Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, October 31, 2024

Official Report 1154KB pdf

---

Scotland’s Commissioner Landscape

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15086, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on Scotland’s commissioner landscape. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

14:50  

In the absence of the convener, and as deputy convener, I am opening today’s debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee on our “Report on Scotland’s Commissioner Landscape: A Strategic Approach”. I commend the report to Parliament.

We launched the inquiry in December 2023, prompted by concerns that the landscape of Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-supported bodies could almost double in size by the end of the parliamentary session, with clear implications for the SPCB and the overall Scottish budget. The purpose of the inquiry was to establish the extent to which a more coherent and strategic approach to creating and developing SPCB-supported bodies is needed and, if so, how that might be achieved.

Although our inquiry did not extend to looking at the structure around Scottish Government commissions or commissioners, we recognise that our findings could be used to set the tone for its wider review of that public body landscape. We held seven evidence sessions, hearing from all seven existing office-holders, committee conveners, legal and public administration experts, advocacy and support groups, the SPCB and the Minister for Public Finance. We also held two insightful informal sessions, in which we explored the experiences of former commissioners and ombudsmen and former MSPs who had submitted proposals to create commissioners in previous sessions of Parliament. We thank all those who gave up their time to speak with us. Their evidence, along with research on United Kingdom and international models, including those in Wales and New Zealand, helped to shape our findings.

As our report shows, we have not taken a view on the merits—or otherwise—of individual SPCB-supported bodies. I reassure all members that taking such judgments was not within the remit of our inquiry, nor would we wish it to be. We found the current office-holders to be a dedicated group of people who are committed to serving Scotland in the public interest.

It is also important to be clear that our report does not seek to prevent other proposals to create commissioners from ever coming forward. We have concluded, however, that now is the time to establish a model in which current and future office-holders can operate effectively and coherently, and which is structured in a way that delivers the best outcomes and value for money for the people of Scotland.

Does that mean that the member believes that the commissioner in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill should be taken out and that we should have no commissioner in that bill?

That is not a position that the committee has taken, and it is not contained in the recommendations of the report. The recommendations of the report, which I will come on to, are quite clear. That was certainly not within the scope of the inquiry and what we considered.

We have concluded that now is the time to establish that model. I believe the inquiry to be a considered and comprehensive piece of work, in which we sought first to establish how the model is working in practice, including by considering the respective roles of the SPCB, the parliamentary committees and the Government. We then looked to understand what was driving the increased number of proposals to create new commissioners, and considered possible alternative models and the case for a review.

The evidence that we heard was compelling. It is absolutely clear that the current model is no longer fit for purpose. Without a clear and coherent framework underpinning how the overall landscape should operate, it has evolved in an ad hoc way, with individual proposals being agreed on a case-by-case basis. That has led to a disjointed landscape comprised of a collection of individual bodies with varying functions and powers.

There is strong evidence of overlap and duplication across the commissioner landscape, which we heard was currently being managed through collaboration and, in some cases, through a range of written agreements and memorandums of understanding. There is considerable concern, including from existing commissioners, that adding new bodies into the mix would increase that confusion and duplication that already exists. As summed up by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland,

“the proliferation of Commissioners offices will be a costly exercise and may not provide good value for money for taxpayers, especially if there are multiple bodies tasked with intervening on similar or identical matters.”

Current accountability, budget setting and scrutiny mechanisms were also found to be, at best, wanting. We heard from the SPCB that it faces challenges in dedicating adequate time and resource to provide comprehensive oversight and governance of supported bodies. We heard that the SPCB’s function in this respect has evolved in a haphazard manner and that the governance role sits uneasily alongside the SPCB’s other core purposes.

Conveners told us that parliamentary committees regularly experience capacity issues in scrutinising the effectiveness of post-holders against a backdrop of many other work programme commitments. Current post-holders told us that their experience of committee scrutiny varied, but all said that they would welcome more regular engagement with committees.

A significant number of witnesses also highlighted challenges in assessing aspects of commissioners’ performance, including whether they have made a difference, whether they are delivering on their core purpose and whether they provide value for money.

At the time that we published our report, six proposals for creating new commissioners were being considered, each of which could be defined as proposals for new advocacy or rights-based bodies. My colleague Liz Smith, in summing up, will speak more about the evidence that we received on the drivers for the increase in proposals to create that type of commissioner.

Does the member acknowledge that a range of different commissioners are being proposed? If he looked at the proposals for a future generations commissioner and a wellbeing and sustainable development commissioner, he would see that the consultations for both of those referred not just to advocacy but to a range of other roles, including scrutiny, accountability, best practice and guidance.

I ask members who are making an intervention to press their intervention buttons.

I can give you the time back for those interventions, Mr Marra.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

The committee would certainly recognise that a wide range of different commissioners with different purposes is being proposed. As I mentioned, my colleague Liz Smith, in summing up, will speak more about the evidence that we received on the drivers for the increase in proposals to create that specific type of commissioner. However, I recognise the point that Sarah Boyack makes.

I turn to our key recommendations. Based on the overwhelming evidence that we received, the committee strongly believes that now is the time to pause and take stock before any new bodies are added to what is an already complex and disjointed landscape. We are therefore asking Parliament to agree to a root-and-branch review, to be carried out by a dedicated committee of the Scottish Parliament, which would be similar to the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee that was set up in 2008.

The purpose of the review would be to design a clear strategic framework to underpin and to provide more coherence and structure to the landscape. The review would also ensure more effective accountability and scrutiny mechanisms and improve delivery of outcomes and value for money. Our inquiry and the committee’s report provide a good starting point for that work. The evidence that we have already gathered, along with the focused and short-term nature of the suggested ad hoc committee, would go some way to address any potential concerns that members might have about its impact on parliamentary resources and time.

We are also asking Parliament to agree that, while the review is under way, there should be a moratorium on creating any new SPCB-supported bodies or expanding the remits of existing bodies. We fully recognise that that would have an impact on those who would wish to propose, or have already proposed, new commissioners. Parliament should be assured that this is not the committee saying that there should never be new commissioners; rather, we are saying just not now. A more coherent structure would benefit the effective operation of all commissioners and support better outcomes.

We also set out recommendations on measures that can be put in place now to enhance the transparency, accountability and scrutiny of existing arrangements.

We thank the SPCB and the Scottish Government for their initial responses to our findings, and we look forward to working with committees in early course to better link financial and performance scrutiny. We are aware that other parties have submitted amendments to the committee’s motion. It is right that Parliament debates the merits of our report, its recommendations and options for a way forward. I look forward to hearing and considering those points today.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 7th Report, 2024 (Session 6), Scotland’s Commissioner Landscape: A Strategic Approach (SP Paper 642); agrees with the recommendation that a dedicated committee should be established to carry out a “root and branch” review, with the purpose of creating a clear strategic framework to underpin and provide more coherence and structure to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) supported body landscape, and further agrees that, while this review is undertaken, there should be a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies.

I call Ivan McKee to speak to and move amendment S6M-15086.3.

14:59  

I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for bringing this important issue to the chamber and for its excellent report on the commissioner landscape. I was delighted to take part in evidence sessions in front of the committee on the matter. It is important to recognise that the committee’s work on this issue is a key part of the wider public service reform agenda that I lead for the Government. I will talk more about that as I go through my remarks.

The Scottish Government very much welcomes the committee’s report and I am interested to hear views from across the chamber on its contents. I have responded to the report on behalf of the Government. However, I will set out the Government’s position on the key recommendations in the report and our approach to wider public sector reform.

The committee recommends

“a ‘root and branch’ review of the ... commissioner landscape”

and

“a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies”.

It plans to complete its work by June of next year.

The Scottish Government agrees that any new public body—whether that is a commissioner or a public body across the wider landscape—should be created only as a last resort, and we have introduced the ministerial control framework to robustly assess any Government proposals for a new public body. I will say more on that point later.

We therefore support the intention of the report and a drive to improve governance, accountability and efficiency across the parliamentary commissioner landscape, and we will engage in any review of the framework for commissioners and provide any information requested if that is the direction that Parliament agrees to.

I note that decisions on the establishment of any new SPCB-supported bodies are ultimately a matter for Parliament. The status and role of certain office-holders, such as regulatory or quasi-judicial bodies, make it inappropriate for Scottish ministers to have any involvement in their appointment or any arrangements for holding their offices to account.

In relation to bills that propose a future commissioner, the Scottish Government’s amendment uses the phrase “been introduced”. Is the Government’s definition of “been introduced” the same as that which appears in the standing orders in relation to the introduction of a new bill to Parliament by the Scottish Government or, indeed, by members?

I will come on to talk about that point, but we have identified that it is for Parliament and its committees to take a view, in the context of the discussion that we are having and the FPAC’s report, as to how they wish to proceed on bills that have already been introduced and are before Parliament. It is of course important to recognise that, with regard to procedure, the debate does not impact on the ability of any member to introduce a bill and take it through parliamentary process as appropriate.

Although we recognise the value of a review of SPCB-supported bodies, it is for Parliament to agree to create an ad hoc committee to conduct that review. Any decision on that point will obviously need to consider the practicalities and capacity of MSPs, some of whom are already serving on multiple committees and, of course, the role of the SPCB itself in such a review.

In regard to a moratorium, the Scottish Government is happy to support a moratorium by not introducing any proposals to establish new bodies or to expand the remit of existing ones while the review, which should be completed by June 2025, is under way. We recognise the need that the committee has identified to bring some structure into the commissioner landscape and to address the complexity that exists.

However, with a number of bills that were introduced to Parliament before the committee’s inquiry concluded, the scrutiny process is already well under way and proposals have been built on prior consultation. The First Minister and I recognise that it is now for the Parliament to intervene and take a decision on those bills, respecting the lead committees’ roles in scrutinising proposed legislation that is in their remit.

There are some recommendations in the report specifically for the Scottish Government to action, which I want to highlight today. The committee asks the Government to

“set out how it plans to use this report to ‘set the tone’ for the Scottish Government’s wider review of the public body landscape”.

As a responsible Government, especially in a challenging financial climate, we must ensure that the resources that we have work as hard as they can to improve outcomes and reduce inequality, now and in the future. Frankly put, any pound that we spend on back-office functions and creating or setting up new commissioners or public bodies is a pound that we cannot spend on front-line services and supporting the people who depend on us for those services.

We are already implementing a number of actions to support reform. I previously mentioned the ministerial control framework; we are also continually assessing and reviewing the public body landscape. Our message to public bodies is clear: we should not follow existing operational practices if public services can work more efficiently by adopting new arrangements, and we should not maintain the current public body landscape if we can secure savings and improved service delivery by rationalising public bodies.

Earlier this afternoon, I met chief executives of non-departmental public bodies and had a great discussion about those points. Over the summer, we collected from NDPBs and wider public bodies a significant amount of data on their operating costs, which we intend to publish in the near future.

