Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can ask them that. I am inviting lots of comments on other colleagues.

Dr Plastow, you said in your submission:

“In my view there are also opportunities for Parliament to strengthen post-implementation review arrangements.”

You have talked about that already in terms of accountability. How do you judge your outcomes for the public, whether you have achieved your mandate and you are producing value for the public?

There is a lot in there about a rights discourse, but child poverty has increased significantly over those 21 years, we have a decline in educational outcomes for young people and we have a mental health crisis among children and adolescents. Is there a risk here that we are more concerned with issues of rights rather than outcomes and what happens to young people as a result?

The issue is about both the presentation of rights and the realisation of rights. I could not agree more strongly with you. The strategic plan that you have set out certainly chimes with my views—I have also listened to children—on the needs of children and young people over the coming years.

I wonder, however, whether the demand for advocacy roles that we have discussed suggests that there is a disconnect between a discourse of rights and the realisation of rights. Young people’s rights are not being realised and the outcomes are going in the wrong direction for many young people, while we promise them UNCRC implementation and other legal provisions. It comes down to some of the concerns that the committee has about the outcomes for people rather than process issues.

That is really useful.

Jan Savage talked about how powerful civil society is in making representations to the Parliament. Why are parts of the third sector and civil society asking for more commissioners?

The creation of commissioners is a process where the Parliament hands over some of its own responsibilities to independent individuals. I was struck by a quote in the submission from the Law Society of Scotland, which said:

“Whilst it can be argued that Commissioners in Scotland are therefore an offshoot of, and for, the Parliament their role may create questions about accountability and the extent to which the appointment and scrutiny of Commissioners is democratic.”

Do you think that your roles are democratic and sufficiently so? May we start with David Hamilton?

Okay. The three people who have contributed so far are in roles that are about accountability, but also about distance from the Parliament. You hold roles that are, in essence, watching the watchers, if you want to put it like that. Scrutiny of politics and politicians is part of what you do, in terms of your function. Is it right that you are accountable to the Parliament on that basis, or should there be a more direct line of accountability? Mr Hamilton has probably already answered the question, but he can have another go if he wants.

Ian Bruce, you are called a commissioner but what you do is distinct from whatever the children’s commissioner does. In a technical sense, do you see that difference?

You all pointed out earlier that the three of you were demand-led on the basis of issues being referred to you. That is not the case with other commissioners, or with some of those that have been proposed. They are more self-directed. Is that not the case?

Lorna Johnston, could your work be done by the Parliament?

That is really useful. As I noted to the previous panel, the Law Society of Scotland said:

“Whilst it can be argued that Commissioners in Scotland are ... an offshoot of, and for, the Parliament their role may create questions about accountability and the extent to which the appointment and scrutiny of Commissioners is democratic.”

What Jan Savage has described—a commissioner who is appointed by the Parliament taking enforcement action and deciding what should happen with public services—does not sound very democratic. If we were to give you those powers, at what point would the public ask a question about accountability in that regard?