Seòmar agus comataidhean

That brings us directly to item 2, which is an evidence session as part of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. This morning’s evidence session follows on from the committee’s previous evidence session, when we heard from former First Minister Alex Salmond.

We are joined again by Edward Mountain MSP in his capacity as a reporter on the inquiry from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I also see that the petitioner, Laura Hansler, is in the gallery. She has been a faithful attendee of the committee when we have been taking evidence on the petition and considering the issues that it raises.

Those who have been following our inquiry will know that our primary objective is to ensure that the A9 project is now on track and will be delivered. That is what the petitioner is keen to see.

The petition also calls for a national memorial to all those whose lives have been lost on the A9 over the years. At the very end of our previous evidence session, we asked Mr Salmond for his views on that, and we will perhaps come on to it with this morning’s witness later.

I am absolutely delighted that we have with us Nicola Sturgeon MSP, the former First Minister. We will move straight to questions.

We have had a lot of evidence from technical people, from different trades, people affected by issues with the route and ministers. You contributed evidence, along with others. Alex Neil suggested that we should go looking for various bits of paperwork—I did not realise that that paperwork would be a foot thick when we got it. We have been through it all.

I do not want to pre-empt the committee, but I do not think that, at this stage, colleagues think there is any smoking gun in relation to the non-completion of the road. However, it seems that, at some point, something happened—I do not know whether we will ever be entirely clear what it was—that led to a dilution of the focus and the drive to take forward the project.

When we heard evidence from Mr Salmond, he said—perhaps not unexpectedly—that all was hale and hearty when he left office. The Scottish National Party’s manifesto commitment underpinned the priority of the project, perhaps over other national infrastructure projects that might have been regarded as equally viable. A lot of the work during Mr Salmond’s time involved preparatory investigation of what would be required, but there was no suggestion—in the public mind or in the mind of the Parliament—that the road would not be delivered on budget and on time in the years immediately after that.

I am interested in your perspective on what happened. I realise that, as Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Capital Investment and Cities, and subsequently as First Minister, you had different views on what was going on, but we know that the road did not get built, so something did not happen. The committee is interested in trying to understand what happened so that we can see whether there are lessons to be learned.

Let me explore that, and then I will move on to colleagues. In your written submission, you drew a distinction between the period when you had a direct responsibility for infrastructure and your wider responsibilities as First Minister, when you had more of an overview of those matters. I am interested in understanding the extent to which you, as First Minister—not now, from reading the papers, but at the time—understood that this was percolating into something that might involve a delay, and whether any discussion took place about the need for perhaps more public candour about what the impact would be.

I do not think that it comes as a surprise. Whenever a new cohort of MSPs is elected, as it will be in 2026, they do not come through the door beating their breasts, saying, “I’m looking forward to holding the commissioners to account.” They come here on the back of their respective manifestos, and then they go into committees, where they get confronted with whatever the Government’s legislative programme is. A committee might want to initiate an inquiry on a particular area of policy, and the clerks will probably then tell the members, “Oh, and by the way, you’re responsible for some commissioners, too.” I say this with the greatest respect, as I do not know whether the public know that all these commissioners even exist, but I suspect that some newly elected MSPs are bedazzled by the commissioners that there are, and by the fact that, suddenly, they are responsible for them. Their first question will probably be, “What do they do?”

Given that, we do not have a proper, structured way of scrutinising the work of commissioners. I do not know—you might have been on committees where you have been presented with a commissioner—but I suspect that it is a case of “How quickly we can get through this item and on to the one that we are all more enthusiastic about?” That might be unduly cynical of me, but I fear that that is the current level of genuine scrutiny of the commissioners. I am therefore not altogether surprised to hear that some of them feel that they have not been asked to present terribly much by way of information on what they do.

Sorry, but could you expand on that slightly? I do not want to waffle, so I had better understand exactly what you are asking me.

As convener of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I can say that we received a petition that sought a review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, because the articles under which that office was established included a provision that there would be a review. We were quite surprised that the Scottish Government acknowledges that but does not want to have such a review. Rather embarrassingly, I think, the ombudsman has said that she would welcome a review.

It comes down to the issue of transparency. That is the case even within the existing architecture. I should say that the objectives of the petitioner and of the ombudsman herself in relation to what that review might achieve might be very different. Nonetheless, that points to a reluctance to look in detail at what we have created and how it is functioning. If it was envisaged that a review should take place, then a review should happen.

I would say that, in general, there is more risk-averse complacency about challenging than there has been before. I would look, for example, at the NHS compensation fund. I can recall being a health spokesman here in 2007, and I think that the compensation fund was then a couple of million pounds or something. When I last looked at it, the compensation fund was £53 million or something of that order. Why? It is because it was easier to pay out compensation than to challenge what had happened and hold people to account.

