Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will seek the committee’s permission to withdraw amendment 1077. However, I want to get the issue up the agenda, because it is seen as an issue in Edinburgh. I accept that the GDPR issues would need to be worked through, but I go back to the point about having a framework so that we know how many people need homes, because tackling the housing emergency must be a priority.

That is why I want to explore the issue further. The City of Edinburgh Council raised the issue as a challenge, so we need to pick it up.

The minister’s response was constructive, so I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 1077, but I hope that we can make some progress, ideally before stage 3. We should at least have a conversation so that the minister can understand the concerns of that local authority, which is facing a housing emergency.

Amendment 1077, by agreement, withdrawn.

I will comment briefly on the issue of policy coherence. The Parliament has passed a large number of bills since 1999. More than 30 of those bills refer to sustainable development, but where is the policy coherence to join up the dots between those pieces of legislation?

I come back to the point about a long-term impact. Politics tends to be much more focused on short-term impacts. That is one of the issues that we face in embedding wellbeing and sustainable development in the work of the Government and public bodies. We have more than 130 public bodies out there. Who gives them advice? Some are large bodies, while some are very small. Where is that extra capacity? The work of a commissioner would increase the capacity of the Parliament and its ambition for the legislation that we pass—when we tick the box and move on—to join up. Policy coherence is absolutely critical.

Fantastic campaigners and lobbyists encourage us to ask questions and have a debate, but that is not the same as a more processed approach, through which somebody focuses on an issue all the time. Commissioners are appointed for a number of years, they are accountable to the Parliament and they are able to regularly update different committees—you might assume that a sustainable development commissioner would report to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, but, for example, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales has had an impact on transport and education.

It is a question of having policy coherence across the piece, which, without the focus of a commissioner, we would not get. That is the added value that would be provided by the commissioner that I have proposed, both in relation to the decisions that we make now and those that we make for the longer term.

Commissioners are independent, and they are also there for a set period. That is very different from ministers, who do not know how long they are going to be there for and, indeed, do not know what their role will be, because it can shift. When I was a minister, I set up cross-ministerial work on sustainable development, but those kinds of things come and go.

A commissioner is a robust position that is held by a person who is accountable to the Parliament and who will have a plan. That function can be complemented by ministers but, in a way, you do not want either one or the other. We would want ministers to be working on such issues all the time, although, from my perspective, it should not be about one minister doing just one thing: we need cross-Government work. There are also thousands of officials who should be working on the issues.

There will be leadership from ministers, there is the work of Government itself, and there are the public bodies and local authorities. We must ensure that all of them deliver on the ambitions that are set out in legislation that we pass in the Parliament.

They formed part of the consultation process, because we asked, “What is the purpose of a commissioner?” and “How would a commissioner work?”

One of the things that I was very conscious of was the issue of feedback after the establishment of a commissioner, and the need to find out whether the commissioner has made a difference.

The consultation process was good, and I am now at the point where my proposed bill is with the Presiding Officer. I have had to go through the financial memorandum, which includes various estimates based on our thinking about the experience of existing commissioners. We have thought about how we could reduce the costs while still having the benefit of that commissioner, because, however passionate I and others are about climate change, we are not going to make the difference on our own. We can ask questions, but there needs to be a focus to make it happen. Even if you get a minister who is passionate about the issues, they are not there forever, and neither are Governments. There is something important about the longevity of commissioners.

I am not here to say where you should draw the line—that is up to MSPs. However, having this debate will make people think more carefully about whether such a commissioner is the only way of proceeding. In my view, having looked at the Welsh example and at what is happening globally, I would say that it definitely works as a way to deliver climate ambitions.

The fact that we are here today is part of that process, is it not? You have the criteria that were established by the Finance Committee and which we all look at when drawing up this sort of legislation.

In the end, it is an issue for parliamentarians. If members do not support our bills, they will not go through, and if the Government is not supportive of our proposed legislation and we do not get a majority for it, it will not go through. There is learning to be had from the existing commissioners and from looking at the gaps.

Yes, I picked that up with the Auditor General, because I could see that some of the work that the Auditor General does is in the same field, although it is not the same work. In Wales, there is a relationship between the roles and there is liaison and clarity. There could be a memorandum of understanding so that neither body overreaches. However, that work is not done by the Auditor General, and it is not in their remit.

It is not the case that you would not talk to other organisations; there is lots to be learned from the children’s commissioner’s work with young people. When I did the consultation, I got positive feedback about having a distinct role that is independent from Government. If you are giving advice to 131 public bodies, there is a point to be made about learning from best practice and experience.

The main discussion that I had was with the Auditor General. I did not talk to other commissioners per se, because they have different roles and I was looking more at the sustainable development principles, sustainable development goals and wellbeing. I see it more as a cross-Government issue of policy coherence and policy development.

First, my proposed commissioner would implement the public duty in legislation and according to the definition that would be set out in the bill, which is about policy coherence. The first job of the new commissioner, in that case, would be to raise awareness—to make sure that the 131 public bodies and 32 local authorities were aware of their new public duties, that they were interpreting them according to the commissioner’s own understanding, and that they were providing clear guidance, advice and support. I am not going to split those duties up into percentages, but I will say that that would take up the new commissioner’s first year. The commissioner would thereafter start holding bodies to account. Their investigatory powers and capacity to address non-compliance would come further down the line, and they would make people aware of the powers at the very start.

There have been two such commissioners in Wales: they have been different people with different approaches, but under the same legislation. Interestingly, there has been a Senedd committee review of the impact of commissioners and what can be learned in that respect, as well as of their day-to-day work. Therefore, you could review the commissioner on an on-going basis. I suggest, though, that they be appointed for a period of years, with the maximum time being, say, eight years. You would have a discussion about priorities when they were appointed in order to ensure that they had a plan that they were clear about. It is all about holding the commissioner to account and their being up front about their priorities when implementing the legislative duties that they have been appointed to deliver.

The issue of non-compliance is raised as part of my proposed legislation, because it would put in place a legal requirement to implement the public duty. That sort of thing will come with time, I think. In the early years, the role would be much more to do with engagement and encouragement, but with clear advice and guidance. A lot of that would come in the policy memorandum, and the guidance that will come out alongside the proposed legislation, but it would be built in from day 1.

I, too, am happy to be in front of the committee today.

I looked at the model of the other commissioners and, indeed, the Auditor General. For me, it is about independence from Government but also accountability to the Parliament. There is a principle to do with supporting the work of the Parliament. I am conscious that some of our committees are quite stretched these days, given the work that they need to do, such as post-legislative scrutiny.

For me, accountability to the Parliament is critical. The issue is also about the responsibilities that the commissioner should have and the public duty that would come with my proposed legislation, and about clarity in the definition of wellbeing and sustainable development. There is also the opportunity to promote best practice, to carry out research, which would help with best practice, and to identify issues on which action is needed. There could also be investigations into public bodies.

The model is well established, and I looked at the best practice in what has been done. I agree with colleagues about back-office stuff, especially in setting up a new commissioner. You can learn from those experiences, but it is a question of adding capacity and having a focus that we would not have without a commissioner. In my view, we need to have accountability to the Parliament, separation from the Government and the ability to contribute right across the public sector in Scotland. That is why my proposal is for the standard model of commissioner. I am happy to get feedback from colleagues around the room on that issue.