The minister will note that the committee recommended that the ministerial control framework should be published. Is the Government willing to do that?

I can give you the time back, minister.

We have already sent the ministerial control framework to the committee, so it should be in receipt of it.

It is worth emphasising the point about the wider public body landscape. As I said, the Government is very interested in how we redirect resources from the back office to the front line. We have identified around £5 billion that is spent on supporting public bodies or Scottish Government or other commissioners and other aspects of the commissioner landscape. We are addressing how much of that cost we can drive through the savings programmes that we have in train so that we can refocus it on the front line. It is important that the debate is seen in that wider context.

The committee asked for the ministerial control framework, which, as I said, has been published. The framework was created to ensure that Government proposals for new public bodies are based on evidence and value for money, and are made only when required. I have shared the draft framework with the committee and welcome any input on it. As I explained, it is not a final version and will be subject to further review and amendment, not least taking on board input from the committee. We expect the framework to be finalised by the end of the year, when it will be published and sent to the committee.

I am also happy to agree that the assessment will be published for any proposal that is being taken forward and has been through the framework. The framework is for Government-led proposals and does not act as a control mechanism for other proposals. We would encourage the Parliament to use the principles of the framework or a similar framework to assess proposals for any new SPCB-supported bodies.

The committee also asked the Government to update it on when it will produce multiyear spending plans, which would allow all public bodies, including SPCB-supported bodies, to plan for the medium term. The Scottish Government is considering the timing of publishing medium-term spending plans, in line with the announcement by the United Kingdom Government that a full spending review will be published in spring 2025.

To conclude, the Scottish Government is committed to reforming the public sector landscape. We have introduced frameworks and reviews and we are driving a number of programmes, working closely with chief executives of public bodies. We are serious about taking forward the agenda and recognise the scope that exists to free up resources from the back office to focus on front-line services. The review of the commissioner landscape should be seen in that context.

I would very much welcome any work that the Finance and Public Administration Committee deems that it would like to take forward to look at the broader public sector landscape. I believe that the cost of commissioners is about £18 million and, as I indicated earlier, the cost of the wider public body landscape runs into many billions. We would therefore very much welcome any contribution that the committee may want to make in terms of focus and opportunity for reallocation of resources.

I am grateful to the committee and its members for lodging the motion for debate, and I look forward to hearing members’ contributions.

I move amendment S6M-15086.3, to leave out from “and further agrees” to end and insert:

“which should complete its work by June 2025, and further agrees that, while this review is undertaken, there should be a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies, while recognising that, for proposals within bills that have already been introduced, these are now for the Parliament to take a decision on, respecting the lead committees’ roles in scrutinising legislation within their remits.”

I call Maggie Chapman to speak on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

15:08  

I speak in the debate as a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

I begin by thanking the Finance and Public Administration Committee for undertaking its inquiry. I am grateful to have the opportunity to add the SPCB’s views to the debate and to give some background on the situation.

Colleagues will, I am sure, be aware that the role of the SPCB, as set out in the Scotland Act 1998, is to

“provide the Parliament, or ensure the Parliament is provided, with the property, staff and services required”

for its purposes.

In addition to those duties, the SPCB also has a statutory duty to support independent office-holders, including ensuring that they have appropriate governance structures, as well as providing their budgetary requirements.

In 2003, there were two office-holders—the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the Scottish Information Commissioner—and their running costs for 2003-04 amounted to £1.3 million. The SPCB now supports seven office-holders, it will shortly support an eighth office-holder, and it funds the devolved Scottish functions of the Electoral Commission. For 2024-25, the office-holders’ budgets, which form part of the SPCB’s overall budget, amount to £18.2 million, which is quite a significant increase.

Supporting office-holders has become very time consuming for the SPCB. In addition to providing and agreeing annual funding for the office-holders, the corporate body sets their terms and conditions of appointment, undertakes open recruitment exercises for a number of the office-holders, appoints acting office-holders and accountable officers, approves determinations for staff, advisers and so on, and comments on draft strategic plans.

To ensure that we undertake our role properly, we have put in place a number of governance arrangements. Those include putting in place an annual evaluation process that involves an independent assessor assessing the office-holders and preparing a report for us; issuing a suite of strategic engagement documents that support the efficient administration of the relationship between the office-holders and the corporate body; putting in place a written agreement with the Conveners Group that sets out our respective roles; and establishing a shared services agenda.

I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for taking an intervention. Can she confirm whether the SPCB has always been comfortable with some of the challenges, particularly in relation to management and internal concerns that have arisen in some of the commissioners’ offices? Does the SPCB feel that it is capable of dealing with those matters, or is that one of the challenges that we are looking at today?

I thank Martin Whitfield for that intervention. I do not know whether he is referring to operational challenges, but those are not within our remit. Our remit is to provide the budgetary requirements and the governance scaffolding for each office-holder.

With regard to challenges around those governance structures, as we see an increasing number of office-holder posts being enacted by this Parliament, we ask, as we did during the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s evidence session, whether we have the proper capacity to carry out that role absolutely effectively. We carry out that role as best we can, but there are questions of capacity involved.

As a result of the shared services initiative, four office-holders are now co-located at Bridgeside house in Edinburgh, and there will soon be a fifth office-holder located there, when the patient safety commissioner for Scotland is recruited. That has resulted in accommodation savings. In addition, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman provides back-office services to the other office-holders, including human resources and finance services.

The corporate body meets with the office-holders at least annually and officials in office-holder services meet with the office-holders and their staff much more regularly and frequently to share information and to ensure that there are no governance issues.

Over the past few years, particularly with the mention of proposals for up to an additional six new office-holders, the corporate body has raised concerns with Scottish ministers and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and we are therefore grateful to the committee for holding an inquiry into the office-holder landscape.

I should make it clear that the SPCB does not take a view on whether a new office-holder should be established; that is rightly for the Parliament to determine. However, we have a vested interest, given how that would impact on our workload, our overall budget and the workload of the official whose job it is to liaise with the office-holders.

In 2009, when the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee was established, the then SPCB brought forward a recommendation to merge the then six bodies into three bodies—a complaints and standards body, a human rights body and an information body. The proposal was about merging bodies with no loss of functions. However, instead of the six bodies each having its own back-office support, for example, there would have been a maximum of three back offices—and with the shared services agenda, there could have been even fewer. Two underlying principles drove those proposals: making access as simple as possible for the users of the services—in essence by providing a streamlined one-stop-shop approach—and achieving public services that provide the best value for money.

The then SPCB understood that it was a bold proposal and that not everyone would support it. However, the thinking behind the suggestion was that grouping bodies by synergies of their functions would lead to a more streamlined structure, provide greater opportunities to share services, especially if the bodies were co-located, and make it easier for the public to gain access to the office-holders through a single point of contact.

In addition, in proposing those three bodies, the then SPCB felt that its approach was consistent with the recommendations of the then Finance Committee, which had undertaken an inquiry into the accountability and governance of office-holders. It recommended that, in establishing new bodies, the first test should be that bodies with similar roles and responsibilities should be amalgamated wherever possible; that the potential to pool the resources of existing bodies, for example by sharing staff, should be considered wherever possible; and that unnecessary remit overlaps should be dealt with by removing responsibility from one of the bodies involved and adjusting budgets accordingly.

If the corporate body’s proposals had been pursued, it is unlikely that a number of the stand-alone office-holders that have since been proposed would be necessary, as there would have been an established body to which a specific cause could have been referred, which would have avoided the need to create a new position and the resulting additional governance structures and costs.

I turn to the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report. The corporate body very much welcomes its findings and recommendations. We support the aim of bringing more coherence and structure to the landscape, as well as greater accountability, better value for money and enhanced scrutiny of performance.

The committee recommended to the SPCB three improvements to the current system, and we have written to the committee to confirm that we will shortly look at ways of further promoting our shared services agenda and will explore ways of increasing transparency in our governance and oversight arrangements. In consultation with the Conveners Group, we will consider whether improvements can be made to the written agreement between the corporate body and the Conveners Group, which sets out a robust governance role for the SPCB and promotes effective scrutiny by committees of how the office-holders carry out their functions.

I welcome the debate, and the corporate body stands ready to contribute to any on-going work on the issue.

15:17  

On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I welcome the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report and offer my thanks to the committee for carrying out a robust inquiry into an important and evolving area. For transparency, I mention that I am now a member of that committee, but as I have attended only one meeting, it is too early to say that I have gone rogue or native.

The reason for my party welcoming the report is that it relates to two important considerations: value for money for the taxpayer and the effectiveness of public bodies. Perhaps the Parliament does not look enough at both those issues. As the committee notes, it is time to examine both, given the rapidly shifting sands in relation to the public purse and the shape and scale of the wide range of Scottish public bodies, including the supported bodies that we are looking at today.

Does Mr Hoy agree that the addition of scrutiny of public administration to the finance brief for the first time in this place has been very worth while and that, arguably, that has been evidenced by the report that is before us?

Absolutely. One of the things that Government does not do often enough is look at Government itself. Organisations in the corporate environment do that each and every year. It has been regrettable that the Scottish Government has been too busy governing the country to look at its own internal mechanisms and operational procedures. The same has been true of Governments down the ages.

The commissioner landscape inquiry has given the Parliament an opportunity to probe that issue. Twenty-five years into devolution, we should be reviewing many elements of the way in which the Parliament and the wider landscape outside it operate.

We welcome the moratorium on the creation of further SPCB-supported bodies, given that we stand on the doorstep of a possible proliferation of such bodies. I believe that that is a sensible move. It will be for Parliament to determine whether it fully accepts the committee’s recommendation that all such bodies should be subject to a moratorium or only those that are coming down the line.

Is it Craig Hoy’s understanding that “introduced” means the same as it does in standing orders? In other words, bills that the Government has introduced to Parliament and that are going through the structure of stages 1, 2 and 3 will not be subject to the moratorium, but bills, many of which are likely to be member’s bills, that are still at the consultation or drafting stages would be subject to the moratorium.

I heard what the minister said about that and Liz Smith will address that point on behalf of my party.

Regardless of the interpretation of either the amendments or the report and its recommendations, it would be prudent for any committee that is established by the Parliament to look at proposed bills and those that are under legislative consideration. We should set our face against ever saying that a body that has been legislated for or introduced can never be considered surplus to requirements at some future point.

The committee heard wide and varied evidence about the role, function and cost effectiveness of commissioners and supported bodies. It is vital that we continue examining those issues out of due regard for the public purse, and we should commit to doing so regularly.

The committee also heard repeated calls for sunset clauses to become commonplace when new public bodies come into being, not least to ensure that the landscape does not become cluttered or stale and that the effectiveness of commissioners and bodies is not blunted over time. Where commissioners, or any public bodies, have been, or are to be, formed with a principal role of advocating for a cause, rather than fulfilling some statutory function or requirement, it is vitally important that we continue to review them and, over time, to remove them as the causes that they champion progress to a point where there is satisfaction with whatever regulatory regime or support is provided through public policy.

