary at the present time. Local authorities have also indicated that they are unaware of any situation where these powers have been used for the provision of allotments. They considered them if they were to use them, that they would be a last resort, and that was mainly due to the financial costs involved with such action. The Scottish Government views bees as being draconian and rather difficult to justify due to the costs. Additionally, such action would deprive a person from their right to the actual peaceful enjoyment of their property and could not be justified in the wider public interest on the basis of the provision of allotments. Moving on to the next power that has been removed, the power of a local authority to charge a fair rent. The Government believes that land values and the costs associated with managing allotment sites are very likely to vary between different sites, depending on where you are within Scotland. Consequently, decisions made about the level of rents would be best made at a local level. As such, the bill requires local authorities to make regulations that relate to rent specifically. The power for a local authority to purchase plants, seeds and fertilisers to sell to tenants has also been removed. That is a rather outdated duty and reflects the post-war era in which it was drafted. It came into force at a time when there were not many garden centres or agricultural suppliers around at the time. That has been excluded from the bill, but it does not prevent local authorities continuing that practice should they so wish and should they so be in need. The next power that has been removed is the improvement and adaptation of land for allotments. That was considered unnecessary to restate as it is part of a local authority's general powers and the subsequent legislation. The rating of allotments the power allows a local authority to deem itself the occupier of a land despite it being lit for allotments. It was considered unnecessary again to restate the provision as subsequent legislation has excluded allotments from the ratings regime. The provisions relating to a land lease for allotments have been updated and are reflected in the bill. Just to make the committee aware, the provisions in the bill that relates specifically to private landowners, which ultimately deal with the termination of leases and compensation, have also been removed from the bill. The rationale behind that was, if you bear with me what I refer to my notes. The Government believes that these arrangements are actually better suited to be dealt with under individual lease arrangements, and it was difficult to see what justification there was for interfering with such private arrangements. In addition, general law on landlord and tenants would apply to these arrangements. To support private landowners with lease negotiations in 2013, the Government actually supported the production of a guide for landowners, which was developed in liaison with the community land advisory service. This encourages landowners, and I should say that it applies to both private and public landowners to make sites available for growing food. It gives comprehensive information and suggestions about background details in relation to trying to equip landowners to play their part in making more land available to local communities in Scotland for growing food. I am happy to provide that detail to the committee if they would find that helpful. Just another small point, a huge point. The financial memorandum attached to the bill, some of our sector bodies have highlighted the difference of opinion, shall we say? It is very difficult because of the different ways that allotments are managed across Scotland. It was very difficult to get definite costs for the individual duties and powers that were required in the bill and what those implications were on local authorities. We have made estimates of them, but they are only estimates. It was very difficult to get tangible information relating to the different impacts, but we have tried to identify the areas that might incur costs. Just a supplementary point, Dr Fox. I am glad that you are going to provide us with the briefing that you have just read from. You will be aware that there was a major campaign in Glasgow, particularly around the tenemental properties, where residents tried to take over vacant and derelict land to create small areas where residents could grow their own food. How would the changes that you have outlined in relation to legislation post-war, and what is proposed before us today, change the actions of the individuals or groups that want to take over vacant land to put it back into productive use for food in those areas? I will say that, under the wider provisions of the bill—under the asset transfer and the community right to buy—there is scope for communities, such as the ones in Glasgow, to approach the relevant authority to take over that land. I will defer to my colleagues in relation if they want to add to that, but there are scopes in the wider powers, so the allotment section will not necessarily help them per se, but the wider provisions of the bill will. I think that that is one of the examples, Mr Wilson, that we heard a lot and strongly influenced part 5 on asset transfer. In terms of linking back to the question about engaging with stakeholders, it was actually the community growing, some community growing colleagues, who took us from a place where we were focusing very much on community bodies owning assets to the broader provisions of the bill around lease management and, indeed, use, because some people said, well, we won't necessarily want to own a piece of land in the public sector, but we would love to be able to grow on it. Part 5 provides a process where that case can be made, the benefits of community growing be made and the duty on the authority to respond to that. That is obviously public sector owned land, if that was the vacant, early land. Amanda says that the extension of the community right to buy now across the country would be another tool for communities to use in that circumstance. Stuart McMillan, please. Just as regarding the consultation, what type of activity took place to try to have as many consultees and responses from schemes across Scotland? As we heard in the previous session, there are challenges in trying to get information and get feedback from various parts of the country. The whole bill is about community empowerment. What activity did you undertake to try to get information from people in the schemes of Scotland? The first thing is that we relied a lot on some of the people that you heard from this morning. Working through intermediaries such as the Development Trust Association Scotland, the Scottish Community Alliance and the Scottish Community Development Centre, an organisation called Community Development Alliance Scotland ran a conference inviting along a number of community activists. Obviously, there is always more that you would like to do. We did not, for example, go out and visit specifically about the bill, a range of our most disadvantaged communities. That is partly resource because we were a small team. However, I certainly feel that we tried extremely hard to ensure that we had a wide range of voices heard. Ministers and officials had 40 meetings during the second stage. We obviously did have the first stage of consultation where, again, that was not a case where we wrote out our ideas, sent them out, put them on the website and waited for people to reply. We were very proactive and tried to get out and speak to people face to face. I would assume that you spoke to the various community councils across Scotland as well. Community councillors were involved in a number of the sessions that we were involved with. It might be better if we provided you with a fuller report on the consultation. Would that be helpful, rather than trying to remember what you were afforded? That would be extremely useful. What would be useful, as well, is that we have heard from community councils in terms of some of the other work that we have been doing on the lead-up to this, which feels that some local authorities are not adhering to the legislation and guidance as it