Chamber and committees

I am asking for your opinion, based on your research and on the discussions. You have to understand the frustration of the committee—we are looking for some kind of answer, lead or steer. You have undertaken this comprehensive research. It is not as comprehensive as we would like, but it is a not insubstantial document, and you have covered a lot of ground. Having spoken to the people you have spoken to, do you feel that there should be a more robust mechanism for developing commissioners? You referred to that when you said that there is

“no handbook or blueprint within government for designing the role”.

The implication is that you surely feel that there should be one.

Do you want to make any further points before we wind up?

Good morning, and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2024 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Ross Greer.

The first item on our agenda is to take evidence as part of our inquiry into Scotland’s commissioner landscape. We are joined online by Katy MacMillan, the director of Research Scotland. I welcome her to the meeting and invite her to make an opening statement.

Thank you very much for that helpful introduction.

I notice that you interviewed five of the commissioners in Scotland. Why did you decide not to interview all seven in Scotland to ensure that all views were heard?

Page 55 of your report, which you have touched on there, is really important because it looks at how commissioners are not the only game in town. One could argue that organisations are looking for specific improved outcomes, and perhaps people see commissioners as a way of getting there more easily than constantly having to battle for additional resources. Is that correct?

One of the issues is that the role of commissioners seems to develop in different ways. Is there an argument for having a much more coherent approach to the development and creation of new commissioners?

Yes, they have certainly all had increases in their resources in the current financial year, not least for staffing.

One of the issues for this committee is scrutiny by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. In the responses that the committee has received—I am not going to quote any of those submissions because you probably will not have seen them—the commissioners all seem to feel that they are being sufficiently scrutinised. My understanding is that only one and a half, or possibly two, members of Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body staff are dedicated to scrutinising them. Are you familiar with the level of scrutiny? They all seem to be marking their own homework and saying, “Aye, the scrutiny that we are receiving is excellent.” Do you want to comment on that?

I will finish with one issue that came up in your report. On page 13, you said:

“In Scotland there is a range of commissions and commissioners. However, there is very little published research on commissioners, and no handbook or blueprint within government for designing the role.”

Do you think that there should be?

Thank you very much for giving your evidence. We will continue taking evidence for our inquiry into Scotland’s commissioner landscape at our next meeting, on Tuesday 23 April. Before that, we will discuss aspects of the issue in a private session.

As that was the only item on our agenda, I close the meeting.

Paragraph 38 of your report states that, as has been mentioned,

“Coordination and cooperation by the UK and Scottish Governments will be required to succeed in reducing emissions.”

However, the two Governments might have different policy and spending priorities. Ultimately, therefore, Scotland will be at the mercy of those UK Government decisions, will it not? For example, a future UK Government might decide that it would rather spend the money somewhere else.