Chamber and committees

Professor Ó Giollagáin, I want to go back to what you said previously, because I am seeking a bit of clarity on your position on the bill overall. It felt to me that, in essence, you were saying that, rather than the provisions in the bill, what is really required is significant additional resource to deal with the wider challenges that are faced by community speakers in particular.

I want to press you on that in the context that this committee has just completed an inquiry into supporting children with additional support needs in schools. Clearly, vast additional resources would do a lot of good in that regard, but, in completing our report, we recognised that such resources were unlikely to be provided. Scottish public finances are in a very difficult place, whether you blame that on inflation, the UK Government or the Scottish Government overcommitting on social security. Whatever you think the cause of that position is, it is really unlikely that significant additional resources in any area of public spending will be provided in the coming years.

I accept that additional resources would be transformational, but, if getting those resources is unlikely, is there a bill or set of legislative changes—not changes in the form of increases to resources—that would result in the kind of transformational change that is required?

That was useful. I have another question for the panel as a whole. You have touched quite a bit on the language standards and, to some extent, on education standards, but I would be interested in further comments on education standards in particular and the corresponding duties that those would place on public bodies—bearing in mind what has been said about the tension between whether the core challenge is around GME in particular or the wider societal challenges that the community faces.

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?