We finally got it written up according to the white paper skeleton that was approved by the TSC a while back. So we'd like for people to go and review the white paper. We'll probably be asking for approval from the TSC in two weeks. So particularly TSC members please go ahead and read the white paper if you haven't already and give us feedback. The actual paper was located in the email I sent out, but there may be changes. There's some you know always minor changes and if you want the most up-to-date version you can go to the GitHub as I said in the email. So that's the one and a half minute summary. Does anyone have any questions? Yeah I just got one question. How would you prefer to have people raise issues or offer suggested edits and so forth if you want to have issues or how do you want that? So I think it depends on the issue if it's a general issue email is probably better. Okay. If it's a direct thing that you can edit in you know feel free to make a pull request. Okay great super. Any questions for Hart? There's the new button. Hart I got from your email that if it's probably grammatical tense something like that you guys are gonna put that through a tech writer anyway. So yeah feedback somewhere between. Yeah mostly content edits. I mean you're welcome to edit grammar and voice and things like that if you want but we're going to you know the people that did the the technical writers that did the architecture consensus paper we were really you know they did a lot of cool formatting and and we think they did a good job so so we'll let them handle you know all that kind of stuff. So we don't we don't want to get bit out of shape from that yet but if you feel like you know if something's really bugging you you know feel free to issue a pull request. Okay great so that's kind of on the the low end probably don't need feedback on that kind of stuff and then on the high end what we had done in the past with his working group is we kind of kept changing directions right on the working group and we don't want to we don't want to go we're yank yank the working group around again this is the structure of the paper we're not opening the door to completely restructuring this effort. Right we don't want to we got TSC approval for the skeleton and we don't want to change that but what we want people to do is like you know their project outlines right you know and if you're not happy with your project outline or something like that we want you to have the opportunity to go through and edit you know provide corrections things like that. Great. Cool. Any other thoughts for heart if not please do come prepared in a couple of weeks to vote on that. It'd be great to get that out. Okay thank you. All right so first up is composer who is on to regale us on composer. Hi I am I'm Caroline. Great so Carol Minn can you post the link in the chat. Great so go ahead Caroline. Okay so I think overall High Pleasure Composer is doing really well and so in the last quarter we've seen a lot more people on rocket chat asking questions we've had a lot more questions on Stacker Overflow. We have made lots of commits and I think one of our issues is that we don't have enough contributors from outside of IBM but this is something that we want to work on and we've got a few plans on how to improve our number of contributors so the first is to create my YouTube videos and write my blog posts about Composer but also the other thing is that we want to offer potential contributors mentors so that if they're thinking about contributing to Composer they can help one of us help them through it and help them choose things to work on and how to get going with it and things like that. So our current plans are that at the end of November we're going to cut a 0.16 release and after that we'll look towards dropping support for Fabric 1.0 and supporting Fabric version 1.1 and we also plan to introduce the concept of links but also other functionality that's been requested by the community with an outlook to deliver a 1.0 release of Composer in the future. So I think that's yeah that's a summary of what I wrote in the project update. Has anyone got any questions? Any questions for Caroline? I'm finding it hard to believe there are none. Me too. Alright I'll fill the gap here. You say you would like to introduce the concept of links do you want to give us a little teaser of what that is? Okay so at the moment when you want to use assets and participants they have to be in the business network that you're currently using but we want to be able to link to other business networks and that's kind of the yeah that's kind of the high level view of what links us. Okay so kind of an identity bridge or something like that. Yeah. Great thank you. Caroline if there are others that don't have any any comments I'll start by saying one of the ways that you can try to grow your community of contributors is to help them navigate through the issues right you've got 294 open issues presently and and they're nicely tagged but the one tag that I think we found helpful in fabric and others have done in other communities is to to tag something as you know here's a good starter issue to work on or here's a low hanging fruit or help wanted something along those lines to indicate where you're willing to accept help from somebody new and you know to identify either a very simple bug that they could fix or you know a small improvement but something that isn't going to be too on a risk to somebody who's unfamiliar with the code base but yet by the same token they can start contributing and learning their way around the code base and so I think you know going through and we've done this in fabric a couple of times not as much as I might have liked but you know to actually identify here's where we'd love to have some help right. Yeah that's a really good idea and yeah especially to have like a good first book tag and I think that would really help people to be able to get started. So I do know that you've had a release about what about every two weeks is that the cadence that you guys are on? We try to release every week. Yeah sometimes occasionally we don't quite manage that but most weeks we do release each week. Okay and then that release basically is you're updating in PM? Yes. Carolyn this is Leonard. I just wanted to know whether there's any dependency between your releases and fabric because Composer is definitely playground component to design business network which will run on the fabric platform. So if there are any releases promised or sort of in the pipeline for fabric I would expect there to be some dependency on when your major releases will happen. Is that a correct answer you're saying? Yes well we release every week so any kind of features or book fixes we put in every week and then when fabric I guess release a new feature or change how something works then we try to as quickly as possible be able to support that. Sounds good to me. Any other questions comments on the Composer report? Okay thanks Carolyn. Next up is Indy and I think Nate you said somebody else was going to present who is that? Yeah I believe we have Sean Bohan on the call to present the Indy project report and Sean Bohan was muted when he said I'm gonna do that Christopher so thank you yay the tyranny of the mute button. So we posted our project update to the Wiki apologies for not getting that in there in advance of the TSC so it can be reviewed. From a project health standpoint we have we're six months into incubation we've done we're getting through the entire list of all the things we need to do from an onboarding into hyper ledger as well as the you know things like Jira Jenkins github rocket chat just just getting the community moving. We've also posted recently a draft community roadmap of what we're going to be working on over the next through the end of 2017 and then like at a high level what's going to happen in Q1 Q2 and Q3 next year of not what's going to happen but what we think our priorities are. From an issues perspective I think to parallel with Carolyn said about Composer like we're really concerned and focused on not just building on Indy and Indy SDK but we also want to grow our community of developers and really work hard in the next couple of months on onboarding and documentation making sure when somebody who wants to contribute shows up and says how do I get involved they've got a clear at least starting point there's a trailhead that they can look at see okay here's how I can I can do something whether it's learning or education or actually you know gain their hands dirty in the code. From a release standpoint we've had four major releases in one hot fix and also as of today we're preparing our next release candidate and it's going to include state proofs so we can read requests from a single node Nathan can probably answer any questions about that as we move on. We listed out our activity of the quarter I'm not going to give you a dramatic