Official Report 1167KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18936, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-supported bodies landscape review. I invite Ben Macpherson, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, to speak to and move the motion.
15:22
As convener of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, I am pleased to open the debate.
The strategic review was commissioned by the Parliament following the findings of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s inquiry into Scotland’s commissioner landscape. The report on that inquiry recommended that a dedicated committee should be established to undertake a strategic review of the bodies that are supported by the SPCB and that it should report by June 2025. Parliament set us that objective and we delivered on it. Today, I am proud to present the unanimous key findings on behalf of the committee. I think that our report is a very good piece of collaborative work that the Parliament can be proud of.
Given that the findings were unanimous and followed on from the unanimous findings of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, does the member agree that it is surprising that the Labour Party has sought to amend the motion to take out our key recommendations?
I do, and I urge Parliament not to support the amendment. I will say more about that in due course.
Before I turn to the detail of our deliberations and our conclusions, I want to place on record my sincere thanks to all those who contributed to our review. First, I thank my MSP colleagues from different parties. We worked well—effectively and collegiately—to produce a good piece of work. That was also thanks to our clerks, who supported us well through the process. In addition, I thank all those who gave evidence. Whether in oral evidence or in written submissions, the insights that we received from them were invaluable. Their time and expertise helped us to shape the recommendations that we present to Parliament today.
Over the course of six months, our committee gathered extensive evidence from a wide range of contributors, including current SPCB-supported bodies, academics, researchers, Scottish Government bodies, the Minister for Public Finance and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Taken as a package, our conclusions and recommendations create a clear strategic framework. They aim to establish a formalised process for assessing future proposals to create new SPCB-supported bodies, to strengthen mechanisms for accountability and scrutiny, to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of shared services and, potentially, to change the remits and powers of some existing bodies—I will say more about that later.
Our committee agreed that, consistent with the conclusions that were reached by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the existing SPCB-supported bodies play a vital role in safeguarding public trust, institutional integrity and democratic accountability. We heard about how such bodies deliver their core functions and saw in person how their offices are adapted to suit the needs of users. For example, the children’s commissioner’s office is a bright and welcoming place for children.
Each body was created by the Parliament in response to a perceived need, and collectively they contribute to the strength and health of our democratic landscape. The work that they do matters, and it makes a difference. However, the evidence that we received highlighted the key concern that the existing landscape has developed in an ad hoc manner, with individual bodies having varying functions and powers. That has resulted in a collection of bodies with distinct and, at times, overlapping functions operating under different legislative frameworks.
Ben Macpherson talks about the existing landscape, but does he accept that, for most people, having a standards commission and a commissioner for ethical standards is totally confusing and unnecessary?
In some ways, I can see why members and others might look at the distinction between the two bodies critically. However, our committee heard quite good evidence—I refer the member to it—about the benefits of the two bodies being separate and distinct.
When our committee was established, there were proposals for up to five new SPCB-supported bodies with advocacy functions to be created before the end of the parliamentary session. As is set out in the motion for the debate, we are concerned that such expansion
“risks further fragmenting the current landscape, increasing complexity for service users, and placing additional strain on the SPCB and parliamentary committee resources”.
Therefore, I urge Parliament to reject the amendment if it is moved. On the basis of the evidence that we received, our committee was clear in its view—which was unanimous—that the SPCB-supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type bodies. Although we understand the benefit in organisations with a public trust element, such as the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Scottish Information Commissioner, being SPCB supported, we believe that advocacy bodies, where required, could just as effectively sit within the wider public sector landscape.
We accept that there may be future occasions when the establishment of a new SPCB-supported body is justified, but a clear need must be demonstrated. That is why we have recommended the implementation of two-tier criteria comprising justification and effectiveness tests that must be satisfied before any new proposal can be brought forward. The four justification criteria for establishing new SPCB-supported bodies are:
“Last resort: Alternative models, such as enhanced powers to existing public sector bodies, or statutory duties on ministers must be exhausted and deemed insufficient to address the issue.
Functional gap: There must be clear, evidenced and persistent absence of the proposed body’s functional gap across the full Scottish public sector landscape, not just within SPCB supported bodies.
Permanent: The proposed body must address an issue in perpetuity. It cannot be created to deal with an issue that might have arisen due to a short-term failure or perceived failure in public service, or which could be resolved with a fixed-term dedicated piece of work by an existing body.
Independence: The proposed body must require a high degree of operational and perceived independence from the Scottish Government.”
The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to explore incorporating those criteria into its own ministerial control framework for new public bodies.
I turn now to the governance and accountability of SPCB-supported bodies, which operates in two broad streams. First, the SPCB is responsible for governance and resourcing, including oversight of budgets, staffing and accommodation. Secondly, parliamentary committees are responsible for holding SPCB-supported bodies to account in the exercise of their functions.
Both our review and the review by the Finance and Public Administration Committee identified capacity as a core challenge. The governance and scrutiny of those bodies has been limited not because of a lack of willingness but because of the finite time and resource that are available to the SPCB and to committees of the Parliament. Our view, therefore, is that solely recommending that the SPCB or parliamentary committees “do more” would not, in itself, bring about the improvements that are required. In that regard, we appreciate, in particular, the amount of legislation that committees have recently had to deal with, and we should all consider that with regard to the next session of Parliament.
Only yesterday, in passing the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, we brought into existence the role of victims and witnesses commissioner. That bill gives the commissioner a direct power to impose a response to its annual report. Did the committee consider that as a way of ensuring scrutiny?
I can give you the time back for interventions, Mr Macpherson.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I thank Martin Whitfield for a constructive intervention. The committee took into consideration the processes that were put forward in Government bills and in members’ bills. The proposal for the role of victims and witnesses commissioner, which was established through the passing of the bill yesterday, was well advanced when our committee was given its remit, and it was obviously a factor in our considerations. I am happy to follow up on the point that Martin Whitfield has raised later in the debate, if that would be helpful.
Although we acknowledge the adaptability of SPCB members to give effect to the will of the Parliament and put in place oversight mechanisms, we do not believe that that can be sustained without diminishing other core functions of the SPCB. Through reviewing alternative models both in the UK and internationally, we have concluded that a parliamentary committee should be given specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB-supported bodies for a fixed period as a pilot in session 7.
We do not make that recommendation lightly, and we understand that the existing capacity issues for MSPs and parliamentary committees are significant. However, we firmly believe that a single committee with accountability and scrutiny functions for all the SPCB-supported bodies is absolutely necessary in order to enhance effectiveness and the delivery of outcomes.
In response to our report, the SPCB acknowledged many of the complexities that we identified in making that recommendation. We welcome the SPCB’s positive commitment to work with the parliamentary committee and with officials to explore what would be desirable within the broader constitutional framework and how that can be achieved.
I thank the Minister for Public Finance and the members of the SPCB for their positive responses to the committee’s conclusions and recommendations. Members will see from the report that we have also recommended a series of targeted improvements that could be made to improve how the SPCB-supported bodies landscape and the wider public sector operate. I will cover that in more detail in concluding the debate.
The committee is confident that our conclusions and recommendations will create a clear strategic framework for the SPCB-supported bodies landscape, and I urge all members to support the committee’s motion unamended.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes and notes the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s 1st Report, 2025 (Session 6), SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review (SP Paper 828); recognises the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, including concerns that expanding the number of SPCB supported bodies risks further fragmenting the current landscape, increasing complexity for service users, and placing additional strain on the SPCB and parliamentary committee resources, and agrees with the Committee’s recommendations that:
(a) the SPCB supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type SPCB supported bodies;
(b) any future proposals for new SPCB supported bodies must satisfy two-tier criteria, as set out in paragraph 150 of the report, comprising both justification and effectiveness tests, and that a parliamentary committee should be given the remit of assessing proposals against these criteria; and
(c) a parliamentary committee should be given the specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies for a fixed period as a pilot exercise in Session 7.
15:33
I think that the committee’s report is a must-read for all MSPs. Although we lodged an amendment to the motion, Scottish Labour welcomes and notes the report, and recognises the range of recommendations that have been made on new and existing commissioners; on governance and accountability; on budget and audit issues; and on shared services.
The problem that we have with the motion is that, on the one hand, it says that
“the SPCB supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type SPCB supported bodies”,
but on the other hand, it goes on to state that new bodies should meet the justification and effectiveness test that is set out in paragraph 150 of the report. The key issue is the justification and effectiveness criteria, which should be used when the relevant parliamentary committee is considering proposals to establish a new commissioner.
I have followed the committee’s work both because it addresses the important issue of the growing landscape of commissioners and because, during this parliamentary session, I have been working on my own member’s bill, which is focused on accountability; on coherence in public bodies in relation to wellbeing and sustainable development; and on ensuring that the Scottish Government, our councils and the wider public sector are held to account for their impact, both now and in the future. In his speech earlier today, John Swinney referenced George Reid’s call for a sense of purpose, because “Today is tomorrow.”
Last year, I secured a debate to recognise the United Nations declaration on future generations. I argued that one of the most important things that we can do is to think about how we build a society in which people’s wellbeing and sustainable development are built into the actions of, and the policy and spending decisions made by, all our Government and public sector bodies in Scotland. To deliver on those principles, we need clear guidance, accountability and a focus on ensuring that they are not just warm words but actually delivered. Hence, I propose that there should be a commissioner with investigatory powers.
The report that we are debating references proposals for new commissioners and describes them as “advocacy” commissioners. I do not agree with that in relation to my proposed commissioner, and I was clear about that in my evidence to the committee. As Martin Whitfield acknowledged, yesterday, the Parliament established a new victims and witnesses commissioner—that, too, is listed as an advocacy commissioner. There have been questions about whether the powers of that new commissioner are actually sufficient.