Having a review now also gives Parliament an opportunity to look dispassionately at the proposed proliferation of commissioners and to ask whether, as Michael Marra said, there is a risk of overlap or duplication. Not only is that bad practice structurally but it is not in the interests of the taxpayers who fund those agencies and who are already looking at a cluttered public space in Scotland, even if they cannot necessarily name all the organisations that they are paying for.

There may not be many people watching, but, for those who are, it may be worth recapping the organisations that are already in place because of the system. We have the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, the Standards Commission for Scotland, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, and the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland. There are also commissioners for information and human rights, and the most recent is the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. I do not intend to go into each of those in detail, but, in general, my impression is that their functions go beyond simple advocacy.

Sarah Boyack referred to some of the proposed organisations and made the point that they, too, may have functions that go beyond simple advocacy. If we look at the list of those organisations, we will see that we are getting to the point where the fabric and role of organisations are changing. As well as the proposed patient safety commissioner, there is the victims and witnesses commissioner, the disability commissioner, the older people’s commissioner, the wellbeing and sustainable development commissioner, the future generations commissioner, and the learning disability, autism and neurodiversity commissioner.

Will the member accept an intervention?

I do not have time, unless I can get some time back.

You can get the time back, Mr Hoy.

Does the member agree that there could also be an issue with groups that are already stronger in society demanding a commissioner, whereas weaker groups with less of a voice would not get one?

The member takes me to my next point, which is that there are already strong channels through which organisations can communicate with the Scottish Parliament.

In 1999, I set up Holyrood magazine, in part to give the third sector and other stakeholders a voice and an entry point to engage with the Parliament, but we rapidly found out that Parliament had itself set up good mechanisms for that and that third sector groups and other organisations could engage with it.

Parliament continues taking engagement very seriously through consultations, the committee structure and cross-party groups, and by developing policies alongside and with those who have lived experience. There is also a plethora—on occasion, perhaps too many—of working groups, action plans and other forums.

After I launched Holyrood magazine 25 years ago, I went on to do something similar in London, Brussels, Asia and China, where the door is not open to external organisations. I worked through organisations such as the secretariat to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. In those places, third sector organisations struggle to get a foot in the door. Here, the door is open and all those organisations have a seat at the table. If we go down the route of using the structure of commissioners to give a platform to advocacy groups, we are duplicating an already vibrant and engaged civil society process in the Parliament.

Craig Hoy has made the point that all those third sector organisations and charities have an appropriate forum in which to raise their concerns. If that is the case, why did 31 charities and third sector organisations sign a statement calling for an older people’s commissioner? Why do 90 per cent of the people who took part in my consultation believe that that is the right way forward? The existing structures are failing, including for those organisations that he says have plenty of forums.

There is a difference between giving somebody a voice and the person who is listening to that voice responding to it.

When I was shadow minister for social care, I spoke to many organisations that were supportive of a national care service. The principle of a national care service was co-design. As time progressed, the Government had one idea of the national care service and the stakeholders had another, which is why the national care service is in such a dire position. Had there been a care commissioner, I do not think that their voice would have been any more powerful.

Many of those organisations are already funded in part by the Government, so if the Government—and, effectively, the taxpayer—funds a commissioner, there is a duplication of the spending of taxpayers’ money.

The fundamental point is that some of the commissioners have a statutory function and perform a function—for example, the Ethical Standards Commissioner or the Standards Commission. Looking down the list of new commissioners, I think that there is a significant chance of duplicating what civil society is already doing in Scotland.

I very much welcome the review and look forward to the debate. I hope that a committee will be formed and that it will come to the conclusion that it has to do two things. First, it has to make sure that Government and structures are effective in this country and, secondly, it has to make sure that we have due regard to the public purse.

I call Sarah Boyack to speak to and move amendment S6M-15086.2.

15:26  

I thank the committee for its report because this is an important debate for us to have. In the words of the report, it is important that we have an SPCB-supported body landscape that is “fit for the future”.

I very much welcome a review into the SPCB-supported bodies to make sure that Parliament money is being spent well. It is a question of good governance, and I hope that we can move towards that together as a Parliament.

Any review would have to have a timescale attached to it to avoid endless delays. The motion before us does not include a timescale, so I strongly welcome the fact that all three amendments highlight the need for a deadline for the report to be concluded by June 2025.

Although a review is necessary, we must not downplay the impact of existing commissioners. For example, Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights) prepared a briefing that highlighted the vital contribution that the children’s commissioner has delivered.

I also worry that the reference in the report to a moratorium on creating new SPCB-supported bodies is ambiguous and needs clarification. Therefore, I welcome the minister’s clarification that his amendment means that members who have secured the right to introduce a bill will be able to progress that bill as it is being drafted. That is important, because it leaves it up to the Parliament to make a decision on each of those bills.

In relation to the phrase,

“creating any new SPCB supported bodies”

it is important to clarify what constitutes the creation of a body. Would that follow the passage of a bill? Would what is proposed not necessarily preclude the three-stage legislative scrutiny process?

One or two issues need to be clarified in relation to the potential committee that has been suggested. The point has been made several times that we all know that the capacity of Parliament and its committees is stretched. More ministers means fewer back benchers. The Scottish Government’s staff is bigger than ever—there has been an increase from 6,000 to 9,000 staff. The Parliament has to scrutinise more topics as new responsibilities have been devolved, as well as delivering post-legislative scrutiny on the hundreds of bills that have been passed since 1999. Maggie Chapman’s points on the pressures that the SPCB faces were extremely well made.

The report recognises the need for the commissioners and why some roles are being suggested. In relation to the older people’s commissioner, I thought that the Independent Age briefing was really important; it highlighted that methods must be developed urgently to ensure that older people’s interests are understood and advanced within political decision-making processes.

Older people are really good at voting, and we have groups such as Age Scotland, so does Sarah Boyack not think that the older people’s sector is already well represented?

There is a question of representation and there is a question of scrutiny. It is not just about advocacy. There is a discussion to have when my colleague Colin Smyth moves forward with his member’s bill; that proposal needs to be discussed.

Members have agreed that proper scrutiny and parliamentary accountability are important, but we all know that committees are stretched beyond capacity. The approach that they have in Wales—an annual scrutiny process—makes a huge amount of sense.

As the report acknowledges, not all commissioners are the same.

Is it not incumbent on us all, as members of Parliament who are elected to represent our constituents, to scrutinise the work of the Government, whether those constituents are older people or children?

Absolutely. I would not go as far as Professor Alan Page, who suggested:

“is my MSP not my commissioner?”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 70.]

There is something about structural integrity, accountability and reporting back that, as individual members, we cannot do. I would love to scrutinise the national performance framework and question how it is implementing the sustainable development goals, but there is no way that I can do that as an individual member. There is a point about having collective responsibility and focus.

The report acknowledges that not all commissioners are the same, as a couple of other members have said. This week, we saw the importance of the Scottish Information Commissioner. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner made valuable comments in the report about timescales and changes relating to the purpose of commissioners that occur between when they are established and the years after. It is important that those issues are considered by such a committee as gets established.

Another point that has been made is that the term “commissioner” can mean different things to different people. However, stopping all commissioners would potentially be throwing the baby out with the bath water. We need proper consideration.

I want to give a sense of the discussions that I have been having in relation to my member’s bill, which recommends establishing a commissioner for sustainable development and wellbeing. The Scottish Government has also consulted on a future generations commissioner. The two consultation documents are incredibly similar, and there is a huge overlap. I had an excellent meeting with the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Employment and Investment, and we have agreed to engage constructively on my bill. They are very keen to see the draft that is currently being prepared by the non-Government bills unit. That does not mean that they will support my bill or, indeed, any of the details in it, but it was a constructive dialogue, and responses to the consultations that we have carried out were incredibly supportive.

Comments were made, by Craig Hoy in particular, about value for money. We have an ageing population and there are huge pressures on our national health service, and the recommendations of the Christie commission in 2011 have still to be implemented. There is also the need to tackle our climate crisis while creating jobs and investing in our communities. We need joined-up action, which we are simply not getting at the moment.

The recent academic report that was produced by the Carnegie UK Trust pointed out that the national performance framework is insufficient when it comes to ensuring that sustainability and wellbeing are at the heart of policy making.

Michael Marra’s points about advocacy are important, but I note that the term “commissioner” can cover very different roles in the areas of accountability and scrutiny. There is an issue about ensuring that successive Governments of any party meet legal targets and achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals across all policy areas. There is significant scrutiny in that area currently. The Carnegie report talked about the need for a “helicopter” approach, which is about not just individual committees but cross-committee and cross-ministerial reviews.

Reform of the commissioner landscape should include greater consideration of progress made in other countries. I hope that that will be included in the work of the proposed committee. The approach of the Welsh commissioner has shaped my thoughts on the drafting of my bill, on which the non-Government bills unit is currently working. I have considered the financial savings that were generated by establishing the Future Generations Commissioner in Wales, and the clarity and sense of direction that the Welsh Government has picked up since then.

Colin Smyth mentioned lobbying by organisations. Earlier this month, all members were issued with a letter from more than 130 organisations, which urged the First Minister to support my bill. Reform has been an issue since before 2021, so that conversation has been on-going.

I very much welcome the opportunity for a proper discussion on the commissioner landscape. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has highlighted the need for a coherent infrastructure, but we should be careful not to downplay or reduce the effective work of existing commissioners. More integrated working and support are important, but let us not forget the importance of those commissioners’ remits. The Scottish Parliament regularly struggles with long-term thinking. Commissioners potentially enable a bigger-picture approach to be taken to legislation, improve scrutiny and increase action on the important issues that our constituents have elected us to act on.

I move amendment S6M-15086.2, to, leave out from “; agrees with” to end and insert:

“, and notes the recommendation that a dedicated committee should be established to carry out a ‘root and branch’ review, to be concluded by June 2025, with the purpose of creating a clear strategic framework to underpin and provide more coherence and structure to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) supported body landscape.”

15:35  

This is one of the most important committee debates that I can remember in my time in the Parliament; it is certainly the most important committee debate in which I have participated. It asks us all to do something that is politically difficult but necessary, which underlines the need for us to do so by consensus. The principles that we are addressing are democratic accountability, upholding the rights of our constituents, providing effective governance, and achieving value for money. Those are all of fundamental importance to the Parliament and to the country at large.

The debate is also revealing some interesting facts about this institution, including failures in our institutional memory. The committee’s report highlights the work of the session 2 Finance Committee on developing criteria for SPCB-appointed bodies. Maggie Chapman’s speech on behalf of the corporate body cited previous work that both the SPCB and previous committees have undertaken, much of which I was not aware of until the committee started its inquiry, despite the fact that I have been a member of the Scottish Parliament for eight years.