reading of this but from a current planning perspective again really focusing on onboarding and documentation growing this community that we've had we're now starting to see interest from a couple of external developers for they want to contribute code for specific things that either they need or the Indy community needs we're really psyched to see them we can't announce it yet but they've been pretty active on rocket chat we're still working on incubation tasks that I mentioned as well as looking at things like node performance and observer nodes and etc that's something that we're going to be working on over the next few months and maintainer diversity so we're really psyched you have nine maintainers right now for Indy three different companies are doing it we're looking at a couple of independent external maintainers in that group so that's a really high-level review of the status the document I think is linked in well it's definitely it's on the wiki I think someone just added that link to thank you Dan added that link to the chat so if there are any questions I'd be happy to or pass them on to Nathan I can't have a look. Let's have more detail on state proofs so I can jump in with that essentially state proofs is the idea that all the transactions end up signed by the quorum of nodes so that when you do a read request to a single node in the response you get a state proof to show that that the result that you get out of the read request was signed by a quorum of nodes so instead of asking f plus one nodes for the the read query you can ask a single node and if you can validate the state proof you can continue on if the response does not have a valid state proof you can still ask f plus node one nodes to make sure that the pool has reached consensus about the answer that you received. We have some applicability in the performance scale working group transaction definition I'm sure. We certainly hope so there's still some more functionality we need to add to the system to really take full advantage of it in terms of scaling horizontally but it should help read performance the way it stands today for this coming release and then as soon as we can add observer node support it means that we can add more nodes to the pool to increase the read throughput without having to affect the the BFT algorithms write throughput. Any other comments questions concerns for Sean or Nate? Just another question because that seems like a pretty interesting feature the the state proofs is that tied in a direct way to a specific consensus implementation and can it be generalized outside of PBFT style implementations that would have a strict f plus one kind of definition? I think it could be generalized certainly the the crypto primitives we've been putting them into the new indie crypto library so we actually did a bunch of work to separate out all the kind of the crypto protocol level issues into its own library so those could be reused and then in terms of the way the state proofs themselves work that code is very similar in some ways to the code out of the Ethereum code base so there are some parallels there and some pieces that some of the other projects may have already looked at so I don't think it looked terribly foreign but certainly that could be a topic of discussion probably at the the Lisbon Hackfest if anyone is interested. We will have Jason Law and Levesh Harchandani both there who are very very steep and deep in that code that could answer questions about that. Great thanks. Anything else for Indy? Great okay thanks Sean thanks Nate. What do we got next? I think next up was Cicero if I'm not mistaken. Hey Chris, Dan here. Hey Dan.  It's 23 minutes in and you've already got through the agenda. Well I was actually kind of expecting or maybe even hoping for a little bit more conversation on the project reports but oh we are or we are. So next up would be Project Cicero so I think just to sort of remind everybody where we were you know Human had given us a an initial review of the proposal I guess about a month ago and then Dan came back a couple of weeks ago and addressed some of the initial set of concerns that people had the white paper you know the spec was published additional information about the project was made available the project itself the code was made available and I think that where we were a couple of weeks ago was that members of the TSC were interested in I guess the you know they're interested in sort of reviewing the information that was published just before the last call that we had two weeks ago and so hopefully people have had an opportunity to review this and to think about it and so I guess we're at a point where I think it's worthwhile sort of giving everybody an opportunity to you know to add some of their thoughts at this point and we'll figure out if we've got consensus and and take a vote if that seems appropriate. Thanks Chris just to sort of update people on what we what we've done since the last call and so we've been kind of pounding the pavement and talking to a lot of firms and explaining what Cicero is and we've been pretty successful you'll see the list of sponsors at the top of the proposal has grown significantly and includes you know quite a diverse set of companies you know from HSBC on the legal side to several leading law firms, IoT vendors, we had a great discussion with the sovereign guys about identity and we also made really good progress on getting named contributors which are listed down on page four so also you know pretty diverse set of people so I'm putting up the speed on the code and looking forward to their contributions and yeah happy happy to take your questions and you know hear what you have to say. So this is Otto, hi Dan. I appreciate the effort you put into updating the the proposal and sharing the specification that you have. You know to me it seems quite promising and interesting for sure but I wonder if it's not too early and to be honest I don't think it's particular to your project this is a question I actually would like to raise to the TSC in general is you know of course this we have an incubation phase to allow people to create new work new work and then see if it you know gets any any momentum but I wonder you know for me when I looked at this proposal it seems quite promising but really early on no offense to you Dan but you know when I look at the repo you're the only contributor you are the one who has authored the spec it all seems to be a one-man show and you know I'm happy to see that you're getting momentum and you're getting support from a whole bunch of other people but I think you would have to admit that it's still very early on and so for me it raises the question from the TSC point of view is there a limit to you know where do we set the bar as to when is it too early for project to be accepted in incubation which you know maybe you'll get there in like just a matter of three months or so if you really gain that kind of momentum it continues and so much the better but you know at the same time I think we have to be careful not to as a project to dilute too much you know or spread ourselves too thin I should say because we are adopting all these projects in incubation to a point where we get lost in you know a whole ton of things it seems like this is a new space so it's interesting but I imagine I actually aware that there are other people working on this kind of levels of you know higher level with the link to the legal aspect of smart contracts and you know I don't know if people knew we are going to start working that space maybe there's a whole bunch of other people would want to join and propose of the project I don't know but so the fact that it seems to be quite immature makes me wonder whether it's not a bit too soon for us to jump into this but I would like to hear from other TSC members maybe they don't feel the same way or maybe they think this is what incubation is just about I have to admit I'm not completely sure myself well I know I think that that's a valid point but you know to play devil's Africa the other model is you know we go away for six months and kind of work on this on our own or in a small group and then we arrive with you know 200 000 lines of code and I think we've you know I think we've seen in other in other in other groups that that can also cause problems right particularly when it comes to forming the the community around the project um so I you know personally I believe that this that you know it is early yes but um you know we're already starting to see a diverse group of people clustering around the project and then the incubation phase seems to be the right time to do that this is Dan and I share a lot of the the same views that that are no expressed it is certainly a gray area for for how we accept projects into incubation things don't need to be certainly production mature but I think on the other end of the spectrum what I'd like to see is if the goal of a