stands. It would be interesting for us to get an idea of what kind of feedback that you guys had in your consultation. I can also, because it came up in the earlier conversation, we did a survey of local authorities about community councils. We have details of how many had contested elections and how many are active. If you like, we can make sure that you have that information. It would be extremely useful if that could be provided. We would be very grateful. I guess that we were discussing earlier on how success, if you like, of the legislation could be measured and what would be the outcomes that would be sought. Obviously, sitting alongside that is the issue of expectation management as well. During your discussions and soundings with communities, do you get the feeling that there is an understanding that this bill, while it will have a significant impact in communities and empowerment of communities, has to be a degree of expectation management from communities and legislators as well around what can be achieved and how that will look? Yes, I think so, but my experience working with communities for a number of years now in policy is that it does not take too long for communities to understand precisely those issues around expectation. In my experience, community activists are some of the most reasonable and sensible people you can speak to, as long as the conversation happens in a respectful, open and trusting way. Certainly, through all our consultation, we have been working very hard to explain to people that the bill is only one element of how we might go about empowering communities' culture and resources that Mr Mackay brings up all the time. It is important that we do that, although we are not seeking to underplay the part that the bill can play in empowering communities and culture change and so on. I expect that that will be a fairly straightforward thing to do. The follow-on from that and the reason why I raised that is obviously that there was the discussion as well around community capacity and how community capacity is developed. I made the point that there is a feeling out there that community capacity is required in some of our most deprived areas. I think that those are some of the areas where you see the most activism in communities. It is just a question of the support that those community organisations are given and have available to them. Obviously, you cannot legislate for everything, but there will be a role for legislative guidance in setting parameters and expectations for public bodies as to how they work with community organisations that want to take forward some of the elements of community empowerment. Do you envisage guidance that will spell out to, for example, local authorities what is expected of them if a community, for example a deprived community, where there is not ready access to some of the expertise that might be required to enable the drafting of a business case or the handling of a transfer of an asset? If that is not within that community, would there be an expectation on public bodies to provide that support and that would be spelled out fairly clearly in the guidance that follows the legislation? The first thing to say is that all the guidance and it is an important principle that we will develop in very close partnership with the kinds of people that you listened to this morning, colleagues in COSLA, colleagues in the community sector, because we want that guidance to reflect the best possible practice that we can. We are already in quite a positive position with things like the statutory instrument that now exists on community learning and development, which places obligations on local authorities to assess capacity in communities and to do things about that. There are also other things that I am sure we could discuss with people around how we ensure to take a specific example around the participation requests, which I think is one of the very new and has been warmly welcomed aspects of the bill because it puts the communities on the front-foot-racing issues that are on their agenda. In guidance there, we could talk about the quality of engagement and the requirement to use existing tools that promote quality engagement, for example. The guidance is another opportunity to really lift people's game in terms of participation and empowerment. Have we looked at or have you consulted with a lot of the groups in my area, community groups, around the medium of sport? Have you spoken to the people in sport? I think that I would need to refer to the detail of the kinds of people who came to the events that we ran. I have come across people like Beath community development, trust me, who have a very close interest in sport. I would have to look at the detail of who we have spoken to about that, but we recognise that an interest in sport is a very positive thing in terms of empowerment of them. For the reasons that involve huge parts in our community, and obviously for very good reasons, I think that that should be a valuable partner within it. If we could get that information out, it would be useful. It may well be that the committee will write to you and ask for other pieces of information after that, but I think that that helps us in terms of where we are going to. HIV Scotland and Inclusion Scotland highlighted possible unintended negative impacts on those that are currently marginalised from engagement. Inclusion Scotland stated that communities should not be defined by a narrow definition based on location and residence. Disabled people are often excluded from traditional communities or have specific needs and interests that are best addressed by their own community. How do we ensure that communities of interest are best served by the bill? What does the bill do to ensure that they are included? Well, interestingly, convener, you're early. We have a question about consultation. We've got half a dozen little examples of things that we think we changed quite significantly after we heard from the consultation. One of them was about improving the definition of community body in the elements around participation to do two things. One was that people felt that the draft bill would define community body in different ways and it was getting confusing, so we've simplified that to have the same definition in different parts of the bill. And the second thing was that it is now drafted in such a way that you could be a community of interest. Again, interestingly, the discussion about top down and bottom up and the challenges of empowering from above, which in a sense some aspects of legislation will always be, but the definition of community body leaves the community to define itself. So a community body has to be certain things, but how you define yourself as a community is left to that community. We'll make good use of the time while they're here. One of the issues that is pertinent to the bill is the community asset transfer debate. Communities are being, in some areas, actively encouraged to take on buildings, particularly sports facilities. We had part of a discussion earlier about the long-term financial viability of those assets. What thought has been given to ensure that where communities do take on those assets, they do get the financial support, because when you get a community asset or any organisation, I'm not just talking about communities, it sometimes takes several years for them to build up a financially sustainable asset. What support do you see being given to communities where they do take on sports facilities particularly in the longer term? One of the suggestions that was made by one of the local authorities was that we can give the community the asset, the community can go and get the grants to do the asset up, but if they're not viable after two or three years, the asset transfers back to the local authority at the value of the transfer, despite the fact that there may be a couple of million pounds worth of improvements carried out in that asset. How do we ensure that communities are allowed the time and the opportunity to develop the economic case and viability to sustain that asset? If I may, I'll make a broader point first, which is that I'm sure Iain Cook would support me on this, that