There is clear evidence that the current system is not working. It has evolved in an ad hoc and inconsistent manner that cannot continue, let alone become more profound. Members of the public struggle to access what they cannot understand. What we have at present—and what we would have to an even greater extent if we do not take some kind of holistic action—is variation in the powers and functions of commissioners, with elements of duplication and overlap. Michael Marra said that various commissioners have bespoke agreements with each other to try to deal with that. However, the more bodies that are created, the more of a challenge that will become. As it is, from their casework, all members will be familiar with the experience of constituents being passed from pillar to post among various public bodies.

We also need to reckon with the fact that the system will get beyond the capacity of the Scottish corporate body to manage. It is not only a capacity issue, though; we need to face up to the fact that we now have so many proposals for new commissioners, because a whole range of groups across society feel a lack of attention and a lack of effective action on the part of the Government and the Parliament. They feel that the issues and matters that affect their lives are not being scrutinised effectively.

We also need to face up to the fact that, collectively, members probably do not sufficiently scrutinise the corporate body and provide it with the support that it sometimes needs. There are 129 members of this place.

Is the challenge not that, if we proceed today as we are likely to do, it could reinforce the view of people outside the Parliament that both the Parliament and the Scottish Government lack care about them?

I will address that point in more detail later on. A challenge certainly lies in the fact that we sometimes have to do what is difficult but what we collectively understand is necessary. If we do not take a holistic approach to the issue, and address each proposal in turn, the situation will be infinitely more difficult, because someone will have to put their head above the parapet and say, “That group of people there, who have serious challenges in their lives, do not deserve the advocacy of a commissioner.” That is why we need to take a holistic approach.

Does the member accept that, even if the committee reports by next summer, there will be no structural changes within this session of Parliament, and that any changes that come forward will be legislated for in the next session, meaning that we will see no progress with regard to the issue for the next 14 to 15 months, minimum?

I do not accept that point, because not all the necessary changes would require primary legislation. The committee sets out a number of recommendations to the SPCB, Parliament as a whole and the Scottish Government that do not require primary legislation.

There is a wider point here. There are 129 members of this Parliament. There were also 129 in 1999, but we have far more power and responsibility than we did then. That points to the need for a wider debate on parliamentary reform. I note that Murdo Fraser published a paper marking the 25th anniversary of this place, which contained a range of proposals on reform, including consideration of the number of MSPs, and the Presiding Officer also made comments about that at events surrounding the 25th anniversary. I suggest that, if we had stronger local government in Scotland, less of a burden would fall on this place.

A range of proposals from elsewhere can be considered. In Sweden, for example, when someone is appointed to the Government, they are no longer a member of Parliament and a substitute member is appointed to Parliament in their place to ensure that Parliament is of sufficient size to scrutinise the Government. That is not compatible with the electoral system that we have, but it is an example of the range of proposals that we should start considering in that regard, because there are democratic implications of outsourcing scrutiny.

Let us be honest: Parliament is not effectively scrutinising the commissioners, not even those who are in Parliament regularly and are effectively advocating for those whom they represent. We often find ourselves in a position in which we cannot scrutinise their functions, even though they are in Parliament regularly enough to discuss other issues.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am going to have to make progress at this point.

We need to ask whether commissioners improve outcomes. I do not want to get drawn into debates on any specific proposals today, but I encourage those members who are bringing forward proposals to seriously consider that, because it was a consistent theme of the evidence that the committee received.

I do not believe that there are people out there whose ultimate desire is to have a commissioner represent them. There are people whose ultimate desire, quite rightly, is to have their rights upheld and to have a better experience, in particular in engaging with public services. Therefore, we should ask why we are facing a sudden growth in the number of proposals for new commissioners. Personally, I think that it is because of the financial reality of recent years. Of course, people will not be getting what they need from public services if those services are not sufficiently resourced. The creation of new commissioners does not resolve that issue, and I point to the minister’s view, which is noted in the committee’s report, that every pound spent on a commissioner is a pound that is not spent on the delivery of front-line services. That is particularly relevant in relation to some of the advocacy commissioner proposals. We heard compelling evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission about the need to expand its remit. Perhaps that would be an alternative option to the creation of a number of new discrete commissioner roles.

Maggie Chapman mentioned previous SPCB proposals to reduce the number of commissioners to three. The landscape has moved on from a point at which that would be easy to implement, but there are elements of that that should be resurrected. For example, why do we have two different commissions dealing with standards in public life? Surely just one would suffice in that particular area.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee is ultimately asking Parliament to trust us. We collected the evidence. We heard from a range of stakeholders: those who want to see new commissioners in their area of work; those who previously supported those proposals and do not now; and those who want to see reform of the existing landscape. We gathered that evidence and then came to unanimous conclusions that point a way forward that I believe is in the best interests of Parliament and the country as a whole. I hope that, at the end of the day, Parliament can unite around those conclusions and that we can resolve this difficult issue rather than leave it for those who come after us.

15:43  

Each year, as we approach the budget, the FPAC—that is what I will shorten it to—hears the same refrain, which is broadly summarised as, “We’re great and we deserve more money.” Each successive group of witnesses says the same, and each successive group does not necessarily consider the bigger picture. The strategic landscape—I use that term deliberately to ensure that we in this Parliament take a long-range view in relation to commissioners—seems to have been going the same way. I can imagine a multitude of areas in which, if we consulted people and asked them whether they would like a commissioner to deal with their area of interest, they would say that they would like one.

However, as an existing postholder said:

“As commissioners, we see regular frequent flyers ... looking for an angle in on their particular issue, and sometimes the more angles you have, the more risk there is and the more inefficiency there is in a system.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 16-17.]

I hope, and suspect we all agree, that public service reform is long overdue; that efficiency, effectiveness and coherence must be at the heart of our public spend; and that the processes in this place are still evolving.

I was pleasantly surprised, on receiving the usual briefings ahead of the debate, to find that they, too, were supportive of the position adopted by our committee. That provides a welcoming backdrop to today’s debate.

I plan to pull out a few points to add to the contributions from members so far, which I have found heartening. First, it is worth reiterating the strong cross-party agreement in committee for a moratorium on the creation of any new commissioners. We should bear it in mind that the Finance and Public Administration Committee is, of course, a cross-party committee, as is standard, and we have robust exchanges on a regular basis. The strength of feeling within the committee was heartening.

Secondly, on democratic accountability, of the various types of commissioners that are listed—investigatory, regulatory, complaints handling, specialist oversight and advocacy—we know that the new ones that are being proposed are mostly advocates. I agree with that, but what are we here to do, as MSPs, if not to advocate? That point was succinctly made by Jackson Carlaw:

“When it comes to advocacy, that is what MSPs were elected to do.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 28 May 2024; c 2.]

My third point concerns parliamentary accountability. Professor Alan Page noted that the bodies concerned

“are not really accountable to anybody”.

That is a strong view, but I would certainly agree that their accountability is uncertain. On scrutiny, or the lack of, we heard from the Law Society of Scotland, which noted that committee scrutiny

“can sometimes seem a little perfunctory.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 54, 56.]

That may well win an understatement of the year award, given the large workload of all our committees.

Fourthly, on cost, the estimated cost for 2024-25 is certainly above £15 million, and is heading towards £16 million, I think. We do not have all the costs for any of the new commissioners, but it would certainly be many millions of pounds, which is on top of an already stretched budget. Ironically enough, the Finance Committee of 2006 got a lot right with its tests for the creation for future bodies, namely clarity of remit, distinction between functions, complementarity, simplicity and accessibility, shared services and accountability. Our committee reiterates some of those tests in our recommendations—and rightly so.

Fifthly, perhaps the most interesting area where consolidation may be considered is that of rights. The SHRC makes a number of comments in its briefing, principally that creating new commissions or commissioners could create significant challenges for the protection of human rights. It notes that that makes matters more complex for accessing justice and dilutes human rights—it also makes various other points. What struck me was the SHRC’s view that silos could be an issue regarding the protection of rights. I make no apology for noting that that was an issue with the Parliament’s consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Balancing rights is messy and complex, but it is entirely necessary. I thought that that point came through strongly.

I will make a final few comments on the dedicated committee that is proposed. Of course it will be a cross-party committee, and rightly so, but can the minister confirm that a bit of attention will be given to the skills of the members gathered on it? If we are going to do what is an important piece of work, we want to give ourselves the best potential outcomes by getting the right people on that committee.

On the point about skills, one thing that slightly concerns me is how MSPs robustly scrutinise commissioners. Is there something in and around supporting MSPs, given their very important role in scrutinising commissioners, as has been reflected on today?

That is an interesting point. We can all concede that we have been on committees where the quality of the scrutiny is variable. It can be influenced by the quality of the briefings that members are given. I have seen examples, both during my time in Westminster and here, of the offer of courses for new members or refresher courses on how to carry out scrutiny and how to get to the jugular.

I know that the member is interested in biometrics, and another area that we also need to consider is specialist academic knowledge, which is very important, given that we tend to be generalists in here.

Lastly, a cross-committee approach can be a very good thing, and in general, the Parliament could benefit from more of that type of working. When we focus on this type of subject, we are all learning from each other, given the nature of the debate.

That concludes my comments, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

15:50  

I open my remarks with a statement that might surprise a number of my colleagues in the chamber. I welcome today’s debate, and I welcome the report to which it is responding. Even though I am currently advocating for the establishment of a disability commissioner, and the report is being used by some to justify opposition to that, I still welcome the Parliament reviewing its practice. I even concede that there probably is a need to look at the use of commissioners, and a full inquiry would be useful to see whether it is in fact the most efficient model by which to help voiceless groups.

However, my key point today is that, regardless of whether one thinks that commissioners are worth the money, they are currently the tool of choice for the Parliament and will continue to be such until a replacement is established, and—to be frank—disabled people cannot wait that long. We need a solution now; the situation is not getting better. By every metric, disabled people are being left further behind by the day, and every day they look to the Parliament to see it doing absolutely nothing to address that fact.

In the past two months, two bills that would have helped disabled people have been withdrawn. Other members have said that MSPs should be advocating for those bills, but I am afraid that most of my colleagues have been absolutely silent.

Would the member agree with the point that Ross Greer made earlier that the problem is really a lack of money? There is a desire in the Parliament to help disabled people, but it is not a commissioner that is missing—it is money.

Clearly more money is required, but it is also about having a voice for disabled people. The Government has withdrawn two bills, and there has been almost no coverage of that in the national press. Glasgow Disability Alliance and Inclusion Scotland have ridiculed the Government’s plan for disability, and yet that has hardly been picked up at all in the mainstream press. Disabled people are not being heard—not only that, but they are now being told that, while other groups enjoy a voice through a commissioner, they are being denied the same.

We do not know how long a broad commissioner review will take. I am afraid I do not agree with Mr Greer, as I do not think that any substantial changes will happen in the current session of Parliament. As I have said over and over, disabled people cannot afford to wait and it is discriminatory to expect them to do so. I can think of no other marginalised group that would be expected to put up with this situation.