project is to implement a standard then I think the standard should be far enough along that there's some reasonable ability to to see what that looks like and then maybe to a lesser extent with code having having at least uh something of substance so that things aren't so early that that the shape of the thing that's trying to be built is into parent so I think probably leave it at that but but what I would like to see is for a proposal like this to maybe um come back after after things have solidified a little bit more so and um this is my I'll say um pretty much the same thing that I don't know and Dan just said which is this looks like a really fantastic idea like something that we need um but you know my in my my original comments on the on the proposal were kind of of the form this looks great but I'm not quite sure what I'm getting yet and it it still feels like there's an exploration as to what the um what the details are of of what we would be providing in the proposal um or in the project um and and that that doesn't mean we don't move it into incubation but but it's a very different beast than some of the other things that we've brought in where we had um at least a fairly concrete idea of what the artifacts were that would be generated out of it and we could talk about specifications and it just I mean it just feels very early yeah so in in the chat there's been uh heart and others have brought up conversations we were having in Singapore um at the member summit not in relation to Cicero actually but um actually sort of triggered by um uh the potential to bring some other things in but um you know concerns about you know do we have a you know solid community behind them and so forth this was actually it was triggered by discussion around um potential incubation of the project Ubin um which is the monetary authority of Singapore project um application you know sample applications if you will that were built for fabric and quorum and um and quarter um and you know again this is one of those things that um you know I think that we as a TSC maybe need to have a meta discussion around you know what is this sort of thing that isn't quite a project it isn't quite ready for incubation but they want the framework of the intellectual property in the chat and all the other things that come with being a you know participating in this community um uh and uh but where you know from a um project maturity perspective it's not quite to the level that you know Mick and others were discussing so uh and I don't think we ever had you know an outcome and I would just sort of highlight you know my experience from a couple of other um a couple of other projects open stack for instance had Stackforge right Stackforge was um again not branded open stack but clearly it was for people to be able to post you know utilities and uh libraries and uh you know configurations and so forth um you know just a a melange of stuff that was relevant to open stack but that didn't have the formal blessing of the um uh of the the foundation the open stack foundation and and wasn't under the the governance model of the foundation it was just sort of adjacent right um and everybody sort of knew it was adjacent but again the branding was clear um that this wasn't open stack if you will now in cloud foundry um there was actually something called the cloud foundry-community organization um and it served a similar purpose of hosting you know uh library fragments and sample applications and you know glue code and configurations and so forth um and uh but it was very confusing you know um because the brand was uh essentially synonymous right but it was hard for some people to distinguish that the fact that cloud foundry-community was really just you know a free-for-all there is no guarantee anybody was maintaining it there was no guarantee it had anything to do with the current version it was not curated at all um and and so it became somewhat confusing to have something that shared the brand so to speak um with uh cloud foundry but that really had nothing to do with cloud foundry at all um somebody just created that that work they were actually in the community but again they didn't do it with the sort of the hum and hum of the of the cloud foundry foundation itself um you know other projects um you know do find ways of um you know dealing with this there's no there's no right or wrong recipe so i mean but i i do think that you know it would be you know valuable if we as the TSC could come up with an approach that we felt would if you will um enable people to to bring things into focus but that didn't necessarily carry with it the full way to um uh you know of the foundation you know of the hyperledger organization itself um and where it was crystal clear that look you know this is as is you know you're on your own it may not even be supported um and uh you know therefore you know people you know caveat emptor you knew what you were getting into and the the community doesn't necessarily suffer if there's something bad in there right um it becomes unfortunate if somebody post something in if we had a hyperledger dash something and somebody put something in there that did something bad well then we get all the bad press right and and so maybe to be a little bit controversial chris i think you know i i'm also a maintainer on composer and i went through that process of of getting composer approved and a lot of the other top level projects are from you know big vendors right um and most of the code that was in those projects was developed you know at proposal time by a single vendor so i think we have to be careful that the tsc doesn't send this message that actually what what you want is that for vendors to go away write 200 000 200 000 lines of code on their own and then arrive with the code and you know contributes it because i don't think that's going to work for you know particularly this smart legal contract space where we need to reach out to a very diverse community of lawyers and technologists um and really truly incubate the idea right it's an incubation process that we're looking for so if i can make just one more comment about this that um historically the projects that have been brought in are ones that some company has created internally as a result of seeing some need um one of the things that be interesting to move towards is you know what what projects do we have that are uniquely hyper ledger that initiated out of the community not out of the out of some company that was migrated in and it feels like these sort of pre incubation or kind of early projects give us an opportunity um prior to an idea being set in stone give us an opportunity as a community to formulate what the idea should be so again i mean independent of this particular project in its and its role in this this idea of bringing projects in that are still in the formulation stages feels like something that would be really good for our community and as i said i think that that goes in hand hand in hand with building a diverse set of contributors because if you're a single vendor and you arrive with a huge code base as you know as i've as i you know personally experienced it's then very hard to go and find contributors to contribute to that code base it's kind of an uphill struggle at that point i think you're right that's a fair point at the same time you sit till time 200 000 code lines of code maybe there's a need in between that would be the sweet spot right yeah i'm less concerned about code maturity and more about the definition of what it is that the project's going to solve and i think in this case with it being it feels like two things are in motion one is what's the definition of the specification or standard and then the other would be the the actual implementation right i think that's fair i mean they're in incubation i would say yeah so um dan i think there's kind of a fundamental question here so is is accord or sorry is Cicero trying to be a strict implementation of the accord protocol or is it more general is it trying to be more general in sort of the you know hyper ledger uh legal smart contract project right so what would happen kind of if the accord standard disappeared overnight would the project abandon or would it try to find you know a new spec or implement a spec or something like that because i think this kind of uh i think it would be the latter i mean the the accord project is a legal working group essentially right it's the source of requirements if you will it that's you know the the its primary function is a bunch of lawyers sitting around talking about different types of contracts and the semantics of execution of those types of contracts so if we you know if we lost the relationship to the accord project then we would still have the code obviously but we would have lost that kind of customer contacts and that that's really valuable for this problem i think you know a supply chain contract is quite different to