we've got to be very careful and there was some anxiety when we were developing the bill around this, that somehow the legislation signals that we want all communities to take on assets. For some communities, that will not be the right way to develop their communities. We have heard and can fully understand that what might look like an asset on the face of it can be a liability. We try to build that into the process of the bill. It's all about a business case. It's all about ensuring from the outset, before you transfer an asset, that you've asked those questions about sustainability and viability and that it's a really clear view that people are being taken. In terms of existing support, Eric Samuel mentioned the growing community assets fund. There is the Scottish land fund in rural communities. In terms of revenue funding, which is often the case raised with us, that's the issue going forward. Iain Cook raised an interesting point about community organisations being enterprise. That's a fundamental part of this approach going forward. There will be other ranges of funding such as the climate challenge fund, which is very popular among many communities that people might be able to access. However, that business of looking at the hard sums is a critical part of that. Just to follow up on that, Eric Samuel gave an example of where he had extended the funding from two to three years for some organisations. Some community organisations, and I have to declare a particular vested interest on that, because I'm actively involved in the community, my own local community. We're going to take on a community asset, and part of the long-term planning of that community asset and financial viability is tied into major housing developments proposed for the area. The difficulty is that, if those major housing developments don't take place within the timescale that the community asset has developed, then the financial viability plans could fall apart for the sake of three or five years before those housing developments finally come to fruition. How do we ensure, or is there any fall-back position that we can envisage that allows those communities to be able to say that their financial viability strategy was all predicated on certain things happening at certain times due to other circumstances? Those haven't happened. Could we get an extension to the funding process to allow us to continue to operate until everything is in place to make it a long term? We're not talking about sustainability in five years, we're talking about sustainability over 25, 30 or 50 years for some of those assets. It's about trying to look at that. The other issue is big lottery has indicated that it will only give funding if those premises seem to be viable long term. How do we ensure that we support communities where they take on those assets, that they can be safeguarded because other factors didn't come into play? They can turn for help from someone to ensure that they get fruition on track with the investment strategy and the sustainability strategy that they're hoping for. You cannot legislate for changing factors, but Mr McKinley, if you could attempt that. That's incredibly helpful because it's a reminder of just how complex that is sometimes and that each case is different. A point at which to welcome the committee's on-going involvement and interest in the bill has been incredibly helpful to us that you've been unearthing a whole range of examples like that through your regeneration inquiry and so on. We have to continue to listen to that and whether it's a legislative issue or whether it's a policy issue, we have to make sure that, for example, the community ownership support service that can at least help with learning and advice on those issues is picking up on them. I'm sure Ian Cooke can, where the cost is located, will do. But it is one of those things that we'll just have to keep listening and ensuring that, because fundamentally it's not about owning the asset simply for its own sake, though that can have huge benefits, we know, in terms of sense of ownership and positive view for the future. It's about achieving outcomes and if the outcomes are going to be so fantastic for communities in Scotland then we must essentially have that culture that looks to overcome those barriers in order to achieve the outcomes that people want. I was just going to ask about the common good land, alial and inalible land. Can that be used for allotments if it's purchased? Is that possible? It seems to be needing clarification on what is common good land and it seems to me that it's very unclear what it can be used for. I'm afraid we'll have to get you back because there are six of us and the common good policy specialist is not one of us. We'll have to get back to you on that specific point. Just to reiterate again that the bill really only deals with local people's involvement, including community councils. I know that some community councils felt that community councils are absent from the legislation that are specifically mentioned around common good and there is also a specifically mentioned body in the participation requests, so a recognition of their role, the important role that many community councils play, but on the specific point we'll have to get back to you. Finally, a lot of the submissions that have come from local authorities and community planning bodies have been very positive, which we often find. How do we ensure that local authorities, community planning partnerships, don't end up taking a narrow interpretation of the bill? The parts that I mentioned earlier in terms of asset transfer and participation requests I think shift the landscape significantly because it is about a duty for them to respond to rights that community organisations have. If we take participation requests, which I think in my own view has been the bit that people haven't quite seen the potential of yet, it means that a group of community bodies in one of our more disadvantaged areas working with young people who have really good ideas on how to make the lives of those young people better, they don't now sit and wait until they're consulted by children's services, they put together their case and the authority has to respond, so I think that that in itself, and I've heard speaking to local government colleagues during the consultation that they feel that this will make them up their game. They can see it coming, they can see that communities are going to approach them, so they're thinking that they have to get their own processes in order. Looking at the detail once we get into the detail of the community planning provisions, community bodies are now a more significant player. They are people who participate in community planning, not just people who are consulted on a plan. Community planning partners now are required to properly resource community bodies and forgive me the lawyer, it doesn't say properly obviously in the legislation, but the fact that there's a recognition in the law now that there should be an obligation to resource the involvement of community bodies is another significant change. That wasn't the final question. Part 3 on participation requests, the meaning of a community-controlled body, it says that in this part a community-controlled body means a body whether corporate or unincorporated having a written constitution. Why does the body need to have a written constitution in order to participate? Ian, would you be better placed, do you think, to deal with the detail of that? Ian Pye comes out from the consultation itself, where people have a view about what community involves, what community means and that you need some sort of structure when people are going into a legislative process, actually what it will be. The written constitution is, we believe, because it's not a huge amount that is required under the written constitution, it's the minimum that's required in order to be involved in the process. It's the same here as it is for asset transfer requests as well. It's very interesting to see the responses to the consultation in that regard. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your evidence today. I now suspend the meeting and we move into private session.


