Seòmar agus comataidhean

You will be aware that the committee is concerned by the requests for a large number of new commissioners. Your committees have been particularly involved in the proposals for a victims and witnesses commissioner and a patient safety commissioner, and we have been reflecting on the broader demands for them.

We have had a variety of evidence on the matter. Are these questions of the moment, or are there more systemic issues? In other words, are problems happening now because of austerity, lack of resources and governance issues, or are commissioners part of an architecture that is addressing more permanent systemic issues?

My final question relates to finance. Your committee acknowledged in its stage 1 report on the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill our committee’s concerns, in our letter of 31 January, about parliamentary resource and drawing on the funds of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, but you simply noted that

“sufficient resources to the SPCB to support the work of the Commissioner”

should be handed down by the Government. Have you had any assurances from the Government that it will actually do that?

I suppose that I am talking more about their day-to-day work. This committee is concerned about the capacity of other committees to deal with the workload from the outputs of commissioners. On 30 April, Brian Plastow, who is accountable to your committee, said:

“I have been in post for three years. I have been called before the committee once in three years and that was to discuss the passing of the statutory code of practice back in 2022. In those three years, I have submitted seven reports to Parliament: two annual reports and accounts, one operational report, a code of practice and three separate assurance reviews. My expectation would have been to have been called before the Criminal Justice Committee more often than I have been”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 14.]

I believe that he is to come to your committee in November, but does that not talk to a structural issue? I recognise that your committee is incredibly busy with legislation—not just the bill that we have been talking about but other legislation. Do you not have the capacity to work with commissioners to ensure that the good work that they do is processed effectively?

Clare Haughey, it is my understanding that the outputs of the Cumberlege review included a reasonably technical request about providing oversight on medical devices and medical interventions. Those are technical issues that Parliament more broadly does not have the specialist knowledge to understand and examine, so specialist capacity is required. You are talking more about advocacy and people not being heard or believed, so that is more about voice rather than technical capacity. To be devil’s advocate, are things such as listening to citizens and advocating on their behalf not things that parliamentarians should be doing? Do we need somebody else to do that?

On 17 January, the new First Minister, who was a member of the Criminal Justice Committee at the time, said that the commissioner would not have any teeth. He said:

“the bill says that the role of the commissioner is to “monitor compliance” with standards, “promote best practice” in relation to trauma-informed practice and “undertake and commission research”. The commissioner will not, under the existing proposal, have the power to put his or her foot down and say, “This is not acceptable.” That power is somewhere else”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 69.]

That is an expression of concern that, as much as things might be said by a commissioner, they might not necessarily effect change. Is that not the First Minister’s concern?

To be fair, I am looking for objective rather than subjective outcomes. We all agree that we have seen really impressive people come before the committee as commissioners. They are incredibly passionate about the people whom they represent, and we share their sympathies. My questions are about the model.

I will take my questions into a slightly different space, if that is okay. People are talking about accountability and, in lots of the evidence, about holding politicians to account for what they say. However, I think that the suggestion is that committees of politicians should hold the commissioners to account. In what way does the accountability model work, and is it reasonable to assume that we will get better outcomes if commissioners hold politicians to account and politicians hold commissioners to account?

You cite the example of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, for which an amended financial memorandum was published after stage 2. The committee was very critical of that financial memorandum, as you may be aware. For the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, we were provided with an update to the financial memorandum prior to stage 2.

That would be useful.

You are advocating the commissioner model, which is what the committee is exploring, so I am keen to understand why you think that there has been cause and effect—the connection between using that model more and outcomes, which you have said that you are completely focused on.

Adam Stachura, do you have any other evidence?

What areas?