a digital media rights contract um and you know in ways that technologists don't don't understand but so how old is this accord project sorry i know can you repeat how old is this accord project i mean this i looked at the spec there's quite little there right we're talking to about the accord protocol as if it's this big thing that's out there but is there more than the google doc that you shared with us no i mean it's it's so the the the group of lawyers have been uh it you know has been formed over the last six months or so you know who man can give you the yeah okay but so that's what i thought thanks and then you know as i said this is kind of an exciting innovative space that where we really need innovation and incubation um so in my mind part of the the role of this incubation project within hyperledger is to help form that community and get people to congregate around you know a single code base versus you know fragmenting off into their own private worlds and some stuff happening in you know enterprise ethereum alliance and and there is other places so i i think the this is very much the question i raised initially because honestly i don't know the answer you have that expectation it's not exactly what has happened to date maybe that's what incubation should be but it's definitely not what it has been and so i think this is what we're trying to figure that's why i raise it to the question to the tsc um what we have used incubation for was to transition projects into hyperledger mostly from proprietary development and into you know the hyperledger umbrella and providing a transition period uh agree with you it does you know nobody has said that it cannot be used for such an early project but that's it seems like you know other people have spoken kind of in line with my expectation that there is maybe too early there i don't know so chris i mean what's your opinion well so you know again i'm i'm i i definitely agree that we need to provide some ability for the a true sort of a community ecosystem to grow up around what we're doing here in hyperledger and some of that you know whether it's new ideas somebody wants to try out some new zk you know algorithm or whatever um and you know again is looking for a place you know to to do that to you know share their ideas um and discuss them and have the the confidence of the the ip coverage and so forth with the you know the licensing and so forth that's all good but that you know again is at a top level is that the thing that gets marketed out on the the website and so forth you know and you know i'm not i'm not so sure again as i mentioned in claude foundry we did have a problem because there were sometimes you know code that was in that community repo organization rather that was just either incompatible or broken unmaintained and um and it um you know it created a certain amount of problems for the community to sort that out make sure that people were crystal clear about what it was um i think um you know again in in this case it's a little bit earlier than a lot of the code bases i'm not saying that that's you know i think i agree with r no i'm not sure that we are all you know necessarily on the same page um you know if um uh you know i guess we could use the project reporting from an incubation perspective to make sure that it's starting to sort of pick up and others are joining in and um and it's moving along and if it's not um i guess then we have to put it in pardon me in the attic or something i think you know the the question really becomes well what do we do with things that pardon me um that failed to gain any traction i guess that's really and and and have you know a sustainable uh community behind them that's i think the real uh the real question um and you know so i think it was actually dave who proposed and singapore this notion of hyper ledger labs where you could put stuff um and start working collaboratively on stuff but it was clearly not a formal hyper ledger project um whether incubation or active um but it was a place where the community could experiment with new thoughts and ideas without necessarily having you know everybody that you know reads coin desk or you know whatever you know jumping all over it maybe it was marta sorry yeah sorry if i misattributed that yeah it was marta chris so what do others think so help me out here um you know we can't turn into ivm right um so what we can do is we can write more code and we can get more contributors to the code base so you know what is it that that would you know what's the bar that we need to to reach i guess i think you're uh um you know grasping a point that probably shouldn't be grasped because arnos uh initial uh thought was that the spec itself is too um unclear or immature so it has nothing to do with the size of uh you know the offering it has to do with uh whether there is any ground to stand on i think that that that seems to be a primary concern um and then that's about the project what's that so it's about the the definition of the scope of the project that's the issue uh not only the scope but if you're building on a um standard without a standard i don't know how you know how you can say that you're building on anything because uh and i don't think it has anything to do with size or any any of the other stuff that much uh it is very exciting thing that everybody agrees with that that to create a way to uh link and to transform natural language into smart contracts is you know it's almost like something that a lot of people have been trying to do and it is not a trivial undertaking and i suggest that if it is a really illegal working group then it should be constituted as such not uh under uh you know specific uh housed in in a separate thing like a accord although it is um supposed to be working closely with hyper ledger well it shouldn't be just he shouldn't be just lawyers either yeah so but it'd be open definitely we incubated quilt quilt is being you know stacked at the w3c and the community group and uh and the the reference implementation is hosted by the js foundation um which is a sister of hyper ledger obviously sibling uh or but nonetheless we have the same sort of fragmentation i think you know quilt had a very very um definite uh there was actually a standard there was a white paper there were implementation i mean it's not it's not similar at all in my mind well it's further along yes and it has uh slightly more uh backing and i think dan you know to this point yes i i know that clause i o isn't going to be come i i'd be in in the next week or so but i i do think and you know to this point a little bit earlier you know despite the fact that these were initially sort of internal uh you know developments of some of the larger organizations the i think the important distinction is that there's um uh that there's a sustained investment right and and that's i think going to be the key thing you know when you know we ask you know in the in in the form for a proposal you know one of the things is well who's going to be you know what is the sustainability of this by by sort of identifying how many developers and how many you know who's going to be maintaining and so forth um and i you know i do think that's an important criteria i i'm not saying that everything has to come from some big corporation that's not at all it's really more importantly is is this going to have some legs right um and again i don't think there's anybody on this call that thinks this is a bad idea or you know could potentially be you know game-changing i don't think that anybody disagrees with that i think the question really then becomes though but there are i think is i can't remember who was pointing out there's a number of these things being done out there um you probably have run out of fingers and toes by the time you sort of inventoryed them all and then the question becomes does this thing have the ability to sort of turn into one of those you know so um again i i'm not i think i think you know i'm sort of on the fence here i think it would be nice if we could sort of get a sense of more people interested in seeing this become a reality and therefore contributing to helping to make it real um uh would would help me over the the the fence so we do we almost well i'm going to go on time i wonder if we should uh get to the vote chris we we could do that um and sure we we could do that there so min you want to do a roll please and then we'll see where we are sorry are we going to vote on the proposal right yes um so how do we do this sorry i don't know how this is um so the vote is on the cicero proposal and pretty sure everybody's had an opportunity to read it we've been reviewed it we've reviewed it to uh at least twice before um so i would just put the question and just do a roll call and ask for yes or no okay uh so guys but do we need a vote like do you think we need a vote or do you want to postpone it dan it's up to you maybe no well dan sort of called