Okay, I'm up normally. I do like the audibles really quick and like Subs I do them. They don't matter how much I drink. I do them pretty pretty I'm up right now. You be honest. I'm just gonna tell y'all that now right now I'm messing up subs position. I caught a five. Why I just want y'all know that I'm kind of like I want y'all to understand my level of litty legitty the baby. You know I'm saying right now. That's all I'm on a new level. I want y'all to understand that I'm I'm on a new level. I can't lie. I'm Normally, I do like the audibles really quick and like subs. I do them They don't matter how much I drink. I do them pretty pretty Peaceful I'm just gonna tell y'all that now right now. I'm messing up subs position. I caught a five. Why I just want y'all know that I'm kind of like I want y'all to understand my level of litty legitty the baby. You know I'm saying right now That's all I want to do. Let's get back to the vibe though. I'm quick snapping this right here at touchdown Believe that mother I don't need it.  What level do you think I am? This one I don't know On the marma. I'm getting rpo the two in the morning. Who's still with me? Who's still with me in the chat What are you doing?  Y'all don't understand that's what's crazy about the chat Y'all have no idea. Y'all just watching.  I'm gonna be down three Who y'all gambling on that's all mad Never mind This is why we mad. Y'all don't understand as as viewers Not gonna pause the music because y'all don't understand as viewers. The music ain't even on Y'all don't understand as viewers how mad I'll be about this because this human thinks he's scored This is why I don't do this little drink half a bottle of Hennessy. This is why I don't do this Because this guy thinks he scored And that bothers my Y'all what do you understand that and then people like bear said he's good like that bothers me like that Y'all you understand chat Y'all understand how good I am in it. I don't think I think y'all watch every night That's what made me upset when I'm going to bed like I think y'all watch every night Y'all still don't understand how good I am at this game That's what like to a man it bothers me that y'all don't understand that for real Y'all my friends and I love y'all, but y'all really truly don't understand how good I am at this game That should be a pick six in my lion check You don't know how to bullsh** daddy It's crazy this double man that's sweating so hard to win this game As a man, y'all don't know how good I am at this game And I feel like y'all disrespect me every day laughing at me like I am Usually at madden like eat a little like one percent of this game They let him catch that Yeah, I run that too if I were you you stupid if I were you and I realized I'm I would run that play too Oh First of all, that was the best part of the song ain't no way that I'm dealing with that when I'm drunk It's no way. What the f**k was that? This is why I don't drink Trade do you this is why I don't drink. This is why I go out stay sober Listen, bro. It wouldn't be a youtube video for these moments right chat It would not be a youtube video about wasn't down 14 Listen, this is this I I've been in a f**king haddy wagon drunk Sometimes you got to sober up real quick. There's one of these moments right chat.  Say w you get drunk That touch sound up Hell like y'all don't understand my level of hell game right now, but it wouldn't be a it wouldn't be a stream if I didn't get Listen, I'm so I don't think y'all understand like y'all watching but y'all I am so where to be right I want some time right here.  I only got one belt. I don't have three belts I don't have two belts, but you know, I I really feel like as an old man, I'm good Not even as an old man as a man Come on. Come on. Mother f**k. Come on playing. I see you tomorrow I will see you tomorrow. I would take a number swing, but this is empty As a mother f**k. I'm a 35 year old man. I want an age check On the chat and the youtube. I want an age check. Are you as 30 plus playing this game? Where's my 30 plus? I am 35. I'm damn near 36. I'm bald as s**t And I'm making plays out here. Don't let them tell you can't make plays chat because a man will make plays If given the op A man will make plays Because my fingers still move crazy I really don't remember anything that happened in this game I don't remember how we got the lead.  I hope y'all enjoyed it, but I don't know how we won this game. I don't know I don't remember anything. I just remember that my fingers When it comes down to the come down, it's about the fingers boys And I'm gonna tell you I might be old, but I may be the oldest I might be the oldest, but my fingers still work the best. I'm telling y'all


Okay, now we come to V1, the same. Okay, let's look at V1. Imagine yourself in the cockpit of your plane and applying takeoff thrust to your engine and as you gently accelerate down the runway, you come to a point where you reach V1. So by the book, V1 is defined as the speed beyond which the takeoff should no longer be aborted, meaning that in case you experience any trouble with your plane before reaching V1, the classic example would be an engine failure, you would immediately abort your takeoff and would apply all necessary matters to bring the aircraft to a stop. Although the use of full reverse thrust is not mandatory. I'll come back to that in a second. So in this video here, this Airbus A319 applied takeoff thrust and due to a technical malfunction had to abort the takeoff prior reaching V1. Just listen to the sound of the engines. The system comes active and immediately applies pressure to the brake cylinders, the ground spoilers are deployed so are the reverses and the plane and crew come to a safe stop on the runway. The smoke you can see here is coming from the brakes as they are the primary force slowing down the aircraft. Now let's say there were to be an engine failure so one of the reverses would be inoperative and therefore full reverse thrust can't be added to the braking measures as mentioned before. Because V1 needs to be calculated prior every takeoff taking into account airplane weight, runway length, wing flap setting, engine thrust used, runway surface contamination and environmental factors and even the aircraft brakes to assure yourself that any given failure prior reaching V1 you'll have enough runway left over to come to a complete stop. Now if it's just a minor failure you can continue to take off but that's a whole another video about the stop or go decision-making. And besides that this is one of the reasons why the captain keeps his hands on the throttle until the pilot monitoring calls out V1 and then he moves his hands away from the throttle to not inadvertently abort the takeoff after V1 in case of a failure. So in case you experience any serious malfunction after V1 you would have to commit yourself to continue to take off otherwise a takeoff abort will lead to a runway over. Okay so do you understand now why it is called decision speed? Because during takeoff if the malfunction, engine failure, any problem is observed before V1 what is your decision? What would you do as a pilot? 