Seòmar agus comataidhean

We want to consider what improvements can be made to the range of different models for vocational pathways so that we can build on good practice and protect a variety of approaches, while making improvements where we can. In my closing remarks, I will touch on SDS staff, trade union engagement, sector sustainability, governance and widening access.

In conclusion, the bill has the potential to be an important step towards simplifying and modernising the funding landscape for tertiary education funding in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.

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.

Tackling climate change internationally is something that I am passionate about, like many others, but I have been passionate about it since way before that became a common view.

This is a global challenge. Although we need to think global and act local, we have to accept the reality: in terms of the numbers, we in Scotland have very little ability to tackle climate change at an international level. We are a small contributor to emissions, and given past emissions, and what other countries are emitting at present, our ability as a small country to affect climate change internationally is small, too. Yes, we should play our part; yes, we should do our bit; and yes, new technologies that we are leading on can make an impact beyond our shores, but our ability to effect the cessation of or reduce global climate change is limited. We have to accept that fact, unfortunately.

No matter what we do, it is likely that, as we have seen in recent years, climate change will happen to us, because of the international situation. Therefore, although we should raise our voices to urge for more action internationally, we also need to think much more about adaptation and mitigation. We saw a shift in resources and focus towards that in the previous budget, which I welcomed; and we also saw investment in net zero, which has other benefits. As well as reducing emissions, that creates warmer homes, more breathable air and so on, as well as facilitating greater use and development of renewable energy. All those things are worth doing, but we need to think more in the long term about adaptation and mitigation, in relation to flooding as well as wildfires. That is why the debate is important.

The devastating impact of wildfires has been seen this summer. We are all afraid—and should be acting on the proposition—that wildfires are likely to happen more often as we see warmer and warmer weather. The motion understandably focuses on the Highlands, but wildfires have also affected us here in the capital city at Arthur’s Seat, which is very close to where we are now. They are happening more and more.

We need action on prevention, education and minimising the risk of such fires, but we also need to have adequate resource to respond. That is why the capacity of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service matters so much. The service delivery review that is taking place is important, as we need to think strategically and effectively about how resources are allocated. However, as a local MSP, I am concerned about the proposal to close Marionville fire station. It is one of the closest fire stations to Arthur’s Seat and it is in a growing city where the risk is growing.

As a society and a democracy, we, and the Government, need to think about long-term capacity building, not capacity reduction, and certainly not here in our growing capital city.

It is well understood that hospitality businesses bring people to town and city centres, which benefits all, including retail, as happens in the superb Shore area in my constituency, and on Leith Walk and elsewhere.

However, I know that too many of our hospitality businesses are struggling at the moment, largely because of the increases in employer national insurance contributions that were made earlier this year, as well as other factors. Does the First Minister agree with the view, which I and UKHospitality share, that the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer must consider a VAT cut for hospitality in the UK Government’s upcoming budget?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.