I suspect that commissioners might have a role if there is a lack of boldness in the public sector, as you identify. It is also important to say that, as we know, each commissioner is created as a result of the bill that has progressed in respect of that commissioner. The patient safety commissioner for Scotland is a case in point. There was no consensus across the Parliament. As the bill went through, there were clear divisions on what the level of responsibility, authority and powers of that commissioner might be.

The public might assume that the word “commissioner” has a common standard in respect of it that allows commissioners to act in a particular executive function, which might not even be the case. Part of the difficulty is that it will be difficult to judge whether the commissioners have been able to execute what the public expected when they were appointed.

I am tempted to say that you are inviting us to rush in where angels fear to tread. I am not entirely sure that it is the corporate body’s responsibility to consider whether that would be appropriate. Such issues of reform are being considered more widely by parliamentarians generally, and I would hesitate to identify an alternative architecture for committee accountability and authority. Maggie might be happy to rush in where I, as an angel, fear to tread.

The question is, what is the genesis of the growth in advocacy commissioners? It used to be that elected representatives called for a royal commission; then they called for a summit on the issue that was of great concern to them; then they said that it would be useful if the Government appointed a tsar who had responsibility for that issue; and now they say that it would be useful to appoint a commissioner to represent views. Each stage has been seen as a panacea for greater accountability, but it has been succeeded by another level of request, because it was not such a panacea.

I was struck by Professor Alan Page’s evidence to the committee last week, in which he said that his MSP is his commissioner. When it comes to advocacy, that is what MSPs were elected to do.

It is difficult to look at the landscape of advocacy commissioners and say that you cannot have an animal rights commissioner, a commissioner for the Scottish language, a commissioner for veterans or a commissioner for the incorporation of science into society. It is attractive to elected representatives to begin a campaign in an unstructured landscape, and the current architecture by which such matters are judged by Parliament does not put any obstacle in the way of that proposal simply finding its way through the parliamentary system. I therefore think that there has to be a greater understanding of what a commissioner should be and whether there is a genuine reason for one to exist.

MSPs are there to be advocates for many of those matters. If we are failing in our duty—after all, this Parliament was set up so that members could be advocates on all those issues—that is a question for us.

As someone who has served on the corporate body since 2016, I would, in response to the convener’s question whether we are enthusiastic about this responsibility, probably say, “Not particularly.” Our first responsibility is to recruit the commissioners and recommend that they be appointed by the Parliament. I hope that I am not denigrating anyone, but the committee might be surprised to learn that, for quite a number of the positions for which we are required to make recommendations, there are very few applicants. To my mind, that is an issue.

In addition, we appoint an independent assessor, whose job is to annually review the work of the commissioners and come back to us in as to whether they are satisfied with the execution of the governance function for which we are responsible. Until he retired, Huw Williams, one of the Parliament’s most experienced officials, was, along with Janice Crerar, dedicated to this area and met the commissioners regularly to try to identify any organisational or operational problems relating to the governance aspect of their responsibilities.

We are conscious of the fact that we now have quite a big galaxy of commissioners. Nonetheless, we, as a corporate body, have decided that we need to carve out time—even if it means having exceptional meetings—for more structured and regular meetings with each of the commissioners to understand exactly what they are doing and how they are going about these things. However, as Maggie Chapman has said, the responsibility thereafter lies with the committees.

Of course, there is not necessarily an even spread of accountable commissioners across the committees. As convener of a committee, I appreciate that a committee’s other responsibilities are such, what with the legislation that they have to scrutinise and other initiatives that they might want to undertake on their own account—never mind its responsibility for scrutinising a commissioner—that finding time once a year for this kind of scrutiny must feel like a brick in a bucket in terms of its relevance to everything else that they do. I wonder, therefore, whether scrutiny is genuinely being underwritten.

Although it was very generous of the Deputy First Minister to consider papping the whole responsibility for this on to the corporate body, I do not think that the corporate body is the appropriate body in Parliament to take on that role. We are there primarily to establish the functioning of the Parliament and the wellbeing of the people within it, including the MSPs.

With regard to the addition of office-bearers, there were two of them when the Parliament was established; I do not think that it was ever envisaged in particular that that aspect would become the much greater responsibility that it now is, or could yet become, and nor do I think that it is the appropriate way forward.

The corporate body is not like a committee, where we are on camera and such matters are being openly and transparently examined; it is more like a business executive managing the estate. I do not think that increasing the powers of the corporate body in that respect is the right route for these matters to be progressed.