Seòmar agus comataidhean

In response to Richard Leonard’s questions, you said that you cannot duplicate the functions of other commissioners. Does that mean that, as more commissioners are created, your powers will be diminished? I am thinking especially of the justice and the victims commissioner, for example. If its powers are so broad, does that mean you will have nothing left to do? Because it encroaches into your space, does that reduce your remit?

You would not be able to do that. That is really interesting.

On resourcing and what you have just said about your powers, it seems that you have more powers than the SHRC in relation to the group of humans who are children, who are your responsibility, because the SHRC has only a limited researching power. You have a lot more powers in that respect. One of the concerns that I heard in Gina Wilson’s tone, in relation to Murdo Fraser’s questions, was around the idea that you would get sucked into the SHRC, because it has much less power than you do.

There is something around envisioning what you do, but for everybody, if you like. We have this perceived, or real, gap, because we do not have these powers for disabled people or older people. Could we imagine a situation in which you guys are the exemplar? You do this for children, but, in fact, everybody deserves it. Is there any reason why, with dedicated resource, expertise and the right responsibility for leadership, that could not be duplicated?

Another witness talked about a hub-and-spokes model, with common resources for HR, offices and so on, and with you having responsibility for children, for example, under some sort of broader human rights structure. I am imagining a complete restructure in relation to human rights, whereby we give to other underrepresented groups of people the same excellent service that you give to children. Is there any particular reason why that would not work, if we copied your remit elsewhere?

That is interesting, and you can see how that happens. You can see why, politically, instead of redefining your remit in order to bring in an advocacy role to fill gaps, politicians say, “We’ll make a commissioner for X”—because it sounds great to say that they are standing up for a particular group. That is a lot more glamorous—more showy or headliney—than saying that we will rewrite the standing orders or the legislation that covers the Human Rights Commission, because that does not sound like such a big deal.

We have ended up with a kind of pockmarked landscape with all those bodies. That has been done with absolutely the best of intentions, but bodies have not been brought together and their powers have not been standardised, so some are really different and some overlap. That was really useful to hear.

I would be interested to learn more—maybe this is for the clerks—about the models in countries where the ombudsmen and human rights bodies have different relationships or are combined. With regard to both improving public services and ensuring that people get access to justice, there is some overlap, which it would be interesting to hear about.

I am also interested to hear more about the proposal in relation to rapporteurs and the gap that you feel they are filling.

It is lovely to see you all here. I think that I have spoken to most of you before in other contexts, but it is my first time meeting Karen Meechan. Thank you for coming along.

One of the challenges that we have as a nation is getting businesses aligned with Government priorities on things such as—I am going to use all the terrible buzz phrases—a circular economy, a wellbeing economy, net zero and becoming nature positive. I would love to hear from you how well your members understand what those things mean for their businesses. Are they just meaningless buzz phrases? Are they things that your members understand and are able to implement? If not, how can we can help to ensure that that is the case?

Do businesspeople say, “Right, team, we’re going to do the circular economy,” or do you have conversations in which you say, “We’re going to insulate our warehouse,” “We’re going to buy electric vehicles,” or, “We’re going to see what we can do with this byproduct”?

Thank you.

You guys have had loads of time, come on.

That is the bit that I am interested in. I agree about the jargon of “wellbeing economy” and “net zero”. How do businesspeople look at their own businesses and employees in relation to terms such as “the circular economy”? Again, nobody knows what that means.

Reporting is an incentive for taking things forward.

I have heard that the businesses that you represent are broadly on board. They understand that part of the wellbeing economy is about paying living wages and that the circular economy means looking at what happens to their waste and making their processes more efficient. People get it, but they are struggling with having the resources and bandwidth to actually do it. Is that a reasonable summary?