the question i think we should vote and figure out where we are and if it's you know my suggestion would be that if we come back and if the answer is no then we should work to try and figure out so what is the place for something that's that you know that that wants to come here but that isn't necessarily a fully fledged incubated project would be my my take on the next steps if we don't get there if we get there then obviously then i do think that we need to finish this conversation about how we deal with sort of organic growth in the community so man if you wouldn't mind just sort of go through the um the the list of tsc members and ask for a yes or no okay so we have Arnold yes or no no no sorry we have pao pao pao yes or no you're on mute uh you don't have no indigent we said no okay and then all the ideas that many have asked here but for incubator i would say no hello i'd like to go forward with the incubator or a hook and rook um that the community would be able to participate and be able to grow this project okay so it's a no yes and chris yeah so i think i'm a no but i do want to figure out how we um how we do you know sort of enable this sort of pre incubation phase because i do think there's merit in the thought okay dan no greg i'm gonna simply note it as abstain just because i'm not against it i just think we need more time okay hard i'm going to follow greg's lead and abstain we need more time jonathan abstain as well not at these points but yeah let's revisit then kelly i'm not at this time now nick um i think i second chris is um i'm a no for incubation but i want to see a way to make this project part of hyper ledger if we can find a way to do a pre incubation because there's tremendous value in it okay did i miss anybody uh this is nathan oh yeah nason sorry um i think my natural inclination would be to vote yes um though it's clear that there are some misgivings um that has different points out we just haven't gotten to a consensus level yet about um and given the lack of a tier for um some sort of pre incubation status um i think uh it's dangerous for us to start to put a lot of barriers to starting um a project in incubation um unless we can articulate kind of the specifics of the misgivings that we have so i think that we owe um the project proposal and the team here um some more clear feedback as to what the what what the barriers are or what the what the maturity criteria might be so that we don't keep them in limbo so it's a no i think those are good okay so we have one two three four five six seven eight eight no's and three ups things okay so here's what i'm going to propose we're at end of job one year for today um yeah but i'm going to suggest you know um that we we take up um a process for exploring as a as a formal function of the tsc right now what do we do for uh projects of this class and then to address Nate's concern to crisp up sort of what we think are the acceptance criteria for a formal incubation uh i think i think nathan you you've you've hit on something that i i think could be cleared up um i think some of us had in mind that we probably all have different pictures in our heads about what that what that is so i would suggest that we do a little bit of both um and so i'm going to start a thread on the mailing list right now um that i would suggest we start working on how do we uh enable and embrace the type of sort of early pre-innovation phase for people to explore new ideas to see if they can build a community around an idea and bring it to the point where it does meet the the criteria um because again uh cuman if you're on and and dan this is not do we think this is i mean i think everybody's pretty much expressed that this is an interesting and important idea um it'd be great if we could do this but i think the concern is that there isn't enough um uh you know enough along yet for people to start making commitments to make sure that this thing does succeed so um let's try and figure out how we can help that process does that make sense yes yes yes okay thanks everyone and for those of you in the us celebrating happy thanksgiving and we'll see you all in the 30th uh sorry is that a good question andrei go ahead thanks so yeah i just uh wanted to ask a question about hackfest but uh i seem to have missed the time in the beginning so uh we at iroha would also like to join the hackfest and so we are interested in uh what is the like what should be the topics are the uh practical like coding sessions or it's more like theoretical and presentation of uh architecture um i realized the call is over and so people can drop if they need to but andrei i think that the answer to that is we we typically decide that on site my preference is that we have more hacking and less yacking in other words that there be specific proposals that people can come prepared to work on you know whether that's integrating you know sawtooth into fabric or something like that or whether it's you know working on um you know uh the crypto library like art was proposing and so forth um uh or or even you know just sort of exploring and and working on trying out uh another groups another projects technology um to get better familiar hour with it and uh but again depending on the nature of who ends up showing up will determine where the the session goes if there is a lot of people that join that are sort of at the 101 hyperledger phase then it would be a need for some some of that but uh one of the ideas that people have is that we um have mornings for presentations and the afternoons for coding and if we can i'd like to maybe try and stick to that so hopefully that helps oh i get it thank you and then well if this is clear then uh what is the process of suggesting the topics and like the approval of the topics in the agenda for the meeting there was a link to the agenda for the hackfest and it's a wiki so anybody can add ideas to that so you're welcome to do that thanks and uh what is the deadline uh the hackfest ah i see okay all right so i think we will add the topics then yes thank you great thanks andrey cheers everybody okay


The next item of business is a statement by Hamza Yousaf on home detention curfew, HMIPS and HMICS independent review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Hamza Yousaf for up to 10 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to Craig McClellans' family. I met them again this morning to discuss the reports and how the Government will respond. It is clear from our conversations that Craig was a much-loved son, brother, partner and most of all dad to his three boys. Craig was a remarkable young man. Through speaking to his family, I have heard much more about him. I have heard stories of Craig's selflessness and how he would intervene if somebody was in danger without giving consideration to himself. What touched me the most was how Craig's life completely revolved around his family and friends, especially Stacey and his three boys. I would like to commend his family, Craig's family, for their bravery and their tenacity in highlighting their concerns about the circumstances of Craig's death. I am absolutely determined that lessons will be learned and that improvements will be made to home detention curfew to ensure that public safety remains paramount. In June, my predecessor instructed HMIPs and HMICs to undertake independent reviews of HTC. Those reports have been laid in Parliament today. I met the two chief inspectors yesterday, and I would like to thank them and their teams for undertaking those reviews. I also met the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service and the chief constable this week to seek assurances that the inspectorate's findings will be addressed as a priority. I will discuss the inspectorate's findings and the action that is being taken in response in just a moment. Before I do, I would like to provide some overall context of HTC. Home detention curfew is an established mechanism for preparing prisoners for release. It is not available to all prisoners and is not an entitlement. Prisoners are only eligible following risk assessment and provided that they are not subject to statutory exclusions. At any time, there are around 300 people on HTC. That is approximately 4 per cent of the prison population and is comparable to its use in England and Wales. Since it was introduced in 2006, over 20,000 people have been released under HTC. The vast majority—80 per cent—successfully complete their period of HTC. Of those who are recalled, the vast majority are returned promptly to custody. However, I am clear that HTC needs to be strengthened in light of the inspectorate's findings. The inspectorate's reviews examine the process for assessing whether someone should be placed on HTC and for investigating breaches and apprehending individuals following recall. The review also examined whether processes were followed in the case of James Wright, who was convicted of Craig's murder. In that