I am glad that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee acknowledges the positive contribution that has been made by existing commissioners and that they
“fulfil a vital function in safeguarding public trust, institutional integrity and democratic accountability”.
Although the report notes some overlap between them, the evidence was that
“each of the existing SPCB supported bodies provides a unique and necessary contribution.”
Will the member give way?
I will not because I am very tight for time—perhaps, if I have time later, I will.
The recommendations on induction and training in the next session of the Parliament are important because all the new MSPs and their staff will need to be aware of the work and remits of existing SPCB-supported bodies. Maybe we should send today’s Official Report to all our current colleagues too, because we have to get them interested in this.
The report makes an important recommendation that
“a parliamentary committee is given the specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies for a fixed period as a pilot exercise”
in session 7.
That will be an additional commitment in the already overstretched capacity of the SPCB and parliamentary committees, but it is clear that this is an on-going issue that is not going away. Delivering parliamentary accountability is critical to the effectiveness of how we work as a democracy.
The pilot scheme that is referenced in the motion must have clear metrics. What does accountability mean? How will we judge the effectiveness of scrutiny? What timescale will there be for feedback to the Parliament and for public reporting? It is critical that the Parliament hears the voices of service users, children, young people, marginalised individuals and those who are most affected by failures of oversight but who are not regularly enabled to be consulted. The pilot needs to be geographically inclusive, too.
In the criteria for establishing new bodies, making the most efficient use of resources is key. That is why I support the hub-and-spoke model and using existing public sector office space to make sure that we get the effectiveness that is needed. That aligns well with the work that I have been doing on my member’s bill on wellbeing and sustainable development.
The report makes an important and timely contribution to on-going efforts to make sure that our public sector operates with greater coherence, transparency and long-term accountability. We need to avoid duplication—that was an issue that I looked at in my bill and spoke to the Auditor General about. Clarity of roles is key, and a memorandum of understanding is a good way to avoid overlap—there is work that we could do in that regard.
I urge the Parliament to agree to our Scottish Labour amendment and to proceed with the recommendations on the pilot oversight committee in the next session, with clear metrics for that committee and the resources that are necessary to make it a success. Let us seize the moment, not only to tidy up structures but to make institutions and decision making fit for the future, transparent, effective and trusted.
I move amendment S6M-18936.1, to leave out from “, and agrees” to end.
Thank you, Ms Boyack. I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand, so I imagine that members will be able to get the time back for any interventions. I call Maggie Chapman to speak on behalf of the SPCB.
15:39
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am speaking today as a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I begin by thanking the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee for undertaking the inquiry. That work, alongside the inquiry that was undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration Committee have, understandably, been unsettling for the current office-holders, and the SPCB appreciates the acknowledgement of that in the report. We also welcome the recognition in the report that the bodies that are currently supported by the SPCB carry out vital functions.
The corporate body notes the committee’s conclusions relating to advocacy-type SPCB-supported bodies. I have mentioned this in a previous debate, but I want to be 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.
The SPCB has a statutory duty to support independent office-holders. That duty has become increasingly time consuming since 2003, during which time the number of office-holders has increased from two to eight. The mention of proposals for up to six additional new office-holders has, understandably, caused the corporate body concern, which we have raised with the Scottish ministers and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The corporate body therefore welcomes the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s work and the overall approach to create a clear strategic framework.
We welcome the acknowledgement that additional office-holders would have an impact on the corporate body and other parliamentary resources. The role of the SPCB extends far beyond agreeing annual funding for the office-holders, and additional office-holders would affect our workload, our overall budget and the workload of the officials in office-holder services.
Is the SPCB concerned that, if a new committee is created to, in effect, apply the two tests for a new commissioner, the SPCB would be required to give evidence to that committee as to the impact? Is the SPCB comfortable with doing that?
I will come on to say more about the potential new committee in a moment. The corporate body wants to ensure that the office-holder landscape is coherent and strategic. At the moment, we are clear that it is not. If the new committee establishes that coherence and a strategic approach, we would be very willing to work with it.
As a point of clarity, it is worth emphasising that the committee’s recommendation was not necessarily that a new committee be established. That was a potential option, but an existing committee could take on the task of assessing SPCB-supported bodies. It is important to acknowledge that.
Yes, that is understood, and that is why I couched my comments in such a way as to refer to what would happen should that committee be established. However, even if it is not established and the responsibilities lie elsewhere, the corporate body will obviously work with the relevant committee to ensure that the process works as smoothly as it can.
I turn to specific recommendations in the committee’s report, starting with the new set of criteria that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee developed. The corporate body is very supportive of the set of criteria and the strong message that it sends on shared services. Should the Parliament endorse that recommendation and the recommendations relating to the inclusion of the criteria in parliamentary guidance on bills and a standing order determination, officials will be asked to bring forward proposals on how the recommendations can be implemented.
The corporate body notes the recommendations relating to existing SPCB-supported bodies. Again, should those recommendations be endorsed by the Parliament, we will work with relevant office-holders and the Scottish Government, as appropriate, to implement them. As the committee acknowledges, those proposals will require additional resources, which will be an important consideration, given the wider public finance context.
To ensure that we undertake our role properly, we have put a number of governance arrangements in place, but we note the deficiencies that have been identified by both the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee in the governance and accountability of corporate body-supported bodies. Additional work in that area would require the SPCB’s approach to all its work to be reviewed to ensure that we have fulfilled all our responsibilities, but we will, of course, always give effect to the will of the Parliament.
I want to speak directly to the recommendations at paragraphs 158 to 161, on giving a parliamentary committee
“the specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies”.
To be clear, I note that the establishment of committees and their remits is not a matter for the corporate body. Furthermore, the SPCB is aware of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, which includes consideration of the changes that can be made to strengthen the ability of committees to undertake scrutiny work across a range of policy areas. The corporate body is conscious that there are several pressures in the system and that a new committee structure for session 7 will need to balance those demands alongside capacity constraints, including in member and Scottish parliamentary service resources.
The corporate body is also mindful that its statutory functions, duties and responsibilities are set out within the broader constitutional landscape. Should the recommendation at paragraph 160 be endorsed by the Parliament, the SPCB will commit to collaborating on whether the delegation or transfer of SPCB functions would be desirable within the framework and, if so, how that can be achieved. As the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee acknowledges, that will require legislative change, given that various acts mention the corporate body specifically in relation to a range of functions. We will therefore ask officials to undertake a mapping exercise prior to session 7 to clearly set out functions for each body, the statutory basis for those functions and what the options for change would look like. If the recommendation at paragraph 161 is endorsed, we will commit to exploring how to improve operational oversight of office-holders in the context of the session 7 committee structure.
I will comment briefly on the amendment, but only to say that, as ever, the SPCB will seek to implement the will of Parliament. Parliament should be clear that, if the amendment is agreed to, there will not be a basis for the SPCB to take the steps that I have outlined above. I repeat that it is for Parliament to take the decision, but it is important that Parliament is clear on the implications of that decision.
Before I move on to the subject of shared services, I will briefly comment on the budget and audit recommendations. I highlight the on-going review of the public audit model by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, and I note that the corporate body will engage with that review. I also highlight the corporate body’s agreement with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s view that
“medium to long-term financial planning is not hindered by an annual budget and funding cycle”.
I move on to the recommendations that relate to shared services. The corporate body welcomes the acknowledgement of the improvements in that area. Five office-holders are now co-located at Bridgeside house, with the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland having taken up post on 1 September. That co-location has resulted in further accommodation savings. The corporate body welcomes the recommendation relating to a hub-and-spoke model and will work with office-holders to implement it as opportunities to do so arise. In related work, the corporate body recently established an accommodation audit in relation to office-holders and, through that process, is looking at the use of the wider public sector estate. As such, we welcome the recommendation in that area.
I conclude by thanking all the office-holders again for their dedicated work, and I thank the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, too, for its report.
I call Kenneth Gibson to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
15:48
I am delighted to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. As members know, the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee was established by the Parliament in response to the FPA Committee’s “Report on Scotland’s Commissioner Landscape: A Strategic Approach”, which was published on 16 September last year.
One year on, we see the culmination of a comprehensive piece of work by the two committees, and I pay tribute to Ben Macpherson and his team for completing the report by June this year, as requested by the FPA Committee. My colleagues and our excellent clerking team, roared on by the SPCB, put in a huge amount of work in preparing our initial report, and I thank them for that. I am confident that our work will bring real and substantive change in creating a more strategic and coherent commissioner landscape that is fit for the future.
I will revisit some of the concerns that prompted our inquiry back in December 2023 and comment on how we approached our work and arrived at our findings. I will also reflect on the review committee’s report, which the FPA Committee unanimously endorses.
Our inquiry followed concerns that a growing number of proposals to create advocacy or rights-based commissioners could lead to the SPCB-supported body landscape almost doubling in size by the end of the current session of Parliament. That would have significant implications for the SPCB and the overall Scottish Parliament budget. The committee wanted to establish the extent to which a more coherent and strategic approach to creating and developing SPCB-supported bodies was needed and, if it was needed, how that might be achieved. We therefore sought to establish how the model was working in practice and the drivers for the increased number of proposals to create new commissioners. Possible alternative models were also considered, as was the case for a review.
We found that experiences of and frustration with public service delivery failures are reasons given for supporting the establishment of new advocacy or rights-based SPCB-supported bodies. Others felt the need for a champion to represent particular groups in society who might feel overlooked. There was strong evidence of overlap between and duplication of commissioners’ work in the wider public sector, and accountability and scrutiny mechanisms were found to be wanting.