100% right abort the takeoff. Do not be a hero or don't try to be hero you can say I'll take it no. Decision is before V1 you have to abort. Okay now if for some reason engine failure occurs now in this case that we saw an example the problem was thrust loss it was rejected before V1 so the pilot applied full brakes you saw the brakes were fuming okay so there were so but then suppose a decision suppose the failure is recorded after you cross V1 what is the decision to be taken? Even though there is an engine failure you will continue takeoff. I admire your guts you have two engines and one engine has failed it has failed after you cross V1 why will you continue takeoff? Yeah let me ask this captain why would you continue takeoff after V1? Correct so the numerical value of V1 is decided based on this calculation that if you abort takeoff after you have crossed V1 you may still be on the ground but if you abort after V1 then the accelerate stop distance it is called from start to the end accelerate and then break that will exceed the safe runway available now this safe runway is a very big word I'll have to explain to you in an airport you just don't have a runway you have a runway you have a clearway you have a stopway apart from taxiways and aprons so a runway is basically the hard surface which is designed to take the impact of the aircraft when it comes into land okay the stopway is an additional part of the runway may not be as hard as a runway to take impact because you don't land on that but you may exceed runway and go to the stopway for a accelerate stop distance and the clearway is nothing but an area under the control of the aerodrome during which obstacle height can be cleared by the aircraft so clearway can be ground it need not be even paved it may be grass but it is a area which is under the no construction is permitted beyond a particular height in fact nothing is allowed to be there except required by function some instruments for navigation some antenna some wall lights etc okay but otherwise clearway is supposed to be clear of all obstacles fine so therefore if the problem is detected just beyond V1 you are not supposed to about your takeoff under any circumstances what happens if the problem is deducted at V1 now what would you do before V1 it is clear after we when it is clear but suppose it is at V1 most pilots will about but you can do both it's the intersection point so you will not be charged if you continue takeoff at V1 but most pilots will not they will discontinue okay so now let's go to VR VR you know is a V rotation speed the speed at which the aircraft can be rotated for takeoff the call out is VR or better known as rotate by the book VR is defined as the speed at which the pilot begins to apply control inputs to cause the aircraft knows to pitch up after which it will leave the ground again VR is also calculated prior takeoff in accordance with aircraft weight environmental factors etc and it's the point where the generated lift over the wings becomes higher than the aircraft weight keeping it on the ground easiest way to memorize VR is the point where the nose wheel leaves the ground and vortexes are created at the wing tips which rotate behind the aircraft and the point where the main gear leaves the ground that's the point where you have reached the loft the lift okay so we rotate is when the nose wheel has left the ground and we lift off or we love is there the main wheel leaves the ground then we have VMU minimum unstick speed okay this is the point at which the aircraft could take off if the maximum possible rotation angle were reached remember there is something called a stalling angle so when you rotate you cannot exceed alpha stall otherwise it will stall so if you reach alpha equal to alpha max permitted which is below alpha stall then at at this speed or at this minimum speed the aircraft will generate lift more than weight that is the definition of we lift off and this particular angle could be limited not only by aerodynamics but also by geometry for example you may be able to go at a higher angle okay alpha stall may be 15 degrees but alpha for minimum would be 12 degrees because at 12.1 degree the tail will hit the ground because of the geometry of the aircraft so it could be limited by geometry or aerodynamics normally by geometry so basically it is the maximum permitted angle to be given during rotation so what is the minimum speed at which max permittable rotation angle will give you the lift off that is called as the V minimum unstick pilot should know this because the pilot should not try to initiate rotation at a speed below this because at a speed below this if you initiate rotation you will hit the ground before lifting off and then we have we lift off or VLOF we loft then finally we have a speed called V2 take off safety speed but take off safety speed V2 is defined as take off safety speed the speed at which the aircraft may safely climb with one engine in operative okay let's go back to all engines operative now imagine all is normal you take off and someone would measure your height above ground at the end of the runway like in this picture here the height measured is the so-called screen height now let's get back to V2 and our engine failure situation in case one engine fails you need to maintain the speed of V2 in order to leave the runway at a screen height of 35 feet or higher and maintain the climb rate at V2 to be clear of obstacles in the departure sector and you should be able to maintain that speed and climb rate until reaching one engine out acceleration altitude where you then gain speed and retract the slats and flaps and continue with the emergency procedures this video here is a great example for V2 as you can see the Boeing 747 there is a bird which comes in the pot the engine starts getting flamed so engine has flamed out while it's maintained V2 and the respective climb rate retracted the gear and performed all the necessary emergency procedures flew a traffic pattern and landed the airplane safely the reason therefore is when local authorities design departure routes including obstacle avoidance procedures they predict that your aircraft is at least capable of maintaining V2 with one engine and the gear retracted and guarantee obstacle collision protect okay you get the point I'll show you once again you can see this video continue with the emergency procedures this video here is a great example for V2 as you can see the Boeing 757 hit a bird just off the lift off and the engine was severely damaged the pilots maintained V2 and the respective climb rate retracted the gear and performed all the necessary emergency