Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an interesting point. I will press you a little on it. The alternative position is that the more the detail is put into the legislation, the less flexibility there is further down the line; if the context changes rapidly five or 10 years from now—whether it gets better, worse or just different—it will be much harder to change primary legislation than to change standards and guidance, even if those are underpinned by secondary legislation. Is the core point of tension for you that we simply do not know what the standards and guidance will be—and, if drafts were published alongside the bill, that might address some of those concerns—or is it that, fundamentally, you think that some of those points need to be in the primary legislation because they are very unlikely to change?

Do any of our Scots experts have a position on education standards in particular?

I want to go back to Michael Marra’s question about groups in the third sector but expand that to individual MSPs, because a lot of the momentum to create new commissioners at the moment is from members’ bills as well as Government bills. Is the SHRC able to engage? Whether it is a third sector group making a proposal or an MSP beginning to float it, can you have a conversation with them? Have you been having conservations about alternatives such as an expansion to or change in your mandate?

As you are currently constituted, can you have such conversations and, if so, what has the response been? Obviously, we are clearly now in a place where there is a lot of momentum behind creating a whole new range of commissioners, which is why we are here.

I agree that the ALLIANCE’s written evidence was really useful in demonstrating that there are folk in the third sector who want a different model, but we are still faced with a range of proposals to create new individual discrete commissioners. When you have been having those conversations—obviously you have been persuasive to some but not yet sufficiently so for others—do they ultimately need to see a shift coming from Parliament or do they need it from Government? What do they need? I understand that, fundamentally, they need the issues of rights breaches to be addressed, more effective scrutiny and so on, but what does that look like?

My fear is that, if the committee produces a report saying that what is actually needed is for Parliament to get much better at its job and that then sets out all the ways in which we can do that, our colleagues might or might not agree with that but, even if they did, that feels a step removed to me. If I have a meeting with a third sector group that is really concerned about a vulnerable group’s rights being breached, and I say, “Don’t worry—the solution is that we are going to reform the parliamentary committee system,” that just feels like it is far too many steps removed and will not be persuasive.

Thank you.

Rosemary, you looked keen to come in on that.

Certainly—it is a useful example. Thank you.

I will pose my last question to Nicola Killean. You have already laid out what you and your office think would be useful changes to address the issue, but I will pose the question slightly differently. You will have a lot of contact with the groups that are pushing for, and sincerely believe that there is a need for, new discrete commissioners because of the overlap with your remit, as has been discussed. What would they need to see from Parliament specifically? It is a different question from the one about Government and existing commissioners. What would they need to see in the committee’s report to be satisfied that there is an alternative to new discrete commissioners?

I have a couple of quick questions. First, on process, you mentioned your understanding of protocol. The protocol for the initial publication and lodging of an FM is quite clear, but Liz Smith was right in the language that she used about the convention that has built up around that. My understanding is that, when it comes to the revision of FMs, we generally rely more on convention. Are you aware of or were you provided with an internal Scottish Government protocol on how to revise an FM and what Parliament would require from that, including timescales?

I realise that this will sound as though I am repeating the question. Police Scotland did not provide that revision to you directly. The first time that you saw it written down as a new set of figures was when we published the evidence that was provided to us.

You mentioned that split between the public and private sectors. I am interested in what you said about the fact that the report makes presumptions to mirror the OBR’s presumptions about all the necessary funds coming entirely from public spending. I would be keen to press you a bit on the logic behind that, particularly with regard to land use, land-use change and forestry—Lulu CF, to use your pronunciation of the acronym.

The Scottish Government has already started some quite significant pilot work in private financing around nature. There is a significant political debate to be had around that—I believe that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is having that upstairs right now—but I am interested in why your report makes the assumption, particularly in relation to land use and so on, that the work will be entirely publicly funded, given that a £2 billion pilot using private financing has already taken place, which shows that what is already happening in that regard is not small fry.