Interestingly, in evidence to the committee, former Labour MSP David Stewart and former Scottish National Party MSP Alex Neil both said that, having pursued the establishment of commissioners during the previous session of Parliament, they no longer considered that to be the best way forward. The FPA Committee therefore unanimously concluded that it was time to pause and take stock before any new bodies were added to an already complex and disjointed landscape.
We asked the Parliament to agree to a root-and-branch review being carried out by a dedicated committee similar to the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, which was set up in 2008. The purpose of the review was to design a clear strategic framework to underpin the landscape and provide more coherence and structure to it. It would also aim to enable more effective accountability and scrutiny mechanisms to improve delivery outcomes and value for money.
We are grateful to the Parliament for establishing the review committee and for agreeing to a moratorium on the creation of new SPCB-supported bodies or the expansion of the remits of existing bodies while the review was under way. The FPA Committee is pleased that the review committee built on the evidence that we received, with its report echoing many of our findings. It is also important that, in doing so, it met the ambitious reporting timescale of June this year, showing us all—including the Government—that it is possible to produce excellent work by set deadlines.
We share the review committee’s key finding that the SPCB-supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type commissioners. Indeed, the FPA Committee’s report concluded that that trend is not sustainable and that
“this advocacy role is for MSPs to undertake, with Parliament holding Government to account on how it seeks to improve the lives of specific groups of society or develop and deliver effective policy, with the third sector continuing to play a crucial role.”
Our report went on to state:
“We also believe that the funding for new supported bodies would be better spent on improving the delivery of public services ‘on the ground’, where greater impact can be made.”
The FPA Committee agrees with the recommendations to enhance and formalise criteria for creating new SPCB-supported bodies, including that that must happen only as a last resort when all other models and approaches have been exhausted.
We also agree that a parliamentary committee should be given specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB-supported bodies for a fixed period of time, as a pilot exercise. That is a sound suggestion. It is clear that the current model of governance and scrutiny is not working, so it is time to try something new in the next session.
As the committee that is responsible for public service reform, we share the review committee’s view that SPCB-supported bodies could and should do more to adopt a more proactive and preventative approach. We whole-heartedly agree that such an approach would not only enhance the effectiveness of the bodies but help to avoid failures in public service delivery and complaints being made in the first place.
Many of the recommendations, such as the sharing of services and offices, could easily apply to the wider public sector. We therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to carry out, as part of its reform programme, a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies and where those functions overlap. The review committee rightly pointed out that that would be helpful in informing decisions on future size, structure, and coherence across the public sector.
Given the unanimity of both committees, the Labour amendment is deeply disappointing. Some months ago, Martin Whitfield circulated a paper calling for parliamentary committees to be respected and strengthened, but now he calls on the Parliament to ignore—no doubt for cynical reasons of internal party management—the unanimous view of two committees following two years of hard work. That is shameful.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am happy to take an intervention from the defender of the committee structures.
I have great respect for Kenneth Gibson, but I find his comment about an amendment to a motion—albeit on the back of a committee debate, which was occasioned by a departure, in this session of Parliament, from the usual standards for committee motions—a tad disappointing. I am saddened by it. If we are not prepared to debate, analyse and discuss the extent to which we wish to bind a future Parliament, we do both this chamber and the future chamber a disservice. In my speech, I will welcome all the contributions that we have heard today—I apologise for the length of this intervention, Presiding Officer—and I am more than happy to respond to and debate the points that have been made. I am more than happy to do that with Mr Gibson.
That is desperate stuff. Let us be honest: if the member’s colleague who is sat next to him, Sarah Boyack, did not have a proposal to create a commissioner, I doubt that we would be having this debate. Labour colleagues on the FPA Committee and the review committee supported the decisions unanimously. In days gone by, some MSPs might have looked to have a bill in their name as their legacy; now, they appear to want a commissioner. We must see the bigger picture.
The FPA Committee thanks the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee for carrying out its important work and encourages all members to support the motion at decision time.
15:55
I welcome the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s report and recommendations on how the SPCB-supported bodies landscape can be improved. It is a long title, but it is an important topic, and I will talk about the wider context in relation to the Government’s wider public service reform agenda.
I was pleased to give evidence to the committee earlier this year and, in my written response on 9 September, I set out the Government’s position on the committee’s report. I will reiterate that today and offer any clarification that is required. I thank everyone for their work and contributions to the committee’s report.
At the heart of the report is a desire for the efficient delivery of public services, which very much aligns with the Government’s public service reform ambitions. I recognise the committee’s interest in reform of the public bodies landscape, and the Government accepts the committee’s recommendation that the Scottish Government undertakes a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies—not just those that the SPCB supports—and where they overlap. I am pleased to confirm to the committee and the Parliament that that work is already under way and will be completed as part of workstream 4 of the public service reform strategy, which I published on 19 June this year.
That strategy identifies how public bodies can deliver services more efficiently and effectively, building on the principles set out in the Christie commission on the future delivery of public services. The review of public body functions will address the committee’s recommendations and inform decisions on future size, structure and coherence across the wider public sector.
For clarity, and bearing in mind Kenny Gibson’s comment about how a deadline helps to get things delivered, when is the deadline for that work to be completed?
Stephen Kerr is absolutely right. He should be aware that there are 18 workstreams across the PSR strategy, and we have spent the summer putting together the teams that will lead each of those workstreams. The action plan for workstream 4, along with the other 17 action plans, will be published shortly, so that members can see the deadlines for that work.
Reforming Scotland’s public services is vital to ensuring that people experience high-quality services that are focused on those who need them most. However, Government involvement in reviewing the parliamentary commissioner landscape is, by its nature, constrained and, at times, inappropriate, due to the nature of the services that those bodies deliver and their independence from Government. I appreciate that the committee’s review was born out of concerns about an expanding commissioner landscape and what that could mean for public finance and effective service delivery. SPCB-supported office-holders budgeted £18.3 million for the year 2024-25, and that figure is set to rise following the introduction of the new Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland. That needs to be set in the wider context of about a £5 billion corporate spend across the Scottish public body and Scottish Government landscape.
I take the minister’s point—he has said it before, and he is absolutely right—that that is a relatively small amount of money in the scheme of things. However, does he accept that, if we can control the number of commissioners, that sends a signal that we can perhaps control the number of other public bodies?
John Mason makes that point very well. I acknowledged at the start of my contribution that the debate has much wider significance across the public service reform agenda. The importance of delivering on this—albeit small—part of it is that it sends a strong signal regarding the wider landscape.
On public bodies more widely, the Scottish Government’s PSR programme is focused on driving a culture of continuous improvement to support efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of public services. I am delighted that the committee’s recommendations align with those intentions.
I am particularly pleased about the committee’s recommended criteria for the establishment of any new SPCB-supported bodies. As the Parliament is aware, any Scottish Government proposal to establish a new body must strictly follow the ministerial control framework, which, if a public body is deemed to be necessary, ensures a rigorous best value process. Only after all alternative delivery options have been explored is such a body created.
Where that concerns the potential creation of a new SPCB-supported body, the ministerial control framework guidance stresses that the merits of such a body must be discussed with the chief executive of the SPCB’s office at the earliest opportunity. The committee’s proposed two-tier justification criteria for the establishment of SPCB-supported bodies reflect the terms of the control framework, and my officials will look to update that framework in line with the committee’s recommendations, should the Parliament accept them this afternoon.
I recognise the committee’s recommendation that no new advocacy-type bodies be established. We agree with that general principle, as I have set out in my written response to the committee. As the committee heard during evidence sessions, advocacy-type roles in other instances might be more appropriate for MSPs, the Government or other public sector organisations to fulfil. I also set out in my written response that Government officials remain on hand to support any future reform of the SPCB-supported public body landscape, if that is appropriate.
On matters concerning the powers and remit of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, I highlight that the Scottish Government recently published a discussion paper that sets out proposals relating to a human rights bill. The paper sets out a range of options for the SHRC and the SPSO that are intended to strengthen their ability to provide accountability and support for human rights in Scotland.
With regard to the concept of a human rights commissioner, will the Scottish Government follow the process that it has taken with the victims and witnesses commissioner and build into the legislation the requirement to respond to that individual, with regard not only to their annual report but to other evidence that they need?
Minister, in responding, please bring your remarks to a close.
We will take that into account as we move forward.
Government officials will continue to engage on the bill proposals, and I offer my reassurance to the Parliament that they will be available for discussion on further reform.
I turn briefly to the issue of shared services. The single Scottish estate programme, which is part of the wider public service reform umbrella, is well under way. The programme has already reduced the size, cost and emissions of the public sector estate. Overall, a total of £41 million of benefits has already been secured, so we are well on our way to achieving the initial target of £50 million to £80 million of benefit.
I am happy to discuss any of those issues further, and I look forward to hearing what others have to say during the debate.
16:02
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, both as a member of the committee and on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
I echo what the convener had to say in his thanks to the excellent team of committee clerks who supported us and the Scottish Parliament information centre researchers who helped our work. I also thank everyone who gave evidence in what was a relatively short and focused inquiry.
I pay tribute to the convener, Ben Macpherson, for stewarding us so well throughout the process, and to my fellow committee members. It was a small committee of just five MSPs, all from different parties. I believe that we worked together very well, with very little disagreement.
When the Parliament is considering its future make-up and approach to committees, we should reflect on how successful that small committee has been and the good use that it has been able to make of the time available. Perhaps that is a model that we should consider in the Parliament for the future. We were able to reach unanimous conclusions in the report, based on the evidence that we had all heard.