In saying no to a disability commissioner, not only are we closing the door on the possibility that the Parliament will pass meaningful legislation to benefit disabled people this side of the election, but we are forcing them to remain voiceless for the foreseeable future.

Once again, I am not saying that commissioners are necessarily the best value for money, but I recognise that they are the current method by which we give a voice and a champion to communities and groups who cannot muster their own.

I find myself agreeing with so much of what Mr Balfour is saying. However, the challenge is that every argument that he has just put forward for why disabled people need a commissioner could be put forward not only for older people and for every other group who currently have a proposal in front of us, but for six, 12 or 20 other groups in society that do not currently get what they deserve from the public sector.

Surely we all recognise that we cannot continue with the unlimited growth of this particular model. Does the member recognise that something needs to give, and that Parliament eventually needs to take a consistent, holistic approach to the matter, as the committee has tried to recommend?

I absolutely accept that point. However, my point is that we must allow disabled people to be at the table to have that conversation, rather than not even allowing them into the room.

Until we have a clear view of what the alternative will look like, we must not cut off this lifeline for disabled people. I assume that the current commissioners will not cease operations until the review is complete—of course they will not, because we understand that that would leave a number of vulnerable groups without a voice and it would leave a gap. What of the fate of the commissioner who is expected to be created by the Parliament passing the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in short order? Will that commissioner be accepted? If so, I would love someone to stand up and tell me exactly why they believe that disabled people do not deserve a commissioner while victims and witnesses do.

Disabled people cannot be forced to wait any longer. We cannot allow the report and the on-going review to continue to rob them of their rights. If the inquiry finds a viable alternative, I will welcome it and work to see disabled people have a seat at whatever table that will involve. Until then, however, we need action now. We do not need to hear that the solution is just around the corner or that we should wait just a bit longer. We are not asking for a lot here. In the grand scheme of the budget, we are asking for a drop in the ocean.

The creation of a commissioner is the least that we can do for disabled people. The alternative is to finish the current five-year session of Parliament without producing any meaningful legislation on disability. I do not think that that is acceptable, and I do not think that Parliament should, either. I will support the motion because I believe that the review process is important, but I implore my colleagues not to use it as yet another excuse for robbing disabled people of a voice.

15:56  

I commend the Finance and Public Administration Committee for producing its detailed report on the commissioner landscape, which drills into a range of issues and makes timely recommendations. As the committee’s motion states, it calls for

“a ‘root and branch’ review”

and the establishment of

“a clear strategic framework to underpin ... the ... landscape”.

In my short speech, I will first reflect on some of the points that are outlined in the report by referring to the evidence that has been taken on a proposal for a new commissioner, and secondly draw on the evidence that has been given by an existing commissioner.

I was particularly interested in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s consideration of how commissioners fit within existing democratic accountability structures, which has been referenced in this debate. That is particularly relevant given the increase in the number of new commissioners who are being proposed. They include a victims commissioner, as we have heard. I was pleased to give evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny of that proposal and the challenges that were faced by that committee, which I convene, in making sense of the evidence and reaching agreement on recommendations.

At the time of the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny, members were unaware of the existence of the ministerial control framework, which might have been of assistance to members. I am still slightly unclear on how the published framework should be applied, especially at the committee stage of scrutiny of a proposal for a new commissioner. I note for the record that my comments today reflect a personal viewpoint.

The proposal for a victims commissioner arises from a perceived need for an independent voice to put victims at the heart of the justice system. Support for the proposal varied. There was a strong sense that, for victims, the status quo is not acceptable and that a commissioner would play an important role in changing that. It was no surprise that cost was raised as an issue, with the suggestion that the funding that would be required could be put to better use. A witness stated that they would rather fund legal representation for survivors than a commissioner.

There was an expectation, and perhaps some confusion, among some witnesses that the commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That is not the case, but the proposal highlighted the need for clarity on the individual roles and responsibilities of commissioners. Would a commissioner interfere with the ability of experienced third sector organisations to engage directly with the Scottish Government and other justice bodies, where strong relationships already exist? Scotland is considered to be leading in that regard. Similarly, would there be a synergy between a commissioner for victims and the likes of His Majesty’s inspectorates for policing and prosecutions, or the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner?

The issue of overlap was also raised—it has already been spoken about in the debate—for example, in relation to the existing role of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in representing the rights of children as victims. I hope that it is of some interest to Jeremy Balfour that, on the basis of the evidence heard, the Criminal Justice Committee remains to be convinced of a strong case for a victims commissioner. It recommended that, if a commissioner post is established, it should be for a time-limited period to allow for an assessment of the value of the role.

I also note the minister’s response to Martin Whitfield’s intervention seeking clarity on the status of commissioners’ posts that are currently the subject of live scrutiny, which was very helpful.

By contrast, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, whose role is scrutinised by the Criminal Justice Committee, fulfils a fairly clear function of supporting lawful practices relating to biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA. I note the excellent evidence of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow, who described the model of commissioners in Scotland as having “evolved organically” over time—in his case, following controversies over what was described at the time as a “biometric wild west”. He stressed the importance of commissioners’ independence, sharing services to ensure best value and avoiding scrutiny purely through the lens of cost, which are points that have all been referenced this afternoon. I do not disagree with Dr Plastow's view that the scrutiny role of the SPCB, Parliament and committees is a bit of a mixed picture at the moment, with scope for it, especially the role of committees, to be far more proactive.

I was particularly interested to note Dr Plastow’s evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee regarding post-implementation review. He said:

“Often, these posts arise because of a particular wicked issue—a controversy ... but, 20 years down the line, that might no longer be relevant, so I think that there needs to be a more systematic look at how this entire landscape fits together.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 17.]

I note the committee’s consideration of the merits of a sunset clause in enabling legislation.

My final point relates to the need to ensure that elected members fully understand their role in scrutinising the role and function of commissioners and holding them to account—a point on which I intervened on my colleague Michelle Thomson—in particular when a commissioner’s role is specialist or technical.

I commend the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its work, and I very much look forward to following the progress of the review, should it be agreed to today.

16:03  

Presiding Officer, I apologise for missing the first few seconds of the opening speech.

Given all the substantial issues that face our public finances, I have to confess that I was surprised at the priority that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has given this issue, and I was even more surprised that it should propose a motion that, in my view, goes way beyond the committee’s remit.

As members know, there are proposals for commissioners from Government and individual members—including one from me for an older people’s commissioner—that have received support, are being developed and, in some cases, are before committees. However, the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s motion seeks to undermine the work of those committees, and I believe that, in doing so, it undermines the Parliament.

The Government and any member have the right to introduce legislation that is within the power of the Parliament at any time, and they have the right to have that legislation considered on its merits by our agreed processes. No committee—nor this chamber—should seek to veto that democratic right.

The member mentioned the processes. Would he accept that the processes are not working at the moment and that something is out of control?

I am not aware of any proposal from the Finance and Public Administration Committee that says that the way in which we determine legislation in the Parliament is not working. That is my point. However, the committee is seeking to undermine those agreed processes whereby a member can introduce a bill and have it scrutinised by Parliament, with a decision being made. A moratorium takes that right away from members.

I also have to say that the Government amendment is not clear, as it appears to propose a moratorium on creating new commissioners but not the ones that are in published bills. It seems that the concerns about the lack of a strategic framework are not concerns if the commissioners are already proposed in a Government bill.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will take an intervention on that point in the hope that we get some clarity.

The Government supports a moratorium. It also recognises that, when bills are proceeding through Parliament, it is rightly for Parliament and its committees to make a decision on how those proceed.

The Government amendment does say that, in those circumstances, we should respect

“the lead committees’ roles in scrutinising legislation within their remits.”

The problem is that the Government seems to be suggesting that the same respect should not be given to the right of a member who has a proposal for a bill, has consulted on that proposal and has received cross-party support for it but whose bill is in the process of being finalised and is not yet published. The same right should apply for those proposals and not just the proposals that have already been introduced in bills. The Government’s amendment seems to be suggesting one rule for bills that are already published and another rule for bills that might be published in the next few weeks. I believe that that is wrong.

In the case of my proposed bill, the consultation that took place had more than 1,000 people give their view. That is in contrast to the very small number of people that the Finance and Public Administration Committee consulted for its report.

There are serious questions to be asked about the practical implications of both the committee’s motion, which does not even include a timescale for its proposed moratorium, and the Government’s amendment.

The decision by members of the finance committee to bring forward the proposal for a moratorium and the Government’s response in its amendment are in danger, in my view, of overshadowing some valid points in the committee’s report. Those include the need for an overarching framework, which I support, and the need to tackle concerns about the budget pressures on the SPCB. The finance committee rightly acknowledges its failure, and the failure of other committees in Parliament, to properly scrutinise the role of SPCB bodies. However, we do not need a selective moratorium to agree to take action, and we do not need a moratorium to agree that committees should review their work plans and processes to put in place sessions for the appropriate scrutiny of commissioners.

I pose to Mr Smyth the same question that I posed to Mr Balfour, because I have sympathy with the position that he is in. A compelling case can be made for the need for older people to have a commissioner, but does he recognise that the same case could be made for dozens of other groups in society? I presume that he would not want us to be in a situation in which there are almost as many commissioners as there are MSPs. Therefore, a holistic approach needs to be taken, rather than Parliament being put in the position of deciding on a group-by-group basis who does and does not deserve advocacy.

I am not going to have the debate on an older people’s commissioner today, because, sadly, we do not have time. However, I believe that members have the right to scrutinise any proposal on its own merits to determine why there might be an argument for one commissioner but not an argument for another. What we appear to have here is the finance committee saying that there should be a moratorium on having that debate altogether.

I also think that we should accept that the failure of scrutiny goes way beyond the very small number of SPCB bodies. It also includes, for example, the way in which we scrutinise the growing number of quangos, which have budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds that go far in excess of the budgets of commissioners. As I read last week, The Scotsman exposed the fact that quangos spend £120 million on public affairs bodies alone. That is about 10 times the budget of any commissioners.

I do not know when the member came into the chamber this afternoon, but if he was here for my remarks, he would have heard me very clearly say that the £18 million that we spend on commissioners is a very small part of the bigger picture and that the Government is absolutely focused on the wider public body landscape; we spend around £5 billion on back offices across wider public bodies and the Scottish Government. He can rest assured on that point and, indeed, I encourage the committee to take up a piece of work in that regard.

I would certainly encourage that, too. It comes back to my original point about why there is a focus on the relatively small budget of commissioners but no effective scrutiny of the far wider budget of our quangos. That is a piece of work that I would support and it would certainly show that the finance committee is serious about scrutinising huge sums of public sector spending.

