Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be with respect to the integrity bodies, I suppose. Maybe the situation is slightly different with advocacy bodies.

That is fair. We have struggled all along to try to find the right language around this. There is also substantial overlap where different offices are concerned.

I would have asked whether anyone has any issues or problems with the idea that SPCB-supported commissioners should share back-office services, human resources, and so on, but I assume that none of you does.

Dr Elliott mentioned something that is also on our minds, as the convener said. The remit of this committee is specifically to look at the SPCB-supported bodies commissioners, but we are aware that there exists a wider landscape of public bodies, third sector organisations and other commissioners of various flavours. Do you have a feel for how much time and resource it might take to map that out? We know that we do not have the time and resource to do that, but how big a job would it be, if someone were to take that on?

As Dr Elliott suggested, creating more commissioners may also inadvertently undermine that intention. On a sort of similar theme, in our conversation, we have separated advocacy and integrity commissioners. With regard to the work of the commissioners, the committee has thought a lot about preventative and reactive work—research and so on that the ombudsman or the human rights commissioner does versus casework in relation to, for example, something that has gone wrong in a hospital, a prison or a school when someone will want to know who they can go to. One of my concerns about the proliferation of these bodies is about people knowing who they should go to.

The committee heard very effective pitches for various commissioners last week—a commissioner for older people, a commissioner for neurodivergent people and so on—but a person can be many of those things, and, therefore, which one would they go to? In defence of their remits, existing office-holders and advocates have said, “Oh, but we’re very good at handing people between us and we’re very good at signposting.” Do you have a view on a one-stop shop? Dr Elliott, you suggested fewer but larger bodies with wider remits, so that, for example, if something has gone wrong in a school, a prison or a hospital, you would go to one place and you would be looked after. Do witnesses have a view on that?

Thank you. That would be much appreciated.

My other question is a more general one. Is the minister content that the bill will not impinge on Scotland’s ability to diverge in policies covering devolved areas?

I have two questions. The first one is a bit technical and is to help my understanding. One of the bill’s provisions expands employers’ duties to prevent the harassment of staff. I would like to better understand what those duties are, specifically in relation to MSPs, as employers, and our staff being exposed to social media. My staff look after my social media, which exposes them to some unpleasantness. What duties does the bill confer on us, as employers, to protect our staff in such situations?

Thank you.

I guess that it is about the implementation and understanding. As you say, we use terms such as “circular economy”, but I am not sure that the average person knows what that means or understands how to be nature positive and what that means for businesses. I am interested in understanding how much it is part of the relationship with businesses to make sure that they understand the concepts that Government talks about and what they mean for businesses on the ground.

My other question is somewhat related to that. We have also taken evidence from representatives of alternative business models such as co-operative social enterprises and other democratic business models, and they felt that they were not part of the new deal for business. They have had increased engagement recently because of the inclusive and democratic business models report, which they are very grateful for. However, the committee is interested in how we mainstream them. How do we make sure that those alternative business models are included in the new deal for business and also, going forward, in the thinking of Scottish Enterprise and Business Gateway so that we mainstream them, given how important they are to the wellbeing economy?

I appreciate that, looking forward, there will be an opportunity to incorporate and help to mainstream those businesses.

I want to pick up on a point that you made, Dr Malik. There seems to be an idea in many people’s minds that moving to net zero is costly and challenging. You mentioned that as well. However, the circular economy is about helping with businesses’ bottom lines by reducing the waste of energy and of materials. Businesses might make the choice to fly less to conferences, for example, which will save them money. Is any work being done with businesses on how they can improve and make more money while reducing their waste and working on their route to net zero? If people think that it will always cost them more money when, in fact, doing less will be the answer in many cases, that narrative will be a barrier.

In previous evidence sessions, we heard from representatives of business and so on that they feel that they have a good understanding of the duties of business as regards reaching net zero, the wellbeing economy, the circular economy and the new kid on the block: being nature positive. However, I am not sure that that is what I have been hearing on the ground. I would love to hear from you guys how well you think Scottish businesses understand their duties in all those spaces, because that is quite a lot for them to take on.