Chamber and committees

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?

One of the things that I found interesting with regard to the submissions that we received—distinct from the report—is that a lot of the existing commissioners are not too enthusiastic about additional commissioners. For example, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said:

“the proliferation of Commissioners offices will be a costly exercise and may not provide good value for money for taxpayers, especially if there are multiple bodies tasked with intervening on similar or identical matters.”

Did you find in your research that there was something of a resistance from the commissioners and those bodies to extending remits to more commissioners?

Okay, I will try not to stray too far from your research then—although it is tempting. I will ask you just a couple more questions.

A commissioner is restricted to three to five years in post and then another commissioner replaces them. However, I did not see anything in your research—let me know if I have missed it—about sunset clauses. When a commissioner sets up, and once they are in existence, I would expect there to be lots of energy and enthusiasm—they might think, “Oh, there’s things that we’ve wanted to do for the last 10 years, now we’ve got a commissioner, we can press ahead and do it” and so on. However, one would think that a lot of what they would hope to deliver might start to tail off. Might there be an argument therefore for a sunset clause so that, for example, when a commissioner steps down and retires, the question whether that body should continue if it has completed its tasks, or, indeed, whether a new commissioner should be appointed, should be looked at?

I did not think that you would be able to, but I thought that it was worth a punt. Let us open up the questions to colleagues.

I understand that there is an element of frustration from committee members. We have seen the research, and I understand that you have undertaken only the research that you were commissioned to do. You have been asking people whether they support a new commissioner or whether they think that resources could be better allocated. Do you agree that, if we do not know the potential outcomes in relation to improvements—or not, as the case may be—from having a new commissioner, the exercise is two dimensional?