The committee also argues that the advocacy role of commissioners is for MSPs to carry out. Of course, advocacy is our job, but I would be the first to say that Parliament has not fulfilled that role effectively when it comes to older people. For example, there was not a single mention of older people in the most recent programme for government.

There is a very real difference, however, between the role of an MSP and the impartial advice of an expert commissioner that helps to enhance and inform our advocacy role as MSPs. Even a cursory glance at the extensive work of the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland, and at my proposal for a commissioner for older people in Scotland, shows that their role goes way beyond advocacy. In response to the views of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, I say that the role also goes way beyond the human rights factor.

My proposed older people’s commissioner would have a key role in challenging age discrimination; the power to conduct investigations into how service providers take account of the rights and interests of older people in the decisions that they take; and a clear role to provide advice on policy making across Government as it considers the long-term needs of our ageing population, which is crucial—the growing ageing population alone makes the case for an older people’s commissioner.

Crucially, an older people’s commissioner would be independent, free of party or Government bias. They would not come and go with the election cycle but would be a permanent independent force, championing the rights of older people, of course, but also working on improving the lives of older people and protecting their rights daily.

That independence is one of the reasons why more than 90 per cent of organisations and individuals who took part in my consultation on an older people’s commissioner backed my proposal and why independent polling shows that not only do 90 per cent of people over 65 support an older people’s commissioner, so, too, do more than 70 per cent of people of all ages.

I have been generous, Mr Smyth, but please bring your remarks to a close.

That polling also shows significant concerns that we are not dealing regularly with the issues of older people.

At the time of Covid, when all the big decisions were being made, I kept asking myself who, independent of Government, was championing the human rights of older people. The answer was, “No one.”

Some members might disagree with my proposal for a bill—

You really need to conclude, Mr Smyth.

I hope that the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s motion does not pass today, as it will undermine the right to, at the very least, have the debate on commissioners in the months ahead.

16:12  

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee members and clerks for producing their report and carrying out this important inquiry, and I acknowledge all the witnesses who provided evidence.

I remind members that I was a member of the selection panel for the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner and that I am currently a member of the selection panel for the patient safety commissioner.

I have discussed Scotland’s commissioner landscape on numerous occasions recently with both members of the public and my office team. There are clearly many benefits to commissioners, but I agree with the committee that the landscape has become cluttered in recent years.

One of the issues that was raised with me recently is the overlap in the roles of commissioners, which Ross Greer highlighted, naming individual groups. One of the questions that was posed to me was, “Which commissioner would be right for an elderly neurodiverse person with a disability who was the victim of a crime?” How to represent and support all the different people who, rightly, need to be supported is a challenge.

Where does a disabled person go now?

I did not catch that, sorry.

Let me clarify. You have given an example and said that there are different options. At the moment, where does a disabled person go to get their voice heard in that crowded landscape?

Always speak through the chair.

In our scrutiny of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, representatives of disabled groups have come directly to us to provide evidence, which we then scrutinise. There is also the Scottish Human Rights Commission, as well as the person’s own MSPs. There are already routes in place to help lots of different groups—I am not just speaking about persons with a disability.

The remits of the commissioners overlap—indeed, “overlap” is mentioned 17 times in the committee’s report. Therefore, I welcome that the Government, in principle, agrees with the committee that there should be a moratorium on the creation of new commissioners until a root and branch review of the commissioner landscape is undertaken.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I am conscious that Mr Hoy wants to make an intervention. Let me finish my point, and then I will let you in.

A root and branch review needs to be done, as colleagues have said in their contributions.

Members should always speak through the chair.

Is Jeremy Balfour’s question difficult to answer because there is a lack of clarity about the function of commissioners? If the issue was about upholding rights, surely it would fall to the Scottish Human Rights Commission, but, in relation to the advocacy function, we are saying that we are not convinced that commissioners are there to be advocates, per se, because civil society groups do that. Should we therefore not look at the function of commissioners before we start thinking about who should go to them and for what?

It is reasonable to suggest that various commissioners have an advocacy role but that members of the public do not have a clear understanding of that. There should be a review so that there is more clarity on the role of each commissioner, including whether they have an advocacy role.

As I mentioned, the duplication of the functions and duties of commissioners in Scotland has been a concern. There is potential for the overlap and duplication of functions among different commissioners and across other organisations in Scotland, particularly as the number of commissioners is proposed to grow. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the complexity of the current landscape and the cost to the public purse of the commissioners’ appointments, along with their offices, their support staff and other associated administrative costs. With new bodies potentially adding to that complexity, some argue for a broader approach that prioritises human rights and equality for all, rather than creating multiple commissioners for specific groups.

One of the areas of concern that I have discussed with constituents and others is the potential democratic deficit that can be caused by the use of commissioners. Paragraph 142 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report discusses democratic accountability concerns. Some argue that the commissioner system outsources Government decisions and policy direction away from ministers, who are democratically accountable through elections. The committee’s report broadly agreed with those points. It found that there is a need to is ensure that commissioners deliver value for money and effectively address the needs of the population, including by addressing the potential risks associated with duplication and working towards enhancing the efficiency of commissioners. It is welcome that the Scottish Government has accepted that point and will reflect on it as we move forward.

My final point relates to the financial aspect of commissioners. We are in challenging budgetary times, with the UK budget announced yesterday. As the committee’s report helpfully points out, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body supports these independent office-holders and sets the terms and conditions of their appointment and annual budget. I will not repeat the figures, but I welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the intention of the committee’s report in driving to improve governance, accountability and efficiency across the parliamentary commissioner landscape. The Scottish Government has already adopted the position that any new public body should be created only as a last resort, and the Cabinet has approved the use of the ministerial control framework.

16:18  

As others have said, the Finance and Public Administration Committee has spent quite a lot of time on this subject since Jackson Carlaw and others on the corporate body first raised it with us at budget time. The topic is linked to the wider question of public sector reform. Scotland is a relatively small country, and we should be able to operate with a simpler system and have fewer public bodies than larger European countries such as France or Germany, or England in the UK. However, there tends to be a feeling—I see it across the parties—that, if England, Wales or Northern Ireland has a commissioner for a particular subject, we need to have one, too. We need to break away from that way of thinking and be more prepared to do things in our own way to suit Scotland and our population size.

As others have said, it has become the tendency in recent times that, when a problem is highlighted—for example, the needs of autistic or disabled people not being met—we create a commissioner to show that we are doing something. That certainly sounds like a nice and supportive thing to do, and who would be hard-hearted enough to oppose a commissioner for children, animals or those who are terminally ill? However, a commissioner might not always be the best answer to those real issues. Perhaps the problem is a lack of money or something else. If the problem is a lack of money, having a commissioner could make things worse by diverting resources away from front-line services or away from another sector that does not have a commissioner.

The committee did not want to take a view on individual supported bodies, but I would like to provide an example in suggesting that older people do not need a commissioner. I guess that I am taking a risk by using that example, but I am part of that sector of society, given that I am 67. I am also not going to stand for election again.

Older people already have very active advocacy groups in the form of, for example, Age Scotland, Independent Age and the Scottish Older People’s Assembly, not to mention groups that have a strong focus on older people, such as Alzheimer Scotland, the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association and Generations Working Together. I have a very high opinion of Age Scotland, which is a strong, well-financed organisation that often gives professional evidence to parliamentary committees, including to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the budget.

Therefore, why would older people need another advocate when they already have several very good ones? Older people are usually the most committed to voting in elections, so their voice is clearly heard, which means that most political parties prioritise older people. For example, the triple lock on pensions meant that, in April, state pensions increased by £900 a year.

I fully accept that there is pensioner poverty, and we need to address that—for example, by keeping the winter fuel payment and reorganising pension credit in order that pensioners do not miss out on that. However, the problem is not the lack of a commissioner. The main problem is the lack of money.

I am sure that older people who noticed that there was not a single mention of older people in the programme for government will be surprised that they are such a high priority for the Government. Why would all the organisations that John Mason listed support the creation of an older person’s commissioner if they already have plenty of advocacy ability?

Those organisations support the creation of a commissioner because everyone wants their sector to have a stronger voice. Everybody wants a commissioner for everything. We have mentioned about 12 so far, but where would we stop? Will we stop at 20 or 40 or 60 or 100? There will be no limit unless we put a system in place.

It was particularly interesting for the committee to hear from two former MSPs who had proposed new commissioners when they were in the Parliament but have since changed their minds and concluded that that would not have been the best option.

We have had a piecemeal approach to increasing the number of commissioners, so what should be the way forward? There is a variety of views. I would probably favour expanding the role of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and perhaps one or two other commissioner bodies, as the SPCB previously proposed. That would require new legislation, and I accept that that would also be a major change for the SHRC. However, that would give the SHRC greater powers and flexibility, including, potentially, to focus on one subject for a few years before switching emphasis to another matter.

Assuming that we continue to have some or more commissioners, we will need to be clearer about the involvement that we want committees to have. The committee heard from some commissioners—specifically, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner—that they are seldom asked to appear before a committee. That is probably because the relevant committee is pressed for time, and it is unrealistic to expect the corporate body to oversee more and more commissioners.

Professor Alan Page described how the bodies are established. However, he said:

“but they then occupy a certain no man’s land ... where they are not really accountable to anybody”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 54.]

The importance of independence is often stressed, and I agree with that, but there are different ways of achieving independence. For example, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland are accountable to the Government but it is widely accepted that they operate independently. Therefore, a commissioner does not need to have a whole organisation of its own in order to be independent.

I fully support the committee’s recommendations that no new commissioners or similar bodies should be set up until a thorough review has been carried out by a dedicated committee and that that review should build on the committee’s report.

I am happy to support the Green amendment, which adds a timescale for the review. I could possibly live with the SNP amendment, although it is not ideal and would allow for a loophole, so if there is a vote, I plan to vote against it. However, the Labour amendment is the weakest of the lot. It sets out a position that is the closest to the status quo, and it goes against the evidence that the committee heard, so I urge members to reject it.

We move to the closing speeches. I call Ross Greer to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.

16:24  

It is fitting that we started this week with a debate on fiscal sustainability and are closing it with this afternoon’s debate on the commissioner landscape—although I appreciate that, in the middle, Conservative colleagues gave us the opportunity to let off a bit of steam and have a good partisan knockabout. Both debates have been opportunities for members to come together and recognise that we are capable of doing difficult things if we are brave enough to do so together, as a Parliament. It is important that we have that degree of unanimity.

Michelle Thomson made the compelling point that, if people in any group are asked, “Do you want a commissioner to advocate for your interest? Do you want more of a voice?” then of course they will say yes, but Parliament has the job of looking at the issue in the round.

I appreciated Jeremy Balfour’s speech and I welcome his support for the committee’s motion. However, I do not think that, if the motion is agreed to, there is no prospect of progress being made until the next session of Parliament. The moratorium that is proposed by the committee, as my amendment clarifies, will last only until June next year. That absolutely does not stop bills such as Jeremy Balfour’s Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill being passed in the current session of Parliament. We are not prejudging the outcome of the committee process.