On that point on being unanimous, I say gently to Martin Whitfield that we had on our committee a Labour member, Richard Leonard, who is with us today, who agreed with all our conclusions. In the Finance and Public Administration Committee, whose report our work followed on from, we reached equally unanimous conclusions, also with a Labour member on the committee. I am a bit surprised and disappointed that, today, the Labour Party does not seem to be agreeing to the conclusions to which its members on both those committees were prepared to sign up.
I am very grateful to Murdo Fraser for taking an intervention. At a higher level, I would say that we could disband the chamber if we got only unanimity on committees, but I am not particularly attracted by that idea, nor would he be. There is an obligation to debate, to express views and to investigate proposals. My amendment, on behalf of Scottish Labour, intends to do that, because of concerns that I have about the wording of the motion.
I look forward to hearing the contributions from Mr Whitfield and his colleagues. We will see whether Mr Leonard has changed his mind since he sat on the committee. Mr Leonard is shaking his head. It is clear that Labour representatives on not just one but two parliamentary committees were happy to sign up to the recommendations. Clearly, Labour has had a rethink. No doubt that will be explained.
As we have been told by the convener, the committee was established following a recommendation by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which had already raised concerns about the number of proposals that were coming forward to create new commissioner bodies. The committee concluded that
“continuing the trend for creating new advocacy-type SPCB supported bodies is not sustainable”
and it sought a new structure and set of guidelines. That was the task that our committee was given to consider.
It was very much at the front of our minds when we started to consider the issues that there are different types of commissioners. Some provide a primarily regulatory function, such as the Ethical Standards Commissioner, the SPSO or the Scottish Information Commissioner. Others perform primarily advocacy roles, such as the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People, although that commissioner also has regulatory functions.
The committee’s general view was that there is, of course, a place for commissioners that deal primarily with regulation, although we considered whether there might be some consolidation of those roles. On consideration, we did not see significant opportunities in that space. We also acknowledged that there might be a need for new commissioners in the future to deal with the regulation of matters that we cannot foresee. For example, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner was a relatively new office that would not have been contemplated when the Parliament was formed, because the matters that it considers were not regarded as significant at that point. However, the committee had to draw a distinction between commissioners that perform regulatory functions and those being proposed purely, or mainly, to perform an advocacy role.
We were entirely sympathetic to members, some of whom are in the chamber for the debate, who have lodged members’ bills to create new commissioners to perform an advocacy role. That reflects perceived failures in the delivery of public services for particular groups. The question that the committee had to wrestle with is whether introducing such new commissioners, with all the expense of setting them up, would be the best way to address those gaps in provision.
Scotland is not an undergoverned country. We have 129 MSPs, 56 MPs, 32 local authorities, more than 1,000 local councillors, and a plethora of public organisations from health boards to quangos. If there are failures in the delivery of public services, to my mind, the answer is not to create yet another set of public appointees to try to address the problem. Surely the answer is to try to address the problem at source, and to better enable all the people who are currently paid to, and are in a position to, solve those problems and ensure that individuals are getting a fair deal.
The committee came to the conclusion that, although the calls for the creation of new advocacy commissioners are understandable, they do not represent good value for the public purse. Although it was not our primary consideration, public expenditure is important, because commissioners cost money. There is a risk of mission creep—that, once a commissioner has been established, it will seek to expand its functions and offices and demand more and more cash—which we need to be conscious of in times when public finances are constrained.
I was struck by the Minister for Public Finance’s evidence to the committee. I asked him what he regards as having the most impact: a report from a commissioner, a report from a cross-party committee of the Parliament, or a report from an external body. If I remember rightly, he answered that they were all one voice among others. The impact of a commissioner’s report is no more significant than that of a parliamentary committee. That was a significant piece of evidence.
I know that the committee’s conclusions will be a disappointment to those outwith the Parliament who are campaigning for new commissioners and to some MSPs, but resources are finite, and, if we accept the case for new advocacy commissioners, we must acknowledge that people could argue for an almost limitless number of new commissioners to be appointed.
When we took evidence from Jeremy Balfour, who is not with us today, on his proposal for a new commissioner for the disabled, he said that he accepted that argument, but he asked why we should pull up the drawbridge now. With all due respect to Mr Balfour, I think that that rather misses the point, because we do not have any pure advocacy commissioners right now, apart, possibly, from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, and we could argue that children are in a different category to others, because they do not have votes and, therefore, do not have the direct voice in the democratic process that other groups have.
It was for those reasons that we came to the conclusions that we did in relation to the creation of new commissioners. I do not have time to cover all the other points that we discussed around the need for improved accountability and scrutiny of existing commissioners and the need for a dedicated committee—not necessarily a stand-alone committee—of this Parliament to scrutinise the work of commissioners. That is all covered in our detailed report. I commend it to members, and I also commend the convener’s motion, which I am pleased to support.
16:10
It was a privilege to be a member of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, and I thank the convener and our excellent clerking and research team for their work. It was a genuinely interesting and productive committee. Over the course of several months, we were able to take a great deal of evidence and dig into the issues raised in some depth. We compared what we do in Scotland with how other countries manage those bodies that are responsible for maintaining trust in public life. I support the convener’s motion, and I commend the paper to members.
Among the things that the committee explored were the reasons behind the sudden expansion and proposed expansion of the SPCB-supported bodies, in particular the requests for advocacy commissioners. We found that there were three reasons for that.
First, commissioners were and are being requested in response to perceived failings in public services, and creating a commissioner is a tangible and visible action that can be taken.
Secondly, there is both the political kudos that a member may achieve by campaigning for and achieving the creation of a commissioner and the political difficulty caused to other politicians who might vote or speak against something that we all want, such as better public services for disadvantaged people, victims, patients and so on.
Thirdly, there has been a lack of attention and adherence to existing guidelines on the creation of new SPCB-supported bodies and commissioners. Those guidelines have existed for a while, but the Government and members proposing bills have ignored them.
It is understandable that, when there is a perceived failure in public services, we want to see something being done to address that failure and prevent it in the future, but is a new commissioner the right answer? The committee heard that commissioners have no sway or influence on Government greater than that which members of Parliament or third sector organisations have. When we asked a colleague from New Zealand about who held their Government to account and advocated for the needs of disabled people, victims of crime, patients and so on, the answer was that they expect members of Parliament to do that. We also heard concerns in our evidence that putting in place commissioners might be letting the Government off the hook.
We have fantastic advocacy groups, such as Stop Climate Chaos, which was lobbying us all today. Is it those groups or individual MSPs that the member thinks should be carrying out work around guidance and investigations into the Government, individual local authorities or the 131 public sector bodies?
I understand the point that the member is making, which is that resources need to be put into investigations and guidance. However, there is a whole civil service for that. It is up to us to push the Government to do those things, because the evidence is that, whether it is parliamentarians, third-sector organisations or commissioners who are pushing for such work to get done, it will not get done unless the Government takes it up.
The issue is about being effective. There is no evidence that commissioners have any more sway than anyone else, because we can see commissioners creating report after report and then getting ignored, in the same way that parliamentarians sometimes get ignored when we ask for specific actions—for example, on climate.
Creating more commissioners who are just going to be ignored by Government is not a solution at all. Creating a commissioner can be a substitute for real action and a way for the Government to say that it is taking a matter seriously while being able to distance itself from delivery and delay action by waiting for the commissioner to report or suggest something.
My colleague Maggie Chapman proposed an excellent alternative for dealing with failures when they arise: instead of having stand-alone commissioners, there could be focused periods of work to address the issue. She said:
“If we ask whether a dedicated piece of work should be done in the next five years by a body within the Scottish Human Rights Commission, that essentially creates a sunset clause.”—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 15 May 2025; c 23.]
That would be a mechanism to bring resources and attention to a specific area of concern without creating a whole new public body of questionable effectiveness that would last in perpetuity.
The systems that we set up to support trust in public services and organisations should be designed to be proactive in finding problems and failures before they become serious; systems should not just react when things have gone wrong. We heard from the ombudsman about the limitations to their remit that prevent them from undertaking proactive investigations that might prevent public service failures before they happen. There are proposals and recommendations on the record already about how the ombudsman’s remit could be expanded, and that should be considered seriously.
There was agreement among the committee that the landscape of SPCB-supported bodies and Scottish public bodies in general is messy. There are both gaps and overlaps in what organisations do and are responsible for. The whole landscape would benefit from analysis and wider reconsideration to ensure that there is an effective network of public bodies to support advocacy and public trust without duplication or undermining of the excellent work of third sector organisations that already do that work. It might be that the remit of an existing body can be adjusted or that bodies can be consolidated.
In the extraordinary case that a new body that is intended to last in perpetuity is to be created, it should absolutely be done following strict criteria, including that the proposed work cannot be done by anyone else with or without a change of remit to an existing body.
We move to the open debate, with back-bench speeches of up to five minutes.
16:16
I thank the committee for its work on this important topic and for its comprehensive and detailed report. The on-going requests from organisations, individuals and members’ bills seeking to significantly increase the number of commissioners and, thereby, SPCB-supported bodies, has caused me great concern, so I could not agree more with the report’s conclusions that any future proposals for new bodies and roles must satisfy the two-tier criteria of justification and effectiveness tests.
The landscape is already complex, as we have heard from other members. Many people are unclear about the remits of the SPCB-supported bodies; how they can access and use their services; and what, if any, support the bodies can offer individuals. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies and any overlap to fully inform decisions on future size, structure and coherence.
In my role as convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I was recently involved in the recruitment process to appoint the first Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland, which is a role that was approved by the Parliament in the week of the Cumberlege report. Among other functions that are attached to their role, they have powers to investigate healthcare safety issues, to amplify patients’ voices, to report on safety issues and to make recommendations for how those should be addressed. The newly appointed commissioner will play a vital role as an independent public advocate for us all as national health service patients.
