Chamber and committees

My next question was actually going to be about making the energy transition fair for everybody. As you say, we have not done that sort of thing well in the past, with the result that inequalities have widened and perpetuated in our economy and our society.

As well as the issue of macro-energy, if I can call it that—I mean the big stuff around renewables—we desperately need a focus on and investment in things such as retrofitting houses, because we cannot build new houses for all the people who are currently living in shoddy homes. Action in that regard is as urgent as action on renewables and so on, and must take place concurrently. How do you see the supply chain and people’s skill sets working in that regard?

That links to what you said about communities, because one of the things that came out strongly in the inquiry that the committee held on the just transition for the north-east and Moray is that communities do not trust that the things that you mention will happen. I think that that is because they do not see material benefits in their own lives—for example, they do not see their homes being retrofitted or local transport links improving so that they can get to local jobs that might be available. That direct translation of economic activity into people’s lives is utterly missing at the moment. How will all the work around the just transition and the green industrial strategy deliver in that regard?

I might follow up on a couple of those issues later.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned the strength and potential of Scotland’s wind energy economy. One of the concerns around that is whether we can connect up the necessary supply chains in Scotland. The business objectives and the pressures on businesses are important in that regard. However, you have not talked about how the economy supports communities and how we can ensure that the private investment that comes in to do the important and valuable work does not just suck the benefits out of local communities. How can we strike a balance in that regard? What is your role in that? How can the green industrial strategy ensure that we support vibrant local economies as well as maximising investment and generating the profits that we need in order to support public services?

Good morning. I am interested in talking about the green industrial strategy and the just transition, but first I have a question about Glasgow Prestwick Airport Ltd. When we visited the airport, we heard that some employees there are still not receiving the real living wage. Given that the business is owned by the Scottish Government, do you think that that is appropriate? What steps will you take to remedy the situation?

Can I ask one final question?

That is right. There need to be differences in what “accountability” even means. It is not possible for 129 MSPs to have the technical expertise that is necessary for some functions, but it is possible for 129 MSPs to understand what rights realisation outcomes look like. There would be very different routes and requirements for accountability in that different architecture.

There are a couple of different points in that. Overall, £18.2 million is not a large proportion of the overall budget. It is the expectation of members of the public for such bodies to deliver for them that is of interest to us, however. The resources enable commissioners to carry out their role, but it is the task that should be of primary interest. When there are disparities in resource—with £640,000 as the expected budget for the patient safety commissioner, I think David McGill said—what would that office be able to do in comparison with some of the similar mechanisms that might already exist within the NHS, with all the financial and institutional backing that it has? There are legitimate questions around those issues.

When these discussions started a couple of years ago, the corporate body did discuss how best to start such conversations. Would it be through mechanisms such as you outline, Mr Marra—letters to party leaders, for example? Would it be through direct approaches to committees or to members who are proposing commissioners or backing proposals for commissioners? Given the way in which our responsibilities are currently outlined, they are post-event. That is the politics of it. I think that we at the corporate body do a pretty good job of not engaging in those kinds of discussions.

I would make two points on that. First, at the corporate body, we have had conversations with the Scottish Human Rights Commission about the level of resourcing and the expected additional resources that the commission considers might be necessary should proposed legislation go through the Parliament.

As for what that would mean, we have received requests for additional resources, we have knocked some of them back and we have granted some of them—or granted them in part—depending on what has been going on. If there were a change in the structure and responsibilities of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, with a rapporteur or similar model, there would be a fairer expectation of redesigning how the commission’s resources are allocated. If some of those additional people—the rapporteurs—came with powers and additional functions, it would be safe to assume—

The corporate body recognises that there are different models. You mentioned the police and the prisons inspectorates, which might fulfil part of the role that some of the commissioners fulfil.

You asked about the difference that it would make to us. We do not have any role or responsibility in relation to the inspectorates that you have mentioned or bodies such as the Scottish National Investment Bank. Our role kicks in once an office-holder is identified and created. There are clearly other models where the Government has responsibility for the establishment of the body and retains that responsibility, and committees engage and scrutinise as they see fit.