I also appreciated Audrey Nicoll’s contribution and I am sorry that I could not take her intervention. The Criminal Justice Committee’s experience of dealing with the proposal for a victims and witnesses commissioner is especially interesting. To be honest, my reading of the committee’s report was that it gave an invitation to the Government to remove that proposal from the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, and I think that the Government needs to give that consideration.

However, there is a way to maintain that as an option while proceeding with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which includes other, incredibly important provisions that we do not wish to delay. One potential solution that occurred to me—I admit to not being an expert on the bill—would be for it to include a ministerial regulation-making power that would allow for the creation of such a commissioner through secondary legislation at a later point, if Parliament were to agree.

Sarah Boyack made the helpful point that there are different kinds of commissioner. If Parliament agrees to a review being carried out, that review should absolutely take that into account. Its scope should capture all the different proposed and current categories of commissioner. It should be a holistic review, and one that recognises the differences between the proposals that are on offer.

The proposal that the Scottish Human Rights Commission submitted to our inquiry—that its role should be strengthened—is an attractive alternative to the creation of new discrete commissioners, but there are other options. Having stronger legislation in the first place—for example, legislation that compels public bodies to give greater regard to the national performance framework—would improve outcomes and, in many cases, would avoid the need for such bodies to be challenged further down the line.

That is exactly what I have been considering with my proposed wellbeing and sustainable development bill. The consultation looked at the fact that it is not enough just to have a duty; it is also necessary to think about how the duty will be monitored and implemented. The idea of taking an approach that is independent of Government is a key issue that was strongly welcomed by lots of organisations.

I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for putting that on the record. I will come on to her bill later in my speech.

Emma Harper’s point about democratic accountability is one that we need to draw out far more, because the groups that we are talking about, who either already have a commissioner or for whom a commissioner is proposed, are not monolithic and they do not all speak with one voice on every issue. It is perfectly legitimate for us to question the democratic legitimacy of positions that are advanced by the advocacy form of commissioners. We all have every right to advocate for any position that we wish to advocate for as a result of the democratic mandate that we have received. Although commissioners play an incredibly important role, those democratic safeguards are absolutely critical. The growth of commissioners weakens the potential for those democratic safeguards to be exercised.

Does Ross Greer not accept that there is a huge difference between an independent commissioner who has no policy-making powers but is there to give an independent voice and to provide expert opinion, and MSPs, who will still, ultimately, take the decision when it comes to policy development?

Mr Smyth touches on the important point that there are differences between the different types of commissioners that are proposed. Some of the existing commissioners are purely advocacy based, while some of the proposed commissioners would have statutory functions including, for example, the ability to investigate. The key point is that we are trying to take a consistent approach, rather than to allow ever-expanding growth of different types of commissioners with overlapping and sometimes duplicating remits.

John Mason’s joke about how he is not standing again and can therefore be more honest than might otherwise have been possible about the older people’s commissioner reveals something that we should consider, because the debate gives us the opportunity to consider the landscape as a whole. As I said to Martin Whitfield earlier, if we take a proposal-by-proposal approach, it is harder for MSPs to be honest, because no one wants to be the politician who tells a sympathetic group in society that they are not getting what they think they need. The debate gives us an opportunity to move out of that space and to take a more considered and rounded approach.

The Green amendment is intended as reassurance and simply clarifies the limited timescale. I had hoped that there would be no amendments to the motion, but when I heard that others were lodging them I thought that it might be useful to emphasise that the process should be completed by June next year.

The Greens cannot support the Labour amendment because we think that it is important to agree to the committee’s recommendations, rather than just to note them, and that a moratorium is required.

In the spirit of previous debates this week, in which we have all agreed with people whom we do not always, or often, agree with, I agree with Colin Smyth’s point about scrutiny. This Parliament is not good enough at scrutinising legislation, at post-legislative scrutiny or at scrutinising the functions of public bodies. However, I challenge him on the question whether the finance committee has gone beyond our remit. As Michelle Thomson pointed out, we are the Finance and Public Administration Committee for this session, so the inquiry and report are entirely within our remit. It is not part of the committee’s remit to reform parliamentary scrutiny as a whole, but Parliament as a whole should absolutely consider the question. I agree with Mr Smyth on that point.

Please conclude, Mr Greer.

I will come to a conclusion. The Scottish Government amendment is not great, but even though we are not enthusiastic, we would not necessarily oppose it if it were limited to the two commissioner proposals that are currently before Parliament.

As I said in opening, this is an opportunity for Parliament to prove that we are capable of doing difficult things.

Please conclude.

Let us do them together.

I call Martin Whitfield to close on behalf of Scottish Labour.

16:32  

This has been a most interesting debate that has been prompted by a considered and thoughtful report for which I thank the committee, the clerks and those who contributed. I confess to having spent an interesting hour or so answering questions in front of the committee.

More than anything, the debate has shown that there is a need to review the commissioner landscape in order to get an understanding of what on earth a commissioner actually is, and to go all the way through to creating a model that would allow serious consideration of any need to expand that landscape.

There have been some helpful comments about individual commissioners and some less helpful ones—I will leave it at that. I am glad that it has been noted that commissioners are independent. One of the strongest virtues of commissioners is their independence from both Government and Parliament. There were some interesting discussions that showed fluidity in the use of language regarding who holds whom to account and how that is done.

A point was raised with regard to the overlap between the advocacy roles of commissioners and MSPs. If I were typing this, I would add a marvellous little, “See previous paragraph about independence,” because there is a challenge as to what that independence means in this chamber. That is important.

In my short remarks, I will concentrate on a number of matters. The first is with regard to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I am thankful for the contributions from the SPCB, both in the debate and in preparation of the report. It is right to recognise and remember that the corporate body was created by section 21 of the Scotland Act 1999. Its role is set out in schedule 2. It sits in that legislation and is funded from the block grant that comes from the UK Parliament consolidated fund into the Scottish consolidated fund, with some additional extras kindly being provided by the Scottish Government, by way of receipts where work is undertaken on its behalf.

That sets out the factual background, but Maggie Chapman put it far more eloquently than I that there is a challenge with the expectation that rests on the SPCB, both as a resource and as a fund of knowledge and wisdom about certain aspects. The SPCB has rightly defended the extent to which its interjection into our independent commissioners’ work exists, but there is sometimes a gap between that and the request and requirement from independent commissioners and those who work for them. I am more than content that a specific committee, which would be set up to look at it, can deal with the matter. Going forward, although it might seem to be a small matter and, I hope, one that does not often raise its ugly head, when it does it is a very challenging situation that needs to be dealt with.

I come to the actual motions before us. It is interesting to listen to the debate this afternoon about the roles of the Parliamentary Bureau, the SPCB and this chamber. I might become monotonous in saying this but, under standing orders, it is for the bureau to establish the remit, membership and duration of a committee. Any member can bring a motion to Parliament to ask the bureau to make that consideration.

One member—I apologise because I cannot remember who—talked about the need for a certain level of skill to serve on a committee. That provision already exists within our standing orders, under rule 6.3.4, which says that a “member’s qualifications and experience” to sit on a committee should be taken into account if the member gives that information to the bureau. That standing order is celebrated more in its absence of use than in its real value, but there are procedures.

One of the interesting challenges that I have at an intellectual level is that I am not sure that the motion—no matter how it is amended or passed—is actually a request from a member to set up a committee.

We move to the question of the binding effect of the motions. It is for that reason that Scottish Labour lodged the amendment in Sarah Boyack’s name, the synopsis of which is that it would include a termination date. The Green amendment would also do that. I am grateful for that, and we will support it today. However, it removes the question of a moratorium, and the question what we mean by whether a bill is in or outside that has not been successfully answered.

There is also a real challenge in saying whether the Parliament can even bind itself to do that, other than in stage 1 debates, where we will say that there is a moratorium.

Will the member give way?

I am happy to give way to Ross Greer briefly, because I am conscious of the time.

I will be very brief. My understanding of the Government amendment is that it would preclude the victims commissioner proposal and the disabled people’s commissioner proposal.

Is it the Labour Party’s position that, if the amendment is passed, it would preclude all current proposals, so that there would be a moratorium only on proposals that no one has mentioned yet?

Answer in closing, Mr Whitfield.

In closing and in short, the reason for my intervention on the minister was to ask about the meaning of the amendment. In any event, I am concerned about the motion’s binding nature.

We very much welcome the request to investigate the landscape—historical, current and future—of commissioners. Across the chamber, I think that we are unified in that. The investigation should be carried out quickly and succinctly. It should learn and take evidence from a lot of places because we need to provide guidance and support—ideally, in this parliamentary session—on the development of the role of commissioners going forward.

16:39  

Like other members, and as a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee during the inquiry, I thank all those who gave evidence and shared their concerns and experiences of Scotland’s commissioner landscape, as well as our former MSP colleagues, our advisers and, of course, our committee clerks for all their efforts in putting together the report.

As the deputy convener, Michael Marra, rightly said in his opening speech, the report is a considered and comprehensive piece of work, but it is not intended to be a report card on the existing bodies or individual commissioners.

The inquiry was focused on ensuring that a future model delivers value for money, given that the bodies are now costing the taxpayer more than £15 million a year, with at least one of the bodies costing seven times more than was originally forecast. It must also—perhaps most importantly—deliver the best outcomes, which is an issue that other members have mentioned and to which I will return.

Our report pulled no punches. We found that the current commissioner landscape is not fit for purpose, and that the lack of a clear and coherent framework meant that an ad hoc approach had become the norm, with individual bodies left with varying functions and powers. We heard concerns about duplication by and overlap between bodies. We also heard that, although there was some collaboration between bodies, which was welcomed by the committee, more could be done to bring together back-office functions and on office sharing.

It is clear, as has been raised repeatedly by members in the debate, that scrutiny has been lacking. A serious overhaul is needed to ensure that, as the report states,

“Overall accountability, budget-setting, and scrutiny mechanisms ... are clearer, more robust, joined-up, and transparent.”

Professor Alan Page of the University of Dundee said that SCPB-supported bodies are

“established, the Parliament funds them, sets their budget, appoints people to them and all the rest of it, but they then occupy a certain no man’s land ... where they are not really accountable to anybody and no one is responsible for saying whether or not the system works or whether it should be rationalised and so on.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 54.]

The scrutiny role, as we have heard today, seems to have outgrown the corporate body’s capacity and resource to deliver, yet the oversight and governance of supported bodies is so important to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and to ensure that the outcomes that those bodies are supposed to deliver are achieved. In that case, who provides the security? As the report made clear, and as all members are aware, there are already capacity issues in areas in which committees of the Parliament have a role.

I turn to other members’ speeches. Michael Marra, speaking on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, rightly and importantly noted concerns that have been raised by some current and former commissioners on the increasing number of commissioners.