procedures flew a traffic pattern and landed the airplane safely the reason therefore is when local authorities design departure routes including obstacle avoidance procedures they predict that your aircraft is at least capable of maintaining V2 with one engine and the gear retracted and guarantee obstacle collision protect okay so V2 is the takeoff safety speed it is a speed at which with one engine in operational you still are able to maintain climb rate such that you clear the obstacle height at the end of the runway in the example shown the engine failure happened before rotation in the video it was after rotation but in the example in the description it was engine failure to place after V1 but before rotation so obviously when there is only one engine one in the not working you will have less thrust available so the climb rate will be lower so if you have what is the speed at which with landing gear retracted you are able to maintain the required climb that is called the takeoff safety speed okay so these are the speeds which we need to remember during the takeoff run so let us look at the distance and the time covered in the transition phase so during transition phase what is the profile flown by the aircraft is it a straight line is it a curved path is it a concave path or a convex path what do you think what is the flight trajectory during the transition I showed you a figure of an aircraft during takeoff it goes like this and then like this and then it climbs so the climb is straight line ground roll is straight line what about transition it's a curve so is it a convex curve or a concave curve if you are looking from inside it's a concave curve it doesn't go this way it goes this way so to calculate the distance and the time taken during transition you have to assume the thrust is equal to drag plus the kinetic energy that is increasing and the time taken will be average of because speed is V1 and then V2 so the time taken will be the average because speed increases from V1 to V2 so this particular calculation now there is a height that is attained in this phase that height is basically the obstacle height so this is something which I want you to do yourself so I want you to model what you do is I will give you a hint you can model the flight path of the trajectory of the aircraft as a part of a circle okay as a arc of a circle it's an assumption actually it's not arc of a circle but one can assume it to be arc of a circle so from speed V1 at the beginning of the arc of a circle to a speed V2 at the end of the arc of a circle the aircraft is proceeding from a speed from V1 to V2 you have to now calculate what is the height that is traveled so this is homework and I expect you to upload this homework on Moodle okay so once again the first person who uploads is okay the second person should not copy paste or give the same thing the second person should give the same thing in some other way if not don't need to upload so I leave that to you let's look at the climb phase climb phase is very straight forward within the climb phase you are in the straight angle climb so you have a screen height 15 meters 50 feet and you have a climb angle gamma so it's from simple trigonometry and you can get gamma ST minus V by W that's it no no no screen height is defined by the regulatory body you have 50 feet and 35 feet for landing it is 35 feet and again for military aircraft and transport aircraft there are different numbers but it is 50 feet it's a 6th number it's not it's not a function of the airport no it's it's a regulatory requirement that you should clear 50 feet obstacle okay so the requirement is same for all so if you sum up these three times and sums you will be able to get the takeoff distance in time alright so let's see what parameters influence the takeoff run so the major portion is ground run unless you have a situation of failure or problem so ground run will decrease takeoff run will decrease so if we focus on ground run only because it's a major part for normal takeoff and if you assume that the takeoff speed V1 is 10% higher not 15% 10% this number also varies for defense aircraft it is 10% for civil it is 15% specified by the regulatory body so if you recall that Vs is to W by rho as CL max so therefore S1 is a function of these parameters so you can see it's very straightforward now the S on the bottom I have taken up to put it as W by S and 1W I am keeping it on the denominator so I get T by W D by W and 1 minus L by W so in other words ground roll increases as the wing loading increases so one very important parameter is keep your wing loading low if you want to have a shorter takeoff ground run in fact when you do design not as part of this course when you do learn design you will find that is going to be a requirement or a tendency to keep the wing loading low from low takeoff requirements okay CL max if it is high ground run will be low because it comes in denominator that is why we put flaps during takeoff and density ground roll will increase as the wing density decreases that is why at a hotter airport or at a higher airport where density is low and if you have hot plus high condition can you name a place where you have hot plus high in India high altitude but hot so lay airport is an example during summer lay airport is one of the most difficult airports to operate because of the hot and high conditions in the US people site Denver as an example of an airport which is hot and high so takeoff run also reduces as the accelerating force increases so this is a very interesting thing basically the faster you accelerate that means T minus D minus mu w so how do you increase thrust at takeoff there are many ways of doing it okay the first way is using afterburners afterburner you are familiar what it is I will just show you a nice video this is afterburner normally you do not need to have large plane behind the aircraft the aircraft length and the length of the afterburner plane is almost the same as we can see such afterburners can also cause tremendous problem to the runway over a period of time the runway will start melting we have experienced these problems in HAL when we worked on military aircraft we have to replay relay the concrete okay so some aircraft takeoff with afterburner routinely one more way of doing it is called as jato or rato rocket assisted takeoff or jet assisted takeoff so this is a very interesting mechanism and you can see it in some military aircraft so this is C-130 the one on which you do the assignment you see have been fitted with rockets as the show opener the C-130 demonstrates its short runway jet assisted takeoff or jato capability okay so this is one way this is also possible on nick 21 if needed they have jato facility or rato facility as we used to call it and then okay so that is the catapult so these are the typical ways by which we can increase the thrust okay now this is a