Chamber and committees

That is really clear. You need the ability to set those priorities. I am not clear that that is dependent on any particular organisational structure, but it is a really clear requirement: to be led by the needs of children and young people.

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.

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?

Do you take on cases like the ombudsman does, whereby you can give individual redress when something has gone wrong?

I will do a bit of context setting to make sure that I have got my head round this. The committee is looking at the broader landscape of all the SPCB supported bodies. No one has said that you would end up with this landscape if you started with nothing. It has grown organically, so we are aware that there are overlaps and gaps.

Some of the bodies have been created as a result of scandals, failures in public services or failures in the conduct of public servants, in order to try to fix an urgent or immediate problem. I think that it was the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman—my colleagues can keep me right—who said that she is frustrated that she is only allowed to react to complaints that she had received, and that she was not allowed to do broader preventative work. She may have had complaints from several hundred people about specific councils, but she could only investigate those councils: she could not then broaden out her investigation to all councils in Scotland. There might have been a systemic issue, but she is not allowed to do that. She is frustrated by that limitation.

The Public Services Ombudsman deals with individual cases; however, if I understand it correctly, your situation is almost the mirror image of that. You deal with broad systemic investigation and reporting, but without doing advocacy or individual case support, because that is not your remit and it is not your job to do that.

I have a couple of questions about that. All those public bodies seem to have a structure that is in a preventative space—preventing harm from public services and proactively making sure that institutions get the right advice so that they handle data correctly and so that politicians behave themselves. Then there is the reactive work, which is about saying, “Okay, something has gone wrong”, when, for example, patients have been hurt or people who are in detention have had their rights disrespected. How do we fix that problem?

Some of the bodies do a mix of those things and some do one or the other, but the Scottish Human Rights Commission does specifically preventative work. As we reimagine the landscape because of the proliferation of commissioners, can we reimagine the SHRC as one large body that has both a preventative role and reactive role? Could the reporters of such a larger body be responsible for both the wider investigative systemic look and advocacy? Can we imagine a structure that would encompass all those things in order to look after human rights in Scotland, rather than having your rather narrow remit?

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.

Is it my go?