Craig Hoy recognised the recommendations on the role that sunset clauses could play in ensuring that the commissioner landscape does not become stale, and on the need for clear focus on the objectives that new bodies are brought in to achieve and whether they achieve them.

I welcome the positive way in which the minister, Ivan McKee, has engaged with the committee report and the commitment to reforming the public sector, which, if it is delivered through significant action, will surely be welcomed by Conservative members.

Jeremy Balfour made an extremely important contribution, reminding us all that, behind the decisions that we make in the chamber, there are groups and individuals who live their lives with serious challenges and who look to us to provide solutions. That is why it is disappointing that it has taken so long for the Parliament to look again seriously at this issue, and why it is so important to resolve it, by exposing the failures and bringing about a better system. Of course, if that happens and, as the committee recommends, there is a moratorium, that will risk leaving people in limbo, as Jeremy Balfour highlighted. Is that really fair? As Sarah Boyack suggested, is there a risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water?

I am sure that we would all agree that it is outcomes that are most important. When there are serious concerns about whether outcomes are being accurately measured or scrutinised in existing cases, there is the risk that pushing ahead with more of the same will not bring about the change that we probably all agree is needed.

Ross Greer was right that this is an important debate, as were his suggestions that it should be more focused on outcomes, and that, because of the lack of structure in how commissioners are established, no commissioner has the same roles or responsibilities.

John Mason mentioned the concern that every pound spent on commissioners is a pound that cannot be spent on front-line services. In an intervention, he raised reasonable concerns that it is larger organisations—those that already have the largest resources and the loudest voices—that have an advantage in pushing for new commissioners in their area.

This is not the first time that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has looked into Scotland’s commissioner landscape, but creating new commissioners has become the go-to solution for dealing with systemic failures in delivering public services, which could be more effectively dealt with by other models. Action and reform are long overdue.

16:44  

This is the third of this week’s triple-header of debates on finance-related issues. I have had the pleasure of speaking in all three of them on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Members around the chamber, and the various parties, often call for the Government to address public service reform. It is important to recognise that those called-for requirements are often taken forward and to consider how people react when something specific is put in front of them that directly addresses their agenda. It is a measure of how seriously members in the chamber take these matters. It is easy to call for change, but it is difficult to implement it when the time comes to deliver, which was a point well made by John Mason, Ross Greer and others.

I confirm that the Government is absolutely committed to delivering on the public service reform agenda and achieving the necessary change. Savings have already been delivered. I give the example of what we have done on the estates agenda, where we have saved £36 million through our actions during the past year. We will shortly publish much more data on that.

However, the context for the debate is important. As I and other members have pointed out, although the amounts of money that we are talking about for the costs of both existing and new commissioners are reasonable, they are but the tip of the iceberg when we consider the broader public body and Scottish Government spend. I believe that it is well within the remit of the Finance and Public Administration Committee to address such issues, because it sets the tone—as the committee has called for—for the Government to take a lead on them. I believe that we have done that.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will, shortly.

It also instigates a process whereby a mechanism is created for reviewing the establishment of new bodies. It has done so in a cross-party space, which is hugely important in taking that agenda forward.

It is right that the issue sits within the remit of the committee—there is no question about that—but it is not simply about the low-hanging fruit; this is a complex issue. A proper investigation, with a proper committee to undertake it, could bring huge advantages for the Parliament and for Scotland.

It is not for the Government to intervene in how Parliament sets up and runs its committees, but I recognise Martin Whitfield’s point and also how the Finance and Public Administration Committee report addresses that aspect.

It was interesting and illuminating to listen to Maggie Chapman’s remarks, which highlighted that work was last done on the issue in 2009. That shows how important it is to seize the moment and address issues when we have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, matters can drift on for years, or even decades. That is a practical example of the various matters—such as the emerging of bodies, shared services, sunset clauses and other models—that the sub-committee that I have set up will look into. There are many options in considering how the issue can be taken forward.

Ross Greer’s opening and closing remarks were very helpful. We would all do well to reflect on the Parliament’s occasional lack of institutional memory that he referenced. As I have been here for almost nine years, I agree that it is remarkable how many things that I thought that we had addressed and dealt with previously keep coming back. Mr Greer’s point about needing to do politically difficult things is a measure of the effectiveness of this place. He said that having a simpler landscape would perhaps be more effective for the people whom we seek to represent, and he emphasised the need for a holistic approach.

Various members, including Craig Hoy and Sarah Boyack, highlighted the need for the Government to address its own operations. They can rest assured that the Government and I are focused on ensuring that we get value for money from what we deliver in that regard. Recruitment controls are in place for that very reason. We recognise that there has been some expansion in Scottish Government responsibilities over the years, but the increase in the size of our operations has been excessive and it needs to be—and is being—addressed.

In summary, it is clear that the Government supports the moratorium on public sector recruitment. Several weeks ago, I came to the committee and was asked whether the Government would support it. I commented that I would have to seek the agreement of my colleagues for that to be the case. I am glad that we have now reached a place where the Government supports the moratorium. However, as members across the chamber have pointed out, the Government also recognises that it is the responsibility of Parliament and its committees to make decisions on proposals that have already been introduced. I have no doubt that the relevant committees will take note of these debates as part of their deliberations.

In conclusion, I believe that the Government has set the tone on this topic. We recognise the importance of this agenda and the work that the committee has done on it. We also recognise that the commissioner landscape is in danger of becoming unwieldy, with many proposals for commissioners coming forward. We acknowledge the need to address the matter in a holistic and structured way and to understand the purpose of commissioners, and we look forward to the work of the dedicated committee that will be set up to do that. The Government commits to co-operating fully with that committee, and we look forward to its conclusions being debated in this place in due course.

I call Liz Smith to wind up the debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

16:50  

Before I sum up on behalf of the committee, I must say, from a personal angle, that this is one of the best debates that I have participated in, because it is looking at the way in which the Parliament works, and that should concern us all.

On behalf of the committee, I say to Jeremy Balfour, Colin Smyth and Sarah Boyack that we do not in any way underestimate the passion, integrity and commitment with which they have represented the interests of the groups that are associated with the bills that they have brought to Parliament. It is important to say, on behalf of the committee, that our approach is not about the contributions of individual members or the issues that have been brought to us.

We must understand the issue in the context of where we are starting from. As Michael Marra set out, the evidence that was presented to us was pretty much unanimous. That is an important point, because there was a recognition that the structure has evolved over time on an ad hoc basis rather than through a coherent approach, and that that has been a problem.

Obviously, there have been significant pressures on the public finances, and, in his very good speech, Ross Greer made an important point—I hope that I do not trash my reputation by agreeing with him again this week—about the fact that we started this week in the chamber by looking at fiscal sustainability, and that this debate is also part of that debate on fiscal sustainability.

The debate is also about concerns around the delivery of some public services that have been seen to be deficient. We could take from what Jeremy Balfour, Colin Smyth and Sarah Boyack were saying that they have naturally been very disappointed that the public services that should have been looking after the groups that they have chosen to represent have not been doing that. Some of the witnesses noted that, when it comes to the Scottish Government’s commitment to public sector reform—the minister was enthusiastic about the need for that to happen—there is a concern about the amount of time that that is taking.

All that context is important to the committee, as it helps us understand what has been driving the substantial increase in the number of proposals to create new SPCB-supported bodies, following a period of relative stability in the commissioner landscape before that.

It is clear from the evidence that the Finance and Public Administration Committee took that the current model is no longer fit for purpose, as it lacks clarity, coherence, sufficient accountability and transparency over budget setting. That combination is something that could produce a very bad cocktail—bad for the stakeholders and potentially bad for the reputation of the Parliament.

The committee was clear that we need to look at why we are seeing greater demand in relation to the advocacy type of commissioner. The Scottish Information Commissioner said to us that

“a lot of the desire for future commissioners is a bellwether to the lack of trust and confidence in a lot of public services.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 16.]

My goodness—that is quite a strong comment, and it concerns something that matters to all MSPs. Similarly, Age Scotland commented that the SPCB-supported model is

“an established way of getting more effective action on particular issues.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 7 May 2024; c 3.]

That is particularly the case because the model provides for more independence, which implies that the best route might not always be via ministers.

That said, other groups such as the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland took a very different view, namely that commissioners might act as a “sticking plaster”, but without really solving the problem.

In reflecting on those points, the committee was struck by the evidence that was presented to us by two former MSPs, Alex Neil and David Stewart, who, in the previous session, had been very enthusiastic about introducing members’ bills for new advocacy commissioners, but had completely changed their minds about the wisdom of doing so, because they felt that it was a bit of buck passing, whereas the legislation should have been pursued by ministers or by committees.

As some members have said, the Finance and Public Administration Committee had concerns that the rise in the demand for advocacy commissioners was probably related to the weak delivery of too many public services across Scotland—in other words, that there were inherent failures within the existing system—and to the fact that the Government finds it too easy simply to say that the work could be done by a commissioner, rather than by it. We should all reflect upon that. Several members asked us whether it would be better to target the money at public services to ensure that all the demands that we are making are met through those public services.

As Michael Marra rightly said, we found too much duplication within the system and too little awareness among the public about the role played by each commissioner. To the committee’s astonishment, some commissioners told us that they did not really feel that they were providing sufficient evidence to parliamentary committees on the matters that they were being asked to account for. In fact, one commissioner told us that, despite writing seven different reports, he had been called before a committee only once. That tells us something.

I will now raise what I think is quite an important issue about the working of the Parliament—a matter that has come from a lot of the debate on this subject. It is whether we have the appropriate structures in place in the Parliament for accountability, to deal with the kinds of decision making that the debate has thrown up. This is about the workings of Parliament; it is not a party-political issue. It is about how effective we are in putting such decisions to the members of the Parliament.

One of the great things about the debate is that there has been very considerable consensus right across the political spectrum that the Parliament is not working well enough when it comes to dealing with a lot of the advocacy issues. I say that with some experience, having worked on the Eljamel case for 10 years. I understand why a patient safety commissioner has been called for, because I do not feel that the existing system was dealing with the concerns of the former patients of Eljamel. I understand where people are all coming from in wanting individual commissioners. That said, there is a big issue around the lack of consistency, about the lack of coherence and about public money.

I can say on behalf of the committee that we very much welcome the debate, which has given the Parliament an awful lot of food for thought, including about how we work and how we disburse public money. As I say, it has given us a lot to think about. We have to take stock and think about what we are going to do for the future, and the committee is calling for a moratorium in order to allow us to do that. I welcome the Green amendment, which puts a timescale on that—which is very important.

I finish by thanking all the witnesses from whom we took evidence; the SPCB, for its very positive contributions; members of the Parliament, for their positive contributions; the Scottish Government, for responding to our report; and, as always, our first-class team of clerks, who I see are seated up at the back of the chamber. I call on members to support the committee’s motion.

That concludes the debate on Scotland’s commissioner landscape.