situation when you have one engine failure during takeoff so yes you can apply brakes or you can continue to fly so now we have to understand that there has to be a balance in these two so obviously before v1 you will apply option number one after v1 you will apply option number two that decision speed is v1 interestingly at v1 the accelerates top distance will be equal to the total distance needed from start to reach the obstacle height so that is why v1 is called as decision speed and this distance on the ground total distance is called as the balanced field length bfl so do you understand the balance here the balance is that either you go for accelerate at v1 stop or you go for takeoff at v1 continue takeoff is one engine less so you have lower thrust so at a longer distance you will clear the obstacle height you will clear it but at a longer distance the speed v1 is such that these two distances are same so the definition of balance field length is that distance from the point where the aircraft starts rolling to the point where either it comes to an accelerate stop distance or it clears the obstacle height when the engine failure occurs at decision speed and these two are the same that is the balance field length okay so there are many simple formulae available in literature for calculating balance field length but these are all numbers I will not spend too much time on that also remember that when you fly near the ground then the vortex system on the wing is affected by the presence of the ground so the strength of the wingtip water decreases because the wingtip vortex is killed by the ground there is a upward push so the wingtip vortex reduces so therefore induced drag is reduced and therefore you will have some kind of a improvement so the landing distance will be have a issue because in landing you are being cushioned but in takeoff you are benefited so however the effect of ground wash ground effect actually depends on how much high you are from the ground with respect to the wingspan so that is called as a factor phi h over b h is the height above the ground b is the total wingspan so normally it is said that when h is equal to b that means at a height which is equal to one wingspan above the ground above that the ground effect starts becoming almost zero so you can assume to be out of the ground effect below that height you have a factor phi and the drag is reduced and therefore the landing the takeoff will be improved


When you get sick, do you ever wonder where medicines come from? Behind every pill, injection, or cell-based therapy you might be given lie decades of laboratory research and hundreds or thousands of failed experiments along the way. Once potential treatments are discovered, they are subjected to rigorous testing in animals and the most promising treatments are then tested in humans to make sure that they are safe and effective. Ultimately this process takes the innovation and ingenuity of hundreds of scientists together with billions of dollars of research and testing. The treatment's journey from the bench where it is discovered to the bedside when it can actually treat patients has several stages that culminate in a thorough clinical trial. Clinical trials are research studies in humans that explore whether a medical treatment is safe and effective for people. In the U.S., these studies and the important data they generate are approved, regulated, and evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. The best clinical trials are performed as randomized double-blind controlled trials. This means that patients are split into two groups. One group receives the experimental treatment and the other group receives a placebo, an intervention that has no therapeutic effect, or a current standard of care. The purpose of this design is to make sure that the experimental treatment itself is responsible for differences, not just the perceived improvement of a placebo. Double-blind means that neither the patient nor the doctor knows what group the participant is in. Before undergoing any treatment, all participants of clinical trials go through a process called informed consent, designed to make sure they understand the potential benefits and risks of experimental treatment as well as those of the placebo or standard of care. In accordance with the FDA's requirements, human clinical trials have four phases that each has a specific purpose. Phase one trials, which can last up to two years, test whether a new treatment is safe and well tolerated, including side effects. Phase two trials, which can last longer than two years, test the treatment to see if it is effective. Is it doing what we hope it will do? And to further evaluate its safety in more patients. Phase three trials are the most critical evaluations and are performed on a larger group of people to understand whether the treatment works to prevent or treat disease better than any alternative treatment. This is called the treatment's efficacy. They typically last three to five years. After a phase three trial, if the treatment has demonstrated sufficient evidence of positive benefit, it can be approved by the regulatory agency, the FDA in the United States, and can be commercialized. Phase four trials are done that monitor safety for any rare or long-term side effects of the treatment. Phase four also evaluates the treatment's effectiveness in real-world situations. Regardless of the outcome, participation in clinical trials is always valuable and brings us closer to curing or mitigating disease. In most cases, it takes more than a decade for a candidate therapy to move from phase one testing to real-world distribution. In that context, the progress of California scientists and physician scientists is especially remarkable. Since the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act of 2004, 30 human clinical trials have been completed, are in progress, or are getting ready to start within the next few months. We must remember that human trials will celebrate successes. The barriers will surface along with complications and challenges, so patients and understanding of the scientific discovery process are essential. This is especially true as California scientists work to develop a new generation of therapies, cellular therapies, that will have unique challenges that differ from traditional drug-based medicines. Clinical trials are absolutely necessary to determine that a treatment is safe and that it has a real positive effect on a particular disease, better than not observed by a placebo or the standard of care. Going forward, we must build on the progress that California's remarkable scientists and physician scientists have made. Only with continued support for biomedical research can we bring the most innovative therapies to the patients who need them most. To learn more about clinical trials, check out the ISSCRs, a closer look at stem cells.