Just yesterday, I was pleased to vote at stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in support of the establishment of a victims and witnesses commissioner. If the Parliament accepts the committee’s recommendations that we are discussing in the debate, those recommendations would of course be adhered to in the establishment of that post. Of particular relevance are the recommendations on the requirements for a clear functional need for any role and a clearly defined remit. As we know, the establishment of the victims and witnesses commissioner has strong stakeholder support, particularly for their ability to hold the Scottish Government and criminal justice bodies to account.
The creation of the victims and witnesses commissioner responds directly to calls for change from victims and bereaved families. That is a key point, which I have reflected on in the light of the appointment of the new Patient Safety Commissioner. We will all have raised concerns on behalf of constituents about healthcare issues, and the new commissioner will play a vital role in advocating for systematic improvement in safety. However, I wonder how much the public currently know about the new commissioner’s remit. Specifically, a shared understanding needs to be developed that the Patient Safety Commissioner will not undertake casework, complaints or advocacy on behalf of individuals or families.
I am sure that this new commissioner’s office, as it beds in, will have opportunities for public engagement and to raise awareness about the bounds of its remit. However, that is an example of how increasing the number of SPCB-supported bodies risks causing confusion and unnecessary complexity for people who are often experiencing a very difficult time in their lives and are seeking help, support and redress.
With that in mind, I particularly welcome the recommendations in paragraph 150 of the committee’s report on the need for simplicity and accessibility. It states:
“The body’s purpose must be easily understandable to the public. If it has a public-facing role, it must also be designed to ensure”
digital and physical accessibility so that people
“who require its services or support can engage with it promptly, effectively, and without unnecessary barriers.”
Finally, I welcome the committee’s recommendations that, in the next parliamentary session, there should be a committee with specific responsibility for scrutinising SPCB-supported bodies. We all know how busy our existing committees are and the level of demand that is placed on committee time with legislation, budget scrutiny and other inquiries. A dedicated committee with a remit to hold those bodies to account and to scrutinise their effectiveness or otherwise would have the time and scope to look in detail at the work that they do.
SPCB-supported bodies come at a significant cost to the public purse, and we must be confident that their existence is justifiable, offers value for money and is effectively improving lives and people’s experiences of services.
I thank the committee and its clerks for their work on the issue and commend their report. I hope that the committee’s recommendations will gain cross-party support.
16:21
I put on record that Liz Smith was very much hoping to take part in the debate this afternoon. I hope that I can do some of her comments justice.
I very much welcome the report and the engagement with MSPs on the part of Ben Macpherson and his colleagues. I am pleased to note that there is a common theme in the findings of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee and those of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is an important reflection of where we are. I remember giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee during its inquiry when I was the convener of the Education, Children and Young People’s Committee.
The most important thing about the entire debate is the context in which it is taking place. We need to recognise that the current structures have evolved over time and on an ad hoc basis rather than through any coherent structure, which has clearly led to the questions that we face on sustainability. There are significant financial pressures on public finances.
There are then the concerns about the delivery of some of the public services—that has been seen as deficient, and we have heard about that today—and about the Scottish Government’s delay and confusion in setting out exactly what parameters will drive much-needed public sector reform and on what basis the Government will be measured in delivering better public services.
All that context was important to enable the Finance and Public Administration Committee to understand better what was 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. As Mr Macpherson’s committee acknowledges, as did Mr Gibson’s committee, the evidence is clear that the current model is no longer fit for purpose, as it lacks clarity and coherence, sufficient accountability and transparency over budget setting. That combination produces a cocktail that is bad for stakeholders and bad for the reputation of the Parliament.
However, as well as setting out that recognition, the committee was clear that we need to look at the advocacy type of commissioner, for which demand is increasing. I agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner when he said 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.]
Age Scotland commented that the SPCB-supported body 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.]
especially as the model provides for more independence. In other words, it implies that the best route might not always be via ministers, but it is clear that the current model is deficient when solving the problem and that the Government finds it far too easy to pass the buck for those failures. I do not say this lightly, but on some matters today, I agree whole-heartedly with my colleague Lorna Slater.
On more than one occasion, committee members felt compelled to ask witnesses how convenient it was for the Government to think, when problems arose, that the matter could be dealt with by a commissioner rather than by a minister. Would it not be better to target money at the public service that is failing, rather than at the commissioner process?
The committee’s report says that it found too much duplication in the system and too little public awareness about the role that each commissioner plays. Some commissioners also told the committee that they did not really feel accountable because they were seldom, if ever, called before a committee to give evidence. That cannot be right.
Ms Webber was previously the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Would she agree with me that, due to the amount of legislation and other demands, it is quite difficult for committees to make space to carry out such scrutiny?
I agree. As convener of that committee, I was fortunate that we had only one commissioner reporting to us, making it easier to programme that in. I know that having many commissioners would make that even harder to do. As I said, the lack of accountability cannot be right and is just another reason why the current landscape is not working well.
There has been much food for thought throughout this welcome debate, including about how well Parliament operates when disbursing public money. In order for us to take stock and think carefully about the way forward so that we can provide a more coherent and effective structure, we want a dedicated, short-term committee examining the options and a moratorium being put in place on any new commissioners while it does so.
Again, I thank Mr Macpherson and his committee for their work.
16:26
I am pleased to speak in this debate as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I preface my remarks by saying that they come from my own perspective, while drawing on the work of that committee.
I pay tribute to the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee for its detailed scrutiny, which was a really important and worthwhile piece of work. I also pay tribute to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its diligent work on this area. I gave evidence to that committee during its review of the supported bodies landscape.
It is right that we review not only the number of commissioners but other important factors such as cost, functions, shared services, governance and effectiveness. I note that the review committee’s report outlines the anticipated drivers that have led to the proliferation of supported bodies in place today. I agree with the direction of travel in relation to new commissioners and with the recommendation that a strategic mapping exercise should be undertaken to look at functions, areas of overlap and what the supported bodies landscape should look like in future.
That said, I consider Parliament’s decision yesterday to create a new victims and witnesses commissioner to be the right one. When the Criminal Justice Committee considered that part of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, we heard concerns that the cost of a new commissioner could be put to better use elsewhere and questions about whether an existing commissioner might be able to take on the role. One witness told us that they would rather fund legal representation for survivors than a commissioner.
We considered whether a commissioner would interfere with the ability of third sector organisations to engage directly with the Scottish Government and other justice bodies where strong relationships already exist. However, on balance, we supported the establishment of a commissioner, while caveating that with the recommendation that the post should be time limited, to allow for its effectiveness to be reviewed.
I also point out that, at the time of our scrutiny and while we were considering our proposal, the Criminal Justice Committee was unaware of the ministerial control framework, which I do not think has yet been mentioned today. It would have been helpful to understand that framework when we were scrutinising the case for having a new commissioner. In short, we wanted to see clear evidence of the existence of a commissioner noticeably improving the experiences of victims and witnesses, which is why we requested a review.
The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner promotes the ethical and lawful use of biometric data in policing and criminal justice in Scotland, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigates incidents involving public bodies in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of both offices, which undertake highly specialist but different functions in the justice space. In relation to the recommendation that a two-tier approach be adopted to the establishment of new commissioners, I have no doubt whatsoever that both those offices would pass the test, so to speak. I welcome that recommendation, and I note the committee’s view that standardising functions would risk constraining the flexibility that commissioners need.
Turning to the issue of governance, which was an area of particular focus in the review, I think that we are all agreed that there is significant room for—and, indeed, a need for—far more proactive scrutiny. I acknowledge and agree with the view expressed by the Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow, when he told the review committee—in the words of the report—that
“it would be unrealistic to expect committees to respond to every report laid before Parliament.”
He suggested that a structured approach, whereby each relevant committee would hold a dedicated session once a year, for example, might strike a more manageable balance.
I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s findings and recommendations regarding the wider public bodies. In the case of the justice sector, there might be scope to extend the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny to other bodies, such as the inspectorates of prisons, policing and prosecution.
Finally, I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s recommendation that
“a new governance structure be introduced on a time-limited basis”
in the next parliamentary session.
I thank my colleague Ben Macpherson for leading the committee’s important review, and I look forward to following it in delivering positive change across our supported bodies landscape.
16:32
I will start with an observation as a member of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee. Although small in number, albeit overinflated in title and big in scope, I strongly believe that it proved to be more effective than many parliamentary committees with over twice its size of membership. I also record that the model of short, sharp, time-limited committees, in my view, is effective and is a model that is worth returning to.
I described the committee’s purpose as being big in scope because this is not simply about whether there are shared back-office services between commissioners or how extensive the audit arrangements for them are. Neither should the debate today be reduced to considering how many commissioners and commissions there are, or should be in the future. This committee report raises wider questions about how our democracy works, including, I have to say, how do we avoid an overconcentration of power in the hands of the executive, how do we prevent a marginalisation of Parliament as the people’s guardian, and how do we stop an erosion of civil liberties and citizens’ rights? So, it is about perpetually upholding confidence and constantly rebuilding the people’s trust in the political process, making sure that those who govern are accountable to those who are governed. That is therefore about not just how we defend the fabric, the resilience and the integrity of our democracy but how we defend democracy itself.
I do not say this lightly, neither do I say it merely to address the fleeting challenges of the present or the world as we have come to know it, but to safeguard democratic rights in the future, because, make no mistake, there are those on the right of politics—not just those in power across the Atlantic, but some seeking power here—who, if ever given the chance, would seek to hollow our democracy out; would seek to close debate and challenge down; would seek to impose a form of authoritarianism in place of democracy. So, those institutions that we speak of in this debate today, I warn, in the future, we democrats will have to defend.