specific case, the inspectorate has found that the application process and decisions to release were in line with existing policies and guidance. However, there were some oversights. They were clear that the assessment process should be improved. The inspectorate's found that, once the recall order for James Wright was issued, police delivered the necessary briefings and updated their systems appropriately. However, they noted that there was a lack of a documented approach and effective oversight in the efforts to apprehend James Wright. It is clear therefore that improvements are absolutely needed and I intend to take immediate action. I would like to make clear at the outset that SPS, Police Scotland and indeed the Scottish Government will accept all of the inspectorate's recommendations. The chief executive of the prison service and the chief constable have given me assurances that, in addition to actions that are already taken, work to implement the recommendations that are being taken forward as the top priority. It is not possible, in the time allotted, to discuss all of the recommendations in detail today. However, I will highlight the main findings common to both reports and set out the immediate actions that are being taken to address them. In terms of the risk assessment, both reviews were clear that the risk assessment process should be strengthened to make decision making procedures more robust. Specifically, the inspectorate's recommended that there should be greater consideration of the potential risk that an individual may pose to the community, improved access to police intelligence to inform decisions, improved support and guidance for staff undertaking assessments and, crucially, a presumption of refusal of home detention curfew where the individual's offence involves certain prior behaviours. In response to the following additional safeguards that are being implemented, there will be a presumption that individuals whose offence involves violence or knife crime will not, in normal circumstances, receive home detention curfew, and we will consider the option of placing that on a statutory basis. We will also look at exclusions for individuals who have known links to serious and organised crime. Police intelligence is now being shared to inform decisions about HDC release, and SPS is adding an additional level of assurance to the HDC assessment process. Governors in charge will now receive recommendations and will decide on HDC release applying consistent criteria. Alongside that, SPS and partners will review the assessment criteria for HDC and will make any necessary, wider improvements. In relation to the governance and procedure, the inspectorates also identified that improvements were needed to ensure greater consistency in HDC processes and to strengthen governance. In response, SPS and Police Scotland are improving the consistency of documentation relating to HDC as a priority. Police Scotland has also taken action to strengthen the governance of activity to apprehend individuals who are unlawfully at large. Those individuals are now discussed at each local area commander's daily tactical briefing, ensuring that clear tasking and supervision arrangements are in place. The inspectorates highlighted shortcomings in the information sharing processes between SPS and Police Scotland in relation to HDC, particularly the status of those who are unlawfully at large. Police Scotland and SPS have already undertaken urgent work to rectify that. In June, they established a working group to review and improve their information sharing and communication processes in relation to HDC. As a result, they now have clear communication processes in place so that information on individuals released on HDC and those subject to recall notices are shared and acted on in real time. That means that efforts can be focused on identifying and apprehending individuals who are unlawfully at large. Consecretly, the number of individuals who are unlawfully at large from HDC has decreased from 54 on 18 June to 8 this morning. The inspectorates found that cross-border arrangements where individuals are released to addresses in England and Wales should be a lot clearer, particularly in relation to notification on release and revocation of HDC licences. SPS and Police Scotland have already taken action on that. They have established single points of contact in all 43 police forces in England and Wales and have developed clear processes to alert those forces in HMPPS to release on HDC to a curfew address in their area and any revocation of those licences. As a further safeguard, Police Scotland is also informed and confirmed that the relevant information is logged on the police national computer. As part of the review, HMICS examined the powers available to Police Scotland to apprehend individuals who remain unlawfully at large. Consecretly, it has recommended that Government considers making remaining unlawfully at large a specific offence. That would also provide associated powers of entry for the police. I accept that recommendation and will consult with criminal justice partners and those across the chamber on the best way forward. If they agree with the proposal, that will be taken forward by way of a stage 2 amendment to the current management of offenders bill scheduled for spring 2019. I believe that the additional safeguards will strengthen the HDC processes at the immediate term by delivering more robust and consistent assessment, improved governance and oversight, what for release decisions and in relation to apprehension, streamlined communication between SPS and Police Scotland and clearer cross-border arrangements. Those immediate actions form part of a wider programme of work to implement all the inspectorist's recommendations. I have made clear to the chief executive of SPS and the chief constable that I expect to see real and demonstrable progress, and I have made it clear to them that the Scottish Government will of course do likewise. Police Scotland and the prison service have established a senior strategic oversight group to drive forward this work. The group involves and includes representation from other criminal justice partners and, indeed, the Scottish Government, and will report on their progress directly to the chief constable and the chief executive of SPS. I have asked the chair of the SPA to maintain oversight of Police Scotland's activity to implement the recommendations with the police. I have also asked HMIPS and HMICS to review progress against their own recommendations in six months. In conclusion, I believe that the immediate actions that I have set out today along with the SPS and Police Scotland undertaking will make HDC processes more robust and will help to strike a balance between support for reintegration and the requirement to protect public safety. I would like to close by reiterating my thanks to Craig McLean's family for their determination and raising their concerns about the operation of HDC. It is through their tenacity, their tireless campaigning on behalf of Craig, that we have got to this point. I want to thank them sincerely for their efforts, as their campaigning means that we will have a stronger, more robust HDC regime. Ensuring that the voices of victims and their families are heard throughout the justice system is a top priority for me and this Government, I will continue to keep Craig's family and this Parliament updated on progress. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised and tend to allow around 20 minutes and then we will move on. Would those who wish to ask a question press a request to speak buttons please? We are already over time, so I would ask you to bear brevity in mind. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I too praise the family of Craig McLean for their bravery and determination in pursuing this matter. Ultimately, that has been a catastrophic failure of the justice system to protect the public. The McLean family and the public will be rightly asking why on earth tragedy had to strike in order for the SNP Government to investigate and ultimately make these changes. For example—I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree—it beggars belief that the prison service and the police were not already sharing information on offenders unlawfully at large. Firstly, he boasts that 80 per cent of those on HDCs complete them. That is a failure rate of one in five, so I ask first of all, is the cabinet secretary really happy with that failure rate? Secondly, the cabinet secretary has pledged to strengthen victims' rights, but there is not a single recommendation in here to do that. He knows well the Michelle's law campaign demands, but there is no commitment to any of those in this statement. I ask simply why and perhaps ask that he put those commitments in. Finally, there were concerns raised in June that the police do not have the necessary powers to force entry to property in cases of breach of HDC or entry to property when criminals are unlawfully at large. Why is there nothing in this statement addressing those concerns? What will the cabinet secretary be doing to address that? To answer his question directly—no, of course I am not happy that 80 per cent is complete and only 80 per cent—I think that the context of that is hugely important. Yes, there is some reflection to be done around those 20 per cent, should we be putting targets on to reduce that 20 per cent? That is a sensible suggestion and let me reflect on that suggestion. No, I am not happy, but at the same time, looking and delving deeper into those 20 per cent, the vast majority of those who do not complete their HDC are recalled back or, indeed, they are technical preachers for not being at the right place at the right time. The majority of those 20 per cent do not go on to commit grave and serious crimes while unlawfully at large, but that is no comfort at all to the McLellan family and that is completely understandable. I think that his point is well made and I just say very clearly that I am not happy at that, but the context is important. He asked me about Michelle's lock. I might go back to him to say that I find often that Liam Kerr might do that and it may well be an advertent, but he is confusing and conflating two separate issues. Michelle's law is largely to do with parole, the issues around parole and then what happens thereafter in relation to release on licence the issue that we are focusing on today is home detention curfew. Why would I make a statement about parole during a statement on home detention curfew? I am not convinced, but I am happy to take that offline. However, to give you some comfort on Michelle's law campaign when I have met the Stewart family and indeed Liam Kerr on this, I have sympathy for every single one of their three major asks. As part of the review and parole that the First Minister agreed to during the programme for government, we will explore every single one of their asks. Some of them I do not think need legislation, but some of them may well do, so I can commit to that. I did address the issues around power of entry. I am sorry if it was not clear enough, but I will reiterate it, which was that one of the recommendations on the inspectorate was making going on lawfully at large in offence. If we do that through perhaps the stage to amendment the management of offenders bill, that will give police the powers of entry that they require, and that is something that the family raised with me this morning, and I am happy to commit to. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I too thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement. I would also like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Craig McClendon. I know that those reports will answer some of the questions that they have about Craig's murder, but I do hope that the Government will commit to doing whatever it takes to go beyond those reports to answer the remaining questions that the family will have, because let's be clear. This is a murder that is not one that just shouldn't have happened, it shouldn't have been possible. Those reports detail multiple failings. There are clear recommendations for both the prison service and the police, so I would begin by welcoming, and we will back the Government's commitment to give additional powers to the police to deal with those who have breached home detention curfews, which we called for this summer. However, the timeline of events leading to Craig's murder shows that, while the SPS had revoked the home detention curfew on 24 February, it took until 4 May until an address check was carried out by the police. That is truly shocking. Does the cabinet secretary accept that when HDCs are revoked, the police must treat that with the priority that it deserves and have the resources to match? More importantly, the cabinet secretary's remarks point to interagency working and process. My concern is that the multiple failings that are detailed here point to much larger and widespread issues within the agencies themselves. They point to competence and capacity issues of those agencies, not just how they work together. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that? Given all the failings that were detailed in those reports, and indeed the 24 people who have remained at large for more than four years, why has it taken a tragic murder for the Government to investigate the issues that have been revealed? I thank Daniel Johnson for his questions. I will try to go through as many of them as I possibly can. In relation to the family's request for more answers, more questions to be answered. I met them this morning. We had a lengthy meeting, understandably so, for the McLellan family. Most of their questions surrounded Craig's tragic murder. What I said to them was that they should reflect on the reports that will be published at 12.30, and if they would like a further follow-up meeting with me, they are most welcome to have that meeting. I will meet them. They will meet the police and have access to the police and the Scottish Prison Service if they wish. My understanding is that they will meet the police on Monday next week, and then something will be arranged with the SPS. My door very much is open to the McLellan family to do what I can to get to the answers to those specific questions. In relation to the actual incident itself, in some respects Daniel Johnson is absolutely right, of course. The McLellan family told me that, at the time of Craig's murder, people would come up to them to say, oh, it's a shame that Craig was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is nonsense. James Wright was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Craig had every right to go from his house to his mother's house and expect to get there absolutely safely. He's absolutely right that there were some failings in that case. Some of them have been absolutely identified in the inspectorate's reports about documentation, governance, communication, and that is why we will accept all of those recommendations, as will the SPS and Police Scotland. In relation to moving forward and the competency of organisations, that is why I have instructed, after six months, a review to take place on the recommendations, because I want to be absolutely assured that I want to be filled with absolute confidence that those recommendations are being acted on, and I have seen that through the short life working group. I look forward to seeing that review in six months' time. In relation to priority, I agree with his assessment. The inspectorate's clearly highlighted that in both the reports. Going unlawfully at large, somebody going unlawfully at large, must be given greater priority. I am confident that the recommendations that have been accepted will help to move that priority further up the agenda. Can I say that the opening questions and answers have taken much longer than they should, and that will penalise backbenchers. I certainly won't get all the questions in, as many as possible, if people are brief, if possible. George Adam, followed by Margaret Mitchell. The love of his life and the three lovely boys dedicated to his young family and his partner, Stacey, is loved by all his family. He is more than the tragic story that we have before us today. Today, Craig's family and myself met with the cabinet secretary to discuss both reports. I thank the cabinet secretary for confirming that the dialogue will continue. Those are tragic circumstances, and none of us can bring Craig back. However, what we can do, and what the family wants to know, is how we protect others from going through the same grief. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how we can take those recommendations and ensure that no other families have to endure this heartbreak? Can he explain how we translate those recommendations into legislation, and what form that might take? I thank George Adam for accompanying the family on many occasions. I know publicly that they have had to have various meetings with various public agencies, and meetings with myself. I know that he has always been a great supporter of the family and to get the answers that they absolutely deserve. In relation to directly answering his questions, I highlighted in my statement that there is a potential to bring forward the United States to amendment of the management of offenders bill. We will explore that with members of the chamber, of course, but also with other stakeholders, if that is the most appropriate and quickest way of bringing that offence and that change in legislation forward. Information sharing was also one of the key themes of both reports. I can confirm that the oversight group will continue the work of the working group, as it was, to ensure that SPS and Police Scotland have continued good sharing of information, but also good governance. The last point that I will make is that the exclusion and non-eligibility of those who are in prison for violence or, indeed, carrying a knife and potentially for their links to see us organise crimes is something that we will take forward very much as quickly as we possibly can. Practically, that can be done relatively quickly as a presumption and, hopefully, relatively quickly on a statutory basis, too. The review says that the assessment process should be improved, for example, by giving improved access to police intelligence to informed decision. It also highlights shortcomings in communication and information sharing between SPS and Police Scotland, particularly regarding the status of those unlawfully at large. Can the cabinet secretary confirm if either of those issues or any of its other recommendations have a direct bearing on the chief constable's call for the £300 million funding for what he describes as the vital new IT project to support and ensure that Police Scotland can get on with doing its job? I am saying you, sir. I thank Michael Mitchell. That is a very good question. I do not think that it does have bearing on that. The police are now starting to share that information and that intelligence very closely with SPS. It does not seem to be a block because of the IT. That does not seem to be a stumbling block, if that is her direct question. However, when I was in front of her committee, I understood the importance of the ICT proposal from Police Scotland. It is sympathetic, but it will undoubtedly come down to questions of affordability. On her specific question, I do not think that it has a bearing on that, certainly not from what I have seen. The police tell me that they can act on those recommendations and act on those relatively quickly. Neil Bibby, followed by John Finnie. The murder of Craig Macleiland has shocked and horrified my community. Having met with Craig's family and spoken with his father earlier today, it is impossible not to be moved by their strength, their dignity or their determination to get the answers that they deserve. Like the cabinet secretary, Craig's father told me that someone said that someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet he had every right to be there in his own community. The man convicted of his murder did not. I welcome those reports, but it is clear for the family that there are still many unanswered questions. Why was locating this offender not a priority? Why was this murder assessed to be low risk? Why has the system so dramatically failed? To be absolutely clear, will the justice secretary give a public commitment today to work with the family to find the answers that they need and the truth that they seek? Very simply, yes, I will. I gave that commitment to the family. I am more than happy to speak, of course, to Neil Bibby, if he wishes about some of the actions that will take forward. What I have asked the family to do is to take away the reports that they are, as you can imagine, lengthy reports—I am sure that he has seen them—to digest those reports and to come back to me if they want to have further meetings with me. Equally, they are having meetings with the police and I understand the Scottish Prison Service as well. There may well be many questions that the cell feel need answered. I am more than happy to work with the family to do my best to get them. On the risk assessment that Neil Bibby mentions, it is a key theme right throughout both reports. The fact that the risk assessment should give higher priority to whether or not public safety could be compromised or affected by somebody going on HTC is a very welcome recommendation, I should say, in the reports, which is one that all of us, all the partners, but, in particular, in this case, SPS, will take forward immediately. John Finnie, followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary very sight of the report and the thoughts, of course, are with Craig's family and friends. A precautionary principle should apply, cabinet secretary, and had it. We wouldn't have this feeling. I welcome your making remaining unlawfully at large a specific offence and there are complexities about that, because, of course, the report talks about people at large outwith our jurisdiction. Within that jurisdiction, can you give an assurance that, when bringing forward that amendment at stage 2, you will not intend granting the power of arrest or the power of entry to any private company that may be monitoring the home detention scheme? Yes. I am in the same vein of thinking as John Finnie, but, clearly, bringing forward legislation, be it through a stage 2 amendment or otherwise, will give us the opportunity to discuss those issues in great detail and in great length, but I have to say that my gut, certainly, is in the same place as John Finnie is here. Making an offence within legislation should mean that it should be the police that are apprehending, arresting or, indeed, having the power of entry when somebody goes on off that large. Liam McArthur, followed by Ruth Mackay. I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement, and on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, pay tribute to Craig Maclellan's family for their determination that their tragic loss should lead to improvements in our system of HTC. The inspectorate's report highlights the failures in HTC and the extent to which those illegally at large wear off the radar of police and the prison service. In that context, can the cabinet secretary outline the specific steps that are being taken to address what appears to be a patchwork of IT systems operated by the police and the prison services that appear to have contributed to this shocking and needless tragedy? To Liam McArthur, similar to my answer to Margaret Mitchell's question, it does not make it clear that the necessary IT was the issue, but basic information should be shared and will contribute to making our HTC system and processes more robust. Where there is an IT block to that, yes, of course, that discussion needs to take place. I have already mentioned my understanding of the proposals from Police Scotland to improve their IT systems, but in that case, sharing information, even at a most basic level, could strengthen and would strengthen the HTC system, the HTC regime, but that does not require an upgrade in IT systems unless I am told otherwise by SPS or by Police Scotland. If that is the case, I will have those discussions with my partner agencies. Ruth Maguire, followed by Maurice Corry. The Scottish Government and indeed the cabinet secretary have committed to developing a victim-centred approach across the criminal justice system. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how changes being proposed to the home detention curfew fit in with this very important commitment? I thank Ruth Maguire for that. In my discussions with Craig McClellan's family this morning, I mentioned the victims task force, which I will set up. I have said that the victims and the families of victims' input into that task force will be incredibly important, and I have invited them, the McClellan family to send representatives as part of that discussion. I think that what we are doing on HTC is absolutely vital and important to that work, but, equally, the McClellan family mentioned to me what they thought were a number of gaps within the entire criminal justice system from the moment that terrible tragedy happened, to even more recently than that. I think that we owe it to the victims to make sure that their rights are absolutely strengthened and, of course, the victims task force will absolutely be a part of that. I go back to my question to Neil Bibby's question, that the risk assessment process will also be really, really important in this sense for the victim because it will be around public safety being given a greater emphasis within that risk assessment process, hopefully giving the public more reassurance and more confidence on HTC. The last question goes to Maurice Corry. Maurice Corry commit today to supporting an amendment to the management of offenders bill to make breaching a tagging order an automatic offence, as, indeed, the Scottish Women's Aid has called for recently. Hamza Yousaf? Yes, I think that I have answered that in a couple of ways in my statement, but also from questions from others. I am more than happy to look at that as a proposal. I will consider that with members of the chamber here, but I will consider that with stakeholder organisations such as the Scottish Women's Aid and many others, but I am more than happy to listen to Maurice Corry's suggestions and feedback and other members' feedback on that suggestion. Whatever is the quickest way and the most appropriate way to bring an offence of going unlawful at a large forward, I will do that. I am sorry that I have been unable to call Jackie Baillie, Willie Coffey, Rona Mackay and John Mason, but we must close questions in this statement and move on to the next item of business.