Introduction In this video, we will be preparing the introductory section for the beginning of your portfolio. This will include a written portion and a personal pitch video. The brief introductory paragraph or two is a great way to tell your readers who you are and briefly explain what to expect from the rest of your portfolio. The goal is to grab their attention and get them interested in reading on to the rest of your webpage. The personal pitch or elevator pitch video achieves a similar goal.  It also allows you to practice describing yourself in a concise way to prepare for any potential interview scenarios. A portfolio is a professional document, so it should be professional and well-written. But because it's also a very personal account of your character and your accomplishments, the tone does not have to be super uptight and formal. Aim for a writing style that is friendly and inclusive, almost like how you would normally speak to someone while representing yourself or your business. This means that it's acceptable to write in the first person in a conversational manner. This will make you feel much more approachable and relatable. We're going to begin by introducing ourselves to the readers. Tell them who you are and what you do. This should be the first sentence of your introduction, short and to the point, including your name, your area of interest, like your field of study or the job you're hoping to attain, and one other piece of important information about yourself, like the city you're based in or the school you graduated or will graduate from. Next, you'll need to decide which professional experience to include. Your introduction should be a highlight reel of sorts, so keep it brief, list the number of years of experience you have in your field, and choose one or two examples of your work. You can describe a couple work experiences or list a few projects you finished professionally or academically, so the reader gets an idea of what you're able to do. Choose experiences that had a positive impact on you and your employer, or where you took on a leadership role. Lastly, add a few personal details to make you more relatable. Potential employers are always interested to get an insight into how you'll fit into their organization and company culture, so it can be a good idea to add a couple of fun facts about yourself. Keep the personal details short and to the point, as their main purpose is to add a little levity to your introduction, not to take up the majority of it.  Like a little mission statement, or that you've been using Photoshop since you were 10 years old, anything you think will give a glimpse into who you are outside the office. As someone trying to build a personal brand, a pitch video is one of the most compelling ways to market yourself to an audience. A pitch video gets you face to face with potential employers, even before an interview, so including one on your web portfolio can be a really good idea to begin to network and search for careers in your field of interest. The whole idea of a pitch is to find the best parts of yourself and confidently present them to another individual. Ideally, this video should be short and to the point, roughly 30 to 60 seconds in length. The information to incorporate will be relatively similar to that of your written introduction, but as it is coming directly from the source, it will automatically be injected with more personality. Begin by introducing yourself, your background, and talking about your experience either in the workplace or academically. The second portion should be built upon the initial skill you mentioned and illustrate how it's a key asset in the potential work environment. Next, including unique selling point that sets you apart from the crowd. Detail why this key asset makes you better than a competitor who doesn't have the skill. Think of it as a personal mission statement or philosophy. Your unique selling point will directly lead into the ultimate goal you are working towards. Include how this skill will help drive your future in your chosen field, how you can apply this knowledge to better any organization you are a part of. Finally, you will include a call to action, a small prompt to convince the audience to do something based on the contents of your pitch. This could be something like encouraging them to continue going through your portfolio or checking out your resume. If you want a more in-depth understanding of how to create a personal pitch video, you can check out another video series called How to Create a Personal Pitch Video. In the next video, we will learn all about what to include and what to omit from the skill section of your portfolio page.


We are here today to help out the socket to them campaign. We have cop socks and sandwiches going. We're building peanut butter and jelly Sandwiches to hand it to the homeless along with socks. Socks are the number one clothing need of the homeless and People don't think to give socks. If you didn't have socks, and it was cold. How would you feel? You feel awful So let's help everyone feel better even if it's just keeping their toes warm at night. We give to over 70 Shelter services and agencies in the Denver metropolitan area, and we have done almost a quarter of a million socks Across the country. This is really technical stuff here. We're slapping some peanut butter throwing some jelly on the peanut butter putting it together Bagging it so that each individual Personally coming contact with out there. We'll get a nice Homemade sandwich. It's made with love. It's a hearty sandwich. That's easy to do is peanut butter and jelly We really want to be engaged with the community and the homeless folks that are out there They are a part of our community and we need to be engaged We need to let these folks know that they are not lost or forgotten. We are part of the community We care about our community and we are the community with the community. We're making a social impact One pair of socks at a time