Some of the evidence that the committee took, I confess, took me a little bit by surprise. For example, the Scottish Information Commissioner told us that he was, in his own words, facing
“a never-ending cycle of constant audit”.—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 20 February 2025; c 16.],
and he spoke of the
“disproportionality of the governance model”.
In my view, he failed to recognise that these are about assurance and accountability, and failed to recognise that, in the end, he, other commissioners and the bodies that the committee reviewed are spending public money. I am bound to refer him, and any elected members of this Parliament who also think that we are overaudited, to the recent case of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland.
I was also a little bit surprised by some of the remarks of the minister, who told us, I thought rather dismissively, that
“A commissioner is one voice among several”—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 8 May 2025; c 10.],
although this is a Minister for Public Finance who told Parliament just last week that he did not think it was a matter for him that the GFG Alliance has not submitted audited accounts for years and was the subject of a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
Just to be clear, my point was that, as the Government, we would not comment on a Serious Fraud Office investigation that was under way.
I think that you said that company law was reserved and that, therefore, you were not prepared to comment on the lodging or not of audited accounts. Anyway, that is on the record.
Can I be even-handed, though? We also spoke to the now-departed Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, who, I have to say, to my bewilderment, told me that she would not want “true enforcement powers”, just at the very point that the Labour Government was openly defying the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman at Westminster on the award of compensation to the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality—after it found the Department for Work and Pensions guilty of maladministration. I am not, here, making a narrow party political point. These are matters that go to the very heart of what we are debating, where powers rest and whether powers of enforcement exist.
It is important to underline that the committee believes that we should consider empowering the Scottish Human Rights Commission with powers of litigation, giving new scope for more strategic powers to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and widening and deepening the powers of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.
It was a privilege to serve on this committee. I hope that our findings do make a difference—that they will not gather dust but contribute to the battle for effective scrutiny and accountability, and the battle for the very soul of democracy itself.
16:37
I come to the debate from a specific perspective, having held many roles in the Parliament—from back bencher to chief whip to Minister for Parliamentary Business and then back to back bencher again. I have been on nearly every committee in the Parliament at some point during my time here. In fact, my role has been such that Martin Whitfield has been trying to get me on a free transfer to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for some time, so that he can make use of the particular set of skills that I seem to have.
Today’s debate gives us a chance to take a serious look at Scotland’s commissioner landscape and to ask whether we are getting the best value for the people we represent and the representation that they need. The committee has completed some good work on the issue and has given us a chance to look at the best way forward.
During my time as a minister, I worked with two Information Commissioners. Although they were very different people, they were both very good to work with and at doing the work, so none of what I am about to say has anything to do with any of the commissioners or the work that they do—it is more about how we can do this work better.
The SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee is clear when it says that we need stronger criteria for creating new commissioners. We cannot continue to add another commissioner every time there is a flashpoint or a challenging situation. Paragraph 142 of the committee’s report calls for a mapping of all our public bodies, which is happening through our public service reform strategy. It should show us where functions overlap and where we can streamline them.
We need coherence rather than clutter, which is what I want to talk about. Let us look at our Nordic neighbours such as Finland, Denmark and Norway. As I think has been mentioned already, they do not scatter powers across a dozen wee offices all over the country—they have ombudsmen with big, broad remits. In Finland, the parliamentary ombudsman covers complaints, detention, monitoring and even human rights oversight. In New Zealand, the ombudsman handles freedom of information requests as well as maladministration. Those countries all have fewer institutions with bigger remits, which offers clarity for citizens. Does that type of model cost less? Not always, but it can deliver economies of scale and avoid duplication. It also gives those institutions the status to truly take on Government and public services effectively.
We have to create the most effective and coherent system that we possibly can. The committee’s report, at paragraph 165, points to making better use of the public sector estate. Again, I highlight that we have half a dozen wee offices, when we could have one larger, more efficient office.
I will go over it again: Finland has one big parliamentary ombudsman, which covers so much; the New Zealand ombudsman’s role is the equivalent of three Scottish commissioners. We could go even further and consider the idea of having an office of commissioners, all under one roof, with shared administrative and back-of-house support. That would provide efficiencies through shared use of administrative functions, and a united office could ensure common standards and reports and a joint strategic focus.
With regard to how such an office would be structured, we could discuss that another day, because I do not think that I have the time to discuss it today. Perhaps we could look at a chief commissioner, with other commissioners reporting to them. I will leave it at that for today.
It is important that we look at the different ideas out there. Some of the Nordic countries have a similar population to that of Scotland, but at the same time they have many fewer commissioners. What are they doing right that we are not currently doing, and what are they delivering for their citizens that we are not delivering in Scotland? Their arrangements cut down on the confusion that many people feel about who they would actually report something to.
The message is clear: Scotland needs commissioners, but it does not need more clutter. We need a system that is leaner, clearer and stronger. I, for one, am happy to work and talk with anyone who wants to look at doing such work, because that is what will make the difference as we take the recommendations forward.
16:42
That was certainly one of George Adam’s better speeches—and he did not mention Paisley once, as far as I could tell.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which looked at the topic previously, and I have read the review committee’s recent report with interest.
Broadly speaking, I am supportive of what the review committee recommends, although I feel that it could have been a bit more radical. It is not that commissioners are a bad thing, but Scotland is a small country with—as we have just heard—a very cluttered public-body landscape, and we should be able to do things in a much simpler way in comparison with other, larger countries. That is why I have high hopes for Ivan McKee’s work on public sector reform. I hope that he will be cutting down on the number of public bodies in a major way.
While financial savings from having fewer commissioners will not exactly transform the NHS, restricting the numbers of SPCB-supported bodies sends out an important signal that we need a simpler landscape. For every commissioner that we agree to establish, we divert resources away from front-line services. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee found, and as has now been confirmed, setting up a new commissioner was fast becoming a way for both Government and individual MSPs to try to show that they were tackling a problem. Very often, however, the underlying problem is actually a lack of money and resources, and having a commissioner does not really solve that problem. What it might do is push one group further up the queue, and push other groups further down, and I fear that that does not take us any further forward overall.
Turning to the committee’s report, I very much welcome the proposal for both justification and effectiveness tests, specifically the idea of a commissioner being a “last resort” and the recommendation that there must be a clear “functional gap” before we set up a new commissioner. I have to say that I am less convinced on the point of independence, as I think that we can have independence without separate legal bodies. We have examples such as His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland, which are not set up as distinct legal organisations, but which are, I think, respected as independent.
I very much welcome the report and I will vote for the motion tonight. Personally, I would have stopped all new commissioners, including the new Patient Safety Commissioner, and the new role of victims and witnesses commissioner, which—as is somewhat ironic—we agreed to only yesterday. However, I accept that the overall mood is that we had already made a commitment on those commissioners and that the Parliament wants to go ahead with them.
It was interesting to read the comments of the ombudsman that if the SPSO had been given slighter wider powers, the Patient Safety Commissioner would not have been needed. I still think that there are strong arguments for merging the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life with the Standards Commission for Scotland. If one of the tests is for the public to understand the roles of the different commissioners, this is one case in which I do not think that the public understands—and, frankly, I do not think that I do either.
Concerning the Scottish Human Rights Commission, I had a lot of sympathy for the idea that we heard in the Finance and Public Administration Committee of having rapporteurs in the SHRC. Maybe that is similar to what George Adam was talking about just now. I note that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee rejected that idea.
The review committee’s suggestion for the SHRC to have a different emphasis each year, following the example of the Auditor General, is potentially a good one. The SHRC’s own briefing for this debate confirms that it is open to having its powers and remit reviewed. On the other hand, I am less convinced about the need for a specialist committee to scrutinise all SPCB-supported bodies, even though that is planned as a pilot. There is a danger of duplication in that idea: individual committees should be carrying out that scrutiny role, and I know that some already are. For example, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner stresses in its briefing the importance of its regular interaction with the Education, Children and Young People Committee—so that commissioner might potentially be dealing with three committees.
The SHRC commented that its committee did hold it to account, but that it did not deal with finance and budget scrutiny. I am sorry, but subject committees need to do more on finance and not leave all of that to the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
Overall, I am happy to support the review committee’s motion. The committee could have gone a bit further and been a bit more radical. However, at least we are putting down a clear marker that the drift to having more and more commissioners must be stopped. I welcome that.
16:46
There is value in highlighting some other points that arose in the evidence taken by the committee. One was about the connection between the Parliament and the existing SPCB-supported bodies—and, indeed, between the Parliament and public bodies in general. There are improvements to be made in both how well parliamentary committees hold those bodies to account and how effectively the work of those bodies is fed into the Parliament and the Government. In many cases, commissioners and the other bodies are doing excellent work, such as conducting research or producing reports, but it is not necessarily being taken up by, or feeding into, Government policy or priorities.
That might be exacerbated when bodies work on matters that do not align with the legislation and policies on which the Government is currently focusing. For example, if reports are not immediately relevant to the work of the Government, they might languish on a shelf. Some alignment of what commissioners and public bodies are doing within the current Government programme might be beneficial.
The issue appears to be partly due to the lack of an effective mechanism to feed that work into the Parliament. Parliamentary committees choose the work that they will undertake. If they choose not to delve into the detail of the work of SPCB-supported bodies, commissioners or other public bodies, such work might be ignored. That is why I support the formation of a committee specifically to bring the work of SPCB-supported bodies into the Parliament. The Public Audit Committee provides an example: the work of Audit Scotland is considered weekly and the committee can bring issues that are raised to the attention of the Parliament, the Government and the subject committees.
