Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Jeremy Balfour’s comment about people’s voices not being heard, even when people’s voices are heard, what happens next? At a meeting of the cross-party group on sustainable transport the other week, we were talking about disability, and we realised just what a huge project it is to make transport accessible. Our cross-party group is doing work on equalities. We will send it in to the Government, but again the question is: what happens next? In that respect, there is something to be said for the always-on approach of a commissioner, and having somebody in place who has that responsibility.

When I look back, I am struck by the work of the Christie commission over a decade ago and its message about investing now in order not to have to pay later, and keeping people well and healthy instead of trying to cure them afterwards, which is much more expensive. Moreover, we do not have a co-ordinated and coherent approach to the sustainable development goals.

We do not lack people lobbying us or coming up to us as multitasking MSPs on committees, in our constituencies and regions and in the chamber, but there is something to be said for having that other focus.

For me, it all comes back to having specific guidance, having best practice to look at and being able to get people around the table. Things will not happen without those.

Let me give you an example from Wales. We had feedback from the first Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, who talked about engaging with the Welsh NHS. A new hospital was being built, and when she asked about the climate impact, she was told, “That’s not our job—we’re the NHS.” Then she asked whether they were going to put in a solar farm, and she was told that it would be a “nice to have”. The solar farm was put in after that engagement and conversation, and it now makes a profit that goes into the Welsh NHS.

The fact is that everybody is just in their own bloc. A commissioner’s role is additional to that of an MSP; they are not Government officials, and they are able to come back and report to the Parliament. I think that having commissioners adds capacity to our Parliament. The issue is how to manage them, which was the convener’s first question. There are lessons to be learned, but if you just say, “Right—there’ll be nothing”, what happens to the issues that are not being addressed? For example, we have three climate acts, but we are still not cutting it on that matter.

There might be different models that could be used. However, independence from the Government is critical. There is a challenge for many existing bodies: you could ask them to increase their number of priorities or to do more coherent cross-Government or cross-policy thinking but, if it is not in their day job and they do not have the capacity to do it, it will not happen.

One part of my proposed bill is about establishing a commissioner, and two parts are about having a clear definition of sustainable development and wellbeing, and introducing a public duty to promote them. However, even if both those components of my bill were to be passed, the extra scrutiny still would not happen—because who would be checking up on it?

There are different types of commissioners, and I know that some of them have different roles. However, we need to think about what changes we want to make. For me, the changes are about implementation—making things happen and accountability—and that comes back to the Parliament.

It is simply not happening, though. We need a push to make it happen and to kick the issue up the agenda. If organisations do not see that role as an immediate part of the day job, who is going to do it?

All public sector organisations are under pressure. One group that I have not mentioned so far that would be covered by my proposed bill is local authorities. We know that they are under pressure, and my bill would help by giving them support and advice and helping them to share best practice. It would also provide focus, because it would mean that there could be an investigation if it was clear that clearly defined legislation was not being implemented. It is about going beyond thinking about the issue as a nice to have or thinking, “We’ve legislated on this, so we tick the box and move on.” The scrutiny is not happening in real life.

Pressure on committees is definitely an issue. They need expertise and support, as we can see when committees appoint experts for short pieces of work in addition to the Scottish Parliament information centre’s capacity. We could increase that capacity through annual reporting, so that commissioners report to specific committees. A commissioner would have an expectation of which committee it might report to, but it might have done work in one year that relates more to another committee than the one to which it previously reported, so that would be an issue.

The points that you make about pressure on the SPCB are important. Could the Scottish Commission for Public Audit provide overarching support that would help to prevent the SPCB’s having to do everything? It goes back to the question earlier about why we choose the SPCB model—we do so because we know it and it works. That relates to why the committee is doing the inquiry. What lessons can be learned?

There are ways in which we could support commissioners without overwhelming the SPCB, and if we think about what capacity exists, there are definitely wins to be had, which would be a big benefit for our committees and help us to learn from best practice and experience.

That is very kind; I will take that.

I will follow up on the link between access to services and funding. The stats on supported bus services and the impact of bus service cuts show that the impact is falling disproportionately on people who are already in deprived groups, and how it affects rural and peripheral urban areas is clearly an issue because people have a bus pass, but they cannot necessarily use it. We had a cross-party group meeting on sustainable transport, and that is what the young people said. They said that they loved the concept of a bus pass, but that it is not much use if they do not have a bus to use it on. What is the joined-up approach to give people access to bus services?