Chamber and committees

Does the Government have a view on why organisations are proposing commissioners, whether for older people or neurodivergent people? It has been suggested to us that that is because of a systemic lack of service delivery or because ministers are not giving enough attention to a specific area. Obviously, that is an indictment of Government. Does the Government have a view on that?

We have talked a lot about scrutiny. One of the issues that we have not talked about directly is sunset clauses. It has been suggested that post-implementation reviews should be carried out, along with periodic reviews, to assess whether the office holder is still relevant and required. That is not just about scrutiny on a day-to-day basis; rather, it is about whether we still need a given commissioner. The post might have been set up with a bit of verve and passion and a desire to get things done, but after 10 or 20 years—perhaps even after five years—the office might seem to be just plodding along. What is the end game for commissioners? It seems that once they are established they are with us permanently; that seems to be the situation so far. If that is not the case, sunset clauses could be brought in for new commissioners, but what about existing commissioners? Will there be any reviews to look at whether they should continue indefinitely?

Indeed.

No, but where should the SPCB fit in?

I mean enhancements of how the scrutiny of commissioners function is undertaken.

I am getting the feeling that you are of the view that the Government does not have a lot to say on this. What is the Government’s overall role in relation to commissioners? You talked about the ones that the Government is proposing, but, as for others, you said in your opening statement that that is up to the Parliament. Do you feel that the Government should have no role in that, even to encourage or discourage?

Let us say that someone comes forward with a suggestion for a commissioner for older people, for example, which has been suggested, as I have mentioned, and they refer to the fact that we do not have a minister for older people or even a ministerial title that includes older people. In other words, they feel that older people are not getting the attention that they deserve. Does the Government look at that and say that there is an issue and a gap to be closed? What is the Government’s response to that?

I am not asking whether it will agree or disagree with a proposal for a specific commissioner. I want to know what the Government does in looking at the reasons for a commissioner being proposed in a specific area. Does it think that it needs to do something about that, because something is not transpiring in the way that it should be, which is creating enough momentum for people to drive forward with such a suggestion?

One of the issues is that not everyone who advocates for something necessarily wants a commissioner to be established. For example, on the push for an older person’s commissioner, which we talked about earlier, we have also heard evidence that, in fact, some organisations that operate in that space feel that that money would be better spent on front-line services. Is that an assessment that the Government makes when it decides whether to take forward proposals for commissioners?

Some take that view.

Although commissioners can give evidence to committees, is the scrutiny robust enough? Could there be enhancements? If so, how could it be improved?