Seòmar agus comataidhean

That has concluded questions from the committee.

I have one question for Nicola Killean. We obviously have a Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise and I am just wondering about the relationship that we have with that minister, because the role is quite specific. We do not, for example, have a commissioner for housing, even though we have a Minister for Housing. How do you engage and are there any gaps or overlaps?

I know—exactly.

Thank you very much, that has concluded the questions from the committee. Thank you very much for the evidence that you have given this morning. We will continue with our next panel of witnesses and beyond. I will call a break until 5 to 11.

Welcome back, folks. We will continue taking evidence for our inquiry into Scotland’s commissioner landscape. I welcome Nicola Killean, Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland; Dr Claire Methven O’Brien, commissioner, and Jan Savage, executive director, from the Scottish Human Rights Commission; and Rosemary Agnew, Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I intend to allow about 90 minutes for this session.

I will begin by asking about duplication, because in your submissions—they are excellent and are of a very high standard—the issue of duplication runs throughout. It is important to start with an issue that you have all highlighted. I will go to Nicola Killean first; others can respond subsequently. Your submission said:

“We have a statutory duty to avoid duplicating the work of others as far as is practical. We already have overlapping remits with other Commissioners and Commissions and other statutory bodies such as regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen. We strongly recommend that parliament makes it a key priority to ensure that any new offices do not further limit the remit of existing offices or create more complexity for children and young people.”

Will you talk us through that a wee bit? Where do you feel that there is duplication with other organisations? Which organisations are they?

Do you have concerns about particular bodies?

The same argument could be made for a parliamentary term. In five years do we rush to achieve things within a short time? Every member around this table faces a sunset clause every five years and some of us face it more frequently than that, in a different form.

That is very interesting. Thank you for that.

Okay, folks—that concludes this evidence session. I thank everyone for their evidence. We will continue our deliberations next week. I call a brief break until 12.20, so that our guests and the public can leave before we go into private session.

In your opening statement, you talked about the importance of improving outcomes. In its submission, Alzheimer Scotland said:

“The financial cost of this changing landscape must be considered against improved outcomes”.

Through your research, have you identified whether commissioners have been able to deliver improved outcomes for those for whom they are advocating? If so, can you give an example or two?

I was not originally intending to ask that question but, because you mentioned outcomes in your opening statement, I thought that I would throw it out there. Ultimately, improving outcomes is what commissioners are trying to do. The whole purpose of them is to look at outcomes, and there is a concern about the lack of overall research, so it is important that we ascertain whether commissioners are delivering better outcomes than would be the case if they did not exist and whether there are other ways in which organisations and individuals could be assisted.

Another area that you touched on in your opening statement was duplication. You say in your report that

“One interviewee highlighted that the focus on creating more bodies to promote and support human rights did not support the findings of the Crerar Review in 2007, which reviewed regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling of public services in Scotland. It found that scrutiny arrangement in Scotland were complex, and aimed to simplify and reduce bodies.”

The Deputy First Minister contacted us about that particular issue with regard to the strategic approach to the commissioner landscape and said:

“As agreed by Cabinet on 9 May 2023, the Scottish Government’s Ministerial Control Framework (MCF) aims to ensure that decisions around the creation of new public bodies are made based on evidence and value for money”.

The first of the three principles that she touches on is that new public bodies

“should only be set up as a last resort”.

That is completely different, incidentally, from what The Times reported today. It talks about the Scottish Government wanting to double the number of commissioners. I was certainly not aware that it was trying to do that. In the context of your research, how do you view the issue of the number of bodies and how duplication can be avoided?