There is a point to be made about ensuring that subject committees are clear about their role in scrutinising the work of public bodies. They can choose to prioritise doing that. They can also choose to use the influence of, and investigations done by, those bodies to influence the Government and hold it to account. They can be the link.
I was concerned to hear that the creation of each new advocacy-type commissioner reduces the remit of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. It seems to me that that is the wrong direction of travel. Expanding the remit and resources of the Scottish Human Rights Commission—possibly, as Maggie Chapman suggested, with the addition of focused, time-limited projects—might provide a better solution than a proliferation of new commissioners might.
The committee made an interesting finding about the independence of public bodies. It was emphasised to us how important it was for the SPCB-supported bodies to be independent of the Government—something that we can all agree on. However, we also heard from, and about, other bodies in the wider public sector landscape that act independently of the Government, such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
In short, it is not necessary for commissioners to be supported by the SPCB for them to be independent of Government or for them to work in the space of supporting public trust. I could certainly discern no pattern with respect to which public bodies should be SPCB-supported ones and which should be ordinary public bodies.
I am sure that everyone in the chamber would like to prevent failure in our public services delivery and to quickly and effectively address failures when they occur. We all want to ensure that public services are effective for everyone, but a proliferation of commissioners is not an effective mechanism for achieving that. Instead, we need to reconsider the remits of our existing public bodies—including, as George Adam said, the possible consolidation of such bodies—filling any gaps between them to ensure full coverage of public trust mechanisms and service delivery oversight; ensuring clarity of responsibility; and putting in place systems to prevent delivery failures rather than just reacting to them.
The evidence pointed clearly to our role as parliamentarians. It is our job to raise issues with ministers. It is our job on committees to follow what public bodies are doing and to feed their work into the Parliament and the Government. We cannot outsource that work—it is our role. There is something for each of us to consider about how we can be most effective, too.
I call Martin Whitfield to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.
15:39
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. As others have done, I start by thanking the convener of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, its members and those who supported it, along with the commissioners who contributed so much to its work. At the outset, I want to say that I support the recommendations in the report, which is a timely and necessary intervention in a system that has basically grown without a strategy, coherence or sufficient scrutiny, as we have heard this afternoon.
The report rightly identifies that Scotland’s commissioner landscape has evolved in an ad hoc manner. We have a patchwork of bodies, some of which are statutory regulators, some of which are advocacy focused, and some of which are attempting to do both roles. That lack of clarity has led to duplication, inefficiency and confusion, and that confusion exists not just in the Parliament but among the public, whom we serve.
Let me also be clear that commissioners are essential to our democracy. However, we need to understand their roles: there are statutory commissioners, such as the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Ethical Standards Commissioner, who are regulators, enforcers of laws, upholders of standards and insurers of compliance; advocacy commissioners, who amplify the voices of the underrepresented or unrepresented and promote systemic change; and there are those who straddle both roles, who are expected to advocate, investigate and, in some cases, regulate, often without the resources or the clarity to do so effectively.
There have been some fascinating contributions to the debate. I want to start with George Adam, simply because of his invitation to me to continue to petition for his transfer to my committee, which would therefore mean its expansion. The comment that he rightly made about coherence over clutter is massively important, as is having the status to take on the Government. As a number of contributors have pointed out—this was most clearly expressed by Lorna Slater—we create commissioners that the Scottish Government will not listen to. That is the challenge, but is it the fault of the commissioner, of cross-party groups, of committees or of individuals out there if the Scottish Government chooses not to listen?
The member raises a good point. We have a frustration—we can use the example of climate matters, which Sarah Boyack also raised—that creating a new commissioner just gives the Government another group to ignore. A commissioner does not necessarily have more clout or more effectiveness, and there are other bodies—international bodies as well as third sector organisations—that have the ability to do research. It is not the case that a commissioner will make the Government suddenly jump into action. Therefore, the better question is how, for example, parliamentary committees can be more effective in influencing the Government.
Yes, absolutely, and I welcome that intervention, because this issue sits in a complex network, or jigsaw, work on which is on-going and will come to the chamber before the end of the parliamentary session.
I want to deal with the question of the amendment in my name, which has so upset colleagues across the chamber. I apologise for that upset, but I will pick out the reason for the amendment. I will also ensure that I allow time for the SPCB representative to respond, given what Maggie Chapman said about the disadvantage of losing a direct, specific order from Parliament.
The motion opens by pointing out, rightly, the challenge for parliamentary committee resources, yet the specifics draw attention to the creation of an additional committee. I understand and agree with the proposal to temporarily give one committee the responsibility for all commissioners. However, we will then have to explore where, given their statutory functions, some of the commissioners will report to. Is the Ethical Standards Commissioner working satisfactorily if X number of complaints are processed? Will the committee want to look at those?
We sit within both primary legislation and standing orders with regard to how this is dealt with. It is a complex question, which is why I raised with Maggie Chapman the issue of the SPCB giving evidence to a parliamentary committee. There is a challenge in that role that needs to be considered carefully.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer—
The intervention will need to be brief, because Mr Whitfield will thereafter be concluding.
I wonder whether Martin Whitfield will acknowledge that, if a committee required to take evidence, it would be possible for it to do so in camera so that some of the frank conversations that already exist between commissioners and the corporate body, which meets in camera, could still happen.
Given the shortage of time, I will conclude, but I am more than happy to discuss that. I am challenged by the idea that we are going to hide this behind a camera being off.
The Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, Derek Walker, has said:
“being the guardian of the interests of people not yet born is the greatest privilege.”
One of the roles that commissioners have taken is giving a voice to people who do not have a voice in this place.
I call Stephen Kerr to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
16:57
This has been a very useful debate and many of the speeches have been very thoughtful. Members have clearly thought through the implications of the committee’s excellent report, and their thoughts and conclusions have been much appreciated by me. It is difficult to sum up in a few minutes everything that members have said, but I congratulate Ben Macpherson and his committee on producing such a fine report.
Ben Macpherson struck a number of significant notes in his opening comments, specifically on the importance of a strategic mapping exercise in relation to the particular bodies—a point that was immediately taken up by the minister. However, there is also a wider exercise to be done on public sector bodies, and I know that the Minister for Public Finance is across that.
It is also significant that Ben Macpherson talked about parliamentary capacity. We have debated that subject on a Thursday afternoon before, but I do not feel that we are making much progress on tackling it. We need to consider the scale of the scrutiny work that falls on this Parliament. We have 129 members but, including the bodies that we have discussed this afternoon, there are 131 public bodies. That is more than one body per MSP. That shows the scale of the task of proper scrutiny. We have a sprawling network of commissions, commissioners, ombudsmen and all the different public bodies.
I have a great quote from Ivan McKee, which he knows I will use on every occasion that I can. He said:
“Nobody knows everything about all the 130-odd public bodies and what they are all doing”.—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 8 May 2025; c 12.]
To me, that says it all. It sums up where we are and puts it in context. If the minister feels that way, every other member in this Parliament should feel the same way, and we should resolve—on the basis of the very good thought that we have heard this afternoon—to actually do something about it.
However, will we do that, or will we simply say that the report and this debate will form part of a legacy from the current session of Parliament that whoever is sitting here in a few months’ time will have to pick up and do something with? I know that we have a lot on our plates, but that would be an abrogation of responsibility. In the time that we have left, we should do something about this. Kenny Gibson highlighted that and so did Murdo Fraser.
When we take off our party hats and rosette colours and begin to talk to each other about how we can make our country better, improve its governance and improve the Parliament and the processes that we use, it is incredible to discover that, regardless of the party that we are in, we end up largely agreeing with each other. There is a lesson in that. The public do not see it, but when we set aside the biggest issues that divide us, we find a huge element of common ground.
It astonishes me to reflect that one of the two best speeches that have been given today was given by Lorna Slater. That is probably going to result in two things. The first is that I will be excommunicated from the Conservative and Unionist Party, and the other is that Lorna’s status in the Green Party—which is already somewhat shaky—might be shakier. [Interruption.] I am being extremely nice to the member, and I am sorry that she does not feel that I am.
I thought that her speech, along with Kenny Gibson’s, hit the nail on the head about quality and quantity of work, the need for deadlines and the need for a clear process. I 100 per cent endorse all the things that Kenny Gibson said about that. I wish that that would become the culture of our Parliament. Lorna Slater said that what we need is not all these different bodies, different places to go and signposts to different people; what we need is a Parliament that does its job. In fact, if the Parliament were to begin to exercise its parliamentary muscles and properly scrutinise the executive and hold it to account, the good news for the executive is that it would improve, and by the measurement of many of us in the chamber, it needs to improve.
The consequence of the performance of any Government is partly related to the ability of the Parliament that it accounts to to do its job. On that measurement, we do not do a particularly good job. That is what we keep coming back to. Lorna Slater quoted the New Zealand witness who came before the committee’s inquiry, and we should sit up and take note of what they said. We need a Parliament that does its job. I am quickly running out of time, but I recognise that a number of people have said some really good things.
I will now focus on what Richard Leonard, my old sparring partner from decades ago at the University of Stirling, said. He reflected on the fact that when we get together in small committees—and “small committees” needs to be underlined and capitalised—and we have short, sharp, time-limited inquiries, we get really good work. I hope that the lesson that he shared is not lost on any of us, because it is very important.
When Richard Leonard talked about the need for accountability, I said “Hear, hear!” and, “Amen!”. He quoted the famous water example, but I will use the example of the Glasgow City Council officials who awarded themselves huge pay-offs. To whom do they account, at the end of the day? Our system is lacking in democratic accountability. What he said in his characteristic fashion is absolutely correct.
