Seòmar agus comataidhean

You then went about the process of having structured interviews—conversations with a limited number of people. However, it is probably fair to say that it is quite difficult to come up with a broader framework based on that evaluation.

I hear you on that.

Through the inquiry, my committee colleagues and I are going to be quite concerned about outcomes and, as politicians, we will be trying to understand how the commissioner landscape best provides better outcomes for specific groups of people and for the broader population. You have said that the purpose of your research was not to evaluate outcomes, but you stated that the evidence that you gathered indicated scepticism from different parts of communities in relation to the proposal that having a commissioner would lead to better outcomes. Is that correct?

I am keen to get observations from this work on the causality and the relationship with better outcomes. It is almost about the theory of change, if I could put it that way. There is the idea of having a commissioner, as understood by the people you spoke to, and the idea that it might produce better outcomes. I am asking you to comment not on the outcomes, but on the theory of change in terms of a person being appointed and the idea that things might get better.

Page 6 of your report mentions the “accountability gap”. What is meant by that phrase?

I will close with a question on the process of establishing a commissioner. You were almost a participant in that, in that you provided the background research on the idea that the Government department was approaching.

I was intrigued by the quote on page 9 of your report, which says that correspondents felt that

“the campaign for a commissioner had been done to their communities, not with them.”

That is evidence that you have taken and it probably speaks to some of the concerns that the committee expressed at the outset about the policy-making process of establishing a commissioner. Is it a politician’s idea or a third sector idea, rather than something that is based in the community of people that the commissioner is meant to be serving?

So as far as you could determine, none of the responses was based on people’s experience of other commissioners.

Yes—I am wondering what that is. Your report mentions the need to

“bridge the gap between good intention and policy and practice on the ground”.

Is that what is meant by the “accountability gap”? I am trying to dig into the purpose of a commissioner, and I am not really sure what the point about the accountability mechanism means.

That is fine.

Concerns have been raised that the establishment of a commissioner could be a drain on resource—in essence, it could be a substitution. Would we be better off spending the money on direct services or interventions rather than a commissioner? Did that come through in some of the evidence that you took?

It also jumped out at me—I think that this point is coming through from the questions that my colleagues are asking—that you observe in the report that

“There is very little published research”

in this area and

“little evaluation exploring the pros and cons of different approaches”.

At the inquiry’s outset, we are working on the basis of there being very little published work exploring this area, and that is probably where you found yourself, too. Is that correct?

I thank the witnesses for the really useful discussion so far. Given all that you have said and the content of the report, do you still believe that the 2030 target is credible?