Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to move on to an area that is of interest to the committee, which is scrutiny by MSPs as compared to scrutiny by and accountability to the SPCB. I know that the children’s commissioner recently appeared in front of the Education, Children and Young People Committee and some of you have referenced appearing in front of committees, but, in general terms, apart from this committee, have you had any strong sense from MSPs, as opposed to the SPCB, that they are particularly interested in the efficiency and effectiveness of what you do? How frequently do you appear in front of committees? How much are you given a grilling, which of course is entirely healthy? I do not know who wants to go first, but I would like to hear some honest reflections on that.

Does everyone else have a clear line of sight with the committee that they would be asked to appear in front of?

Obviously, each of the commissioners and commissions is set up slightly differently and, therefore, each has its associated legislation. I am interested in the extent to which the success or outcome of a commission is directly correlated to the commissioner personality profile, rather than the legislative framework. I will direct that to you, David Hamilton. I think that most people would concede that we have seen a different approach from you. You have seized the initiative in some areas despite coming on board only relatively recently. Is that about you, or is it simply because it allows for that? What do you put it down to? I am thinking about outcomes here.

There is a consideration of safe access to healthcare. Article 33 of the UNCRC notes that children and young people have a right to be protected from harmful drugs. One of the take-aways from the Cass review was the issue of prescribing of puberty blockers to young children, which states that it compromises bone density.

I appreciate that it is early days and a number of organisations will need to look at the report, but with that in mind, how alarmed do you feel about that? You have set out what trans and non-binary children might be looking for against potential harm being done to them by being given these drugs too early in their development. Have you made any further assessment of that specific issue rather than the general context we have talked about?

I am sure that we will all watch the area with interest. Thank you.

Good morning and thank you for attending. I put on the record that I also enjoyed your wee video, especially the use of the pentatonic scale for the young children.

Before I go on to my main question, I want to pick up on what my colleague, Stephanie Callaghan, asked about the potential for another commissioner for learning, disability and neurodiversity. I assume that you are aware that the funding for all the commissioners is top-sliced off the SPCB budget. There is the law of diminishing returns, so the more commissioners there are, the less there will be to go around, given the budget constraints. Are you aware of that and did you reflect that in your submission to the recent research into the potential for a new commissioner?

I have read your strategic document, which talks a lot about children’s rights, and rightly so. The flipside is your organisation’s responsibilities. I appreciate that it is early days but what assessment have you made thus far of the implications of the Cass review on children’s rights and your responsibilities therein?

Is there a possibility that the report was commissioned to neutralise objections, given that the committee was going to be looking at the landscape?

Good morning and thank you for joining us. I have a couple of quick questions. Your report states that the Scottish Government commissioned you. Can I check whether the directorate that commissioned you is the same one that is now looking at introducing a new commissioner for learning disability, autism and neurodiversity?

In other words, it is potentially in the team’s interests to limit the scope of what your research would evaluate. Let us imagine for a minute that the team is keen on introducing a new commissioner for its area of interest. It would make sense to limit the scope of what you were asked to evaluate in terms of the wider landscape, as you set out today in your evidence. Is that a fair assessment?