I know that I am running out of time. John Mason said that George Adam gave one of his best speeches without mentioning Paisley, but I actually think that John Mason gave one of his best speeches. I agree with him that we do not need more bodies; we need fewer. We also need better processes for accountability and a change of culture in our public services generally, regardless of which body we are looking at.
Mr Kerr, could you please bring your remarks to a close?
We need a zero-defects approach, so that we can improve what we do in the name of the people of Scotland and for the people of Scotland.
17:04
I have to say that it has turned out to be a very interesting debate and there has been a huge amount of agreement across the chamber. The only disagreement has been on the Labour amendment, which, for the record, we will not support.
We have heard Sue Webber make common cause with Lorna Slater, and Stephen Kerr with Richard Leonard—it has been quite a remarkable afternoon. I commend Ben Macpherson and Murdo Fraser for setting out very well the issues that the committee addressed. Murdo Fraser was right to make the point that there is limitless potential for the creation of new commissioners, should we choose to create them. It is important that that issue was addressed.
Lorna Slater made the point that the creation of commissioners is often seen as a response to perceived failings in public services. As a Government minister, I would argue that services are good and improving. Not everyone will share that view, but the key point is that, whatever one’s view of public services, the answer is not to make the system more complicated. That just makes services worse, not better. It diverts resource and attention—a point that was made well by Kenny Gibson.
I reflect on a point that Lorna Slater made in her intervention. Just for the record, the Government does not ignore anyone; we listen to all voices and respond appropriately.
In fairness, the point that Stephen Kerr referred to about no one knowing what every public body is doing relates to their detailed work plans. Not everyone knows what every public body is doing at a detailed level. That reflects the complexity of the system that we have in front of us and the number of challenges that the report seeks to address. We are continuing to review the overlaps and duplication, which we will address through a mapping exercise, as part of the simplification process. I will talk more in a minute about the broader PSR strategy.
In response to Stephen Kerr’s other point, he should consider the committee’s excellent report in the broader context of the PSR strategy. I am sure that he has read from cover to cover all 18 workstreams and is across that, because that is the vehicle that will take forward activity across a broad front. There will be engagement with not just Government and public bodies but those throughout the public and third sectors, and other voices, to ensure that we deliver on our aspiration to build a more effective public service delivery mechanism.
Does the minister agree that, in respect to culture change, there should be a line in every annual budget for every cost centre in Government that demonstrates measurable productivity savings?
As the member knows, we are working to take forward productivity improvements. Mr Kerr will know that workstream 1 in the PSR strategy addresses culture. We absolutely understand the importance of the culture point, which we tie closely to how we recruit, promote, assess and hold accountable leaders across the public sector. The work that we are doing on preventative budgets in workstream 6 is also really important in ensuring that we are clear that we are getting value from every public pound that we spend.
Richard Leonard’s comments were interesting. He further broadened the scope and importance of what we are trying to do. Judging by his comments, we do not see eye to eye on everything, but I take on board his point about holding the executive to account. That is critical in our democracy. As Stephen Kerr said, that makes the job of the executive easier to an extent, because such a constructive challenge helps enable us to take forward the important work that we do on behalf of the people who send us here.
It is worth reflecting on Richard Leonard’s comments about how getting this right is important for our democracy more broadly. I turn to the work that the Government is doing in that regard. We all recognise that, as John Mason said, we are talking about £18 million and a handful of commissioners, but the signal that it sends and the approach and culture change that it signifies are important. The public service reform agenda is about shifting those resources to the front line and, in doing so, making a significant difference to the lives of the people of Scotland and positively impacting service delivery. It is about further integration of services, and shifting resources to prevention, which we believe can make billions of pounds-worth of impact on public services.
We have been talking about not increasing the number of commissioners and public bodies. Stephen Kerr and John Mason made the point that the direction of travel is to reduce, not increase, the number of public bodies. We do not want to end up in a situation where the only show in town is restructuring, because that in itself can be diversionary. We will take the work forward through the removal of duplication and the integration of shared services. We are clear, and the strategy is clear that, where necessary, structural change will be implemented appropriately to reduce the number of public bodies and ensure that the services that we deliver on behalf of the people of Scotland are as integrated, effective and efficient as possible.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]
Thank you, minister. The sound of the division bell was unexpected. It had an immediate impact on the minister, though, so that is something to bear in mind in future.
I call Ben Macpherson, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, to wind up the debate. If you could take us to 5.20 pm, that would be great.
17:10
I am pleased to close the debate, which I think has been excellent. It has shown our Parliament at its best in terms of constructive dialogue, different reflections and putting forward perspectives on the concerns that we share.
In closing on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate for their reflections and for their time. I also thank my fellow members of our small but effective committee, which delivered the report for the Parliament and was brilliantly supported by our clerks and the research team at SPICe.
We have heard a range of reflections in the debate, many of which have touched on themes and challenges that our committee grappled with over the course of our six-month review. I will pick up on a number of those points now.
It was helpful of Maggie Chapman and Kenny Gibson to set the perspectives of the SPCB and the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the research that had been done prior to our committee’s work being instructed, on the SPCB’s wider challenges and procedures in relation to engaging with the bodies and on how the report can assist the SPCB if it is agreed by Parliament.
I am also grateful to the minister for setting out the Government’s perspective and touching more widely on public sector reform. One of the challenges that we faced as a committee was in considering the SPCB-supported bodies as part of a much wider landscape of public sector bodies and the need for reform across the board. It is helpful that the Government has engaged so constructively with our committee’s recommendations.
As Clare Haughey rightly emphasised, we need to get to a position of greater simplicity and accessibility. As George Adam emphasised, we need to move to a more streamlined situation with greater coherence. As John Mason emphasised, there is potential for amalgamation and a reduction in the number of public bodies. It will be interesting and important to see how the Government takes forward its agenda, and I know that Parliament will look at that in great detail and with great attention.
Martin Whitfield was right to emphasise that committees’ reporting, which was already substantial, has been enhanced as of yesterday. We heard from Sue Webber and Audrey Nicoll, in their previous and current convener capacities, how difficult it is for some committees, particularly the larger ones, given the amount of legislation that they have to contend with, to scrutinise our public bodies regularly and effectively. That is why the committee recommended creating a dedicated committee to look specifically at those issues.
Although I absolutely agree that that is worth trying, did the committee consider—I fear that this may come up in the future—that an independent committee would lack the specialism of, for example, the Education, Children and Young People Committee to deal with the specialist commissioners who would appear in front of it?
At no point did our committee recommend or decide that the specific committee would be the only committee that would hold the bodies to account. It would provide additional accountability and drive proactivity and performance. Public sector delivery improvement is the aspiration of our recommendations.
I thought that Lorna Slater’s and Richard Leonard’s speeches were both outstanding—I am not saying that just because they were my committee colleagues—and were symbolic of the contributions that they made in the committee. They touched on two points related to the fact that, as I outlined in opening the debate, the committee’s report recommended targeted improvements across the board as well as specific improvements to how the SPCB-supported bodies landscape and, indeed, the wider public sector could operate. Those improvements could involve changes to existing bodies.
As Richard Leonard touched on, the committee recommended enhancing the powers of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, based on the evidence that we received, and that the SPSO be granted enhanced powers to carry out own-initiative investigations in the public interest. That would enable the ombudsman to identify and report on systematic failures in public services before complaints arise. It would be a preventative measure that we believe would deliver better outcomes for service users and provide greater value for public money in the long run. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to engage with the SPCB on that recommendation.
As Lorna Slater touched on, we also considered how the Scottish Human Rights Commission could be developed to provide a more effective, rights-based approach to addressing structural inequalities in Scotland. Although we were not convinced that expanding the functions of the SHRC to include specialist departments, rapporteurs or sub-commissioners to protect specific groups in society would achieve the best outcomes, we believe that there is a case for a wider review of the SHRC’s remit and powers. Once again, the committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to hold further discussions with the SPCB and the SHRC on the matter. We also welcome the engagement that we have had with the SHRC.
The committee believes that SPCB-supported bodies could do more to adopt a proactive and preventative approach. Our recommendations encourage all SPCB-supported bodies to put in place measures that would allow them to address systematic issues at an early stage. That shift towards a more proactive and preventative approach not only would enhance the effectiveness of those bodies but would help to avoid issues such as complaints or service delivery failures arising in the first place.
Of course, there will be consideration of SPCB-supported bodies in future meetings of the Parliament. It may be worth considering that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland naturally thinks about future generations, and perhaps some thought could be given to whether its remit could be reconsidered in the future. That is a just point of constructive engagement with Sarah Boyack.
The committee recognises the progress that has been made on shared services, but more could be done. We recommend moving towards a formal hub-and-spoke model, which would centralise key support functions such as human resources, finance and information technology while ensuring that the statutory independence of each office-holder is protected. In addition, we encourage greater and more flexible use of the wider public sector estate as existing leases come to an end, striking the right balance between efficiency and independence. We encourage the Scottish Government and the SPCB to work together to achieve that.
It has been a good, constructive debate, and the review has been an opportunity to look at the bigger picture of how we create, support and scrutinise the SPCB-supported bodies, which play a vital role in safeguarding public trust, institutional integrity and democratic accountability. Our recommendations are designed to future proof the landscape, ensuring that it is strategic, sustainable and fit for the years ahead. We call on all members to support the committee’s motion at decision time.
That concludes the debate on motion S6M-18936, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, on the SPCB-supported bodies landscape review.
Air ais
Care (Isle of Skye)Air adhart
Decision Time