Chamber and committees

Thank you—that was helpful.

I want to turn to what we can try to do about the challenges in the Scottish Government’s finances. In the summary of your budget report, you set out some of the demographic trends, which I have to say are some of the most concerning aspects for the longer run, particularly the issues around economic inactivity in the labour force. Given Claire Murdoch’s point that there is some incompleteness in the labour market survey, does your data give you a good understanding of the behavioural changes in the group of people who are able but are unwilling to work?

That is a very fair point. I put it on the record that you have been a wonderful champion for disability groups in all their differences.

To finish, I will pick up on the point that the convener raised—that there is potential for considerable overlap in the commissioners that we currently have. Some disabled people are children, and some older disabled people are patients. How would you address the potential for such overlaps, which could be financially as well as administratively difficult?

May I offer a view in relation to the patient safety commissioner? In my opinion, the demand for that commissioner came about because of failings in health boards. I speak with considerable experience of the Eljamel situation; people affected by that are very clear that they want a patient safety commissioner. That has come about because of failures in a particular health board. To my mind, a commissioner is not necessarily going to solve that problem. You have to go to the root of the problem, which is about the way in which the health board was being run. To reflect on that from the angle of the need for a disability commissioner, are there problems that we could solve about the delivery of public services that do not really need a commissioner but could be addressed through other aspects of the delivery of public services?

Good morning, Mr Balfour. In looking at the whole question of commissioners, we have looked at those who have a regulatory role, those who are complaints commissioners, those whose role is investigatory and those who are advocacy commissioners. Commissioners have a broad range of roles.

One of the interesting things that the committee is facing is that the increasing demand for commissioners—as in your proposal—relates much more to the advocacy role. That has led us and some witnesses to question whether the demand for advocacy is increasing because the existing public services and facilities that are available to support people are not doing their job adequately. I ask you to reflect on whether that is the case for a proposed disability commissioner—namely, that public services are not looking after disabled people very well. If the answer is that they are not looking after them very well, is that related to cost or to a lack of understanding of the role that they should have—or perhaps both?

That is a valid point, and constituents in some of my areas in Mid Scotland and Fife have made exactly that point. However, do you think that that difficult scenario—you are quite right to say that, in some cases, that approach means that those in disability groups are housebound for that period—comes about because of a local authority’s failure to address the problem adequately and because of certain cutbacks? Earlier, you mentioned Covid, which, as we all know, has been a particularly difficult period for local authorities with regard to their financial arrangements. The point is whether we can solve those genuine issues by looking at the services that are provided by local authorities and, in some cases, by the Scottish Government, rather than by having a commissioner. That is the key question.

I understand the issue about consistency, which is important. The Law Society’s concern is about the safeguards for taxpayers. We will come later not just to my further amendment but to John Mason’s, which is about consistency with other devolved powers. However, it is on the point under discussion that the Law Society seeks that safeguard. If the minister can provide the assurance that his amendment will provide that transparency and safeguard, I am willing to remove amendment 30.

I am pleased to hear the minister acknowledge that we had a lot of issues about a lack of consultation in relation to part 2 of the bill. That point has been raised by other stakeholders, and I am sure that Mr Mason will speak more to that when he deals with his amendments.

It is critical that there is proper consultation. I received comment on the same issue from the Law Society of Scotland. It is good to see the amendment that the minister has lodged regarding increased consultation, because it is important that we keep tabs on that.

I put on record that one of the issues with the bill is not that anybody objects in principle but the fact that there is a lack of data to underpin the amount of revenue and the behavioural change that will emanate from it. That makes it quite difficult to scrutinise, so the minister has given an important guarantee in order to enhance the scrutiny and ensure that we can track what is happening with the bill.

I lodged amendment 31 on the same basis as the previous one—that is, to enhance transparency. The minister, in speaking to his amendment 22, has clarified the situation. I understand the need for consistency with the 2014 act, so that is helpful.

I thank the minister for explaining amendment 18. As he will be aware, the concerns that have led me to lodge amendment 30 were raised by the Law Society of Scotland, which felt that, in the bill, the safeguards for taxpayers were not sufficient to address a situation in which there was a dispute between a taxpayer and Revenue Scotland about the amount of any tax that is outstanding. That is the reason for my lodging amendment 30. It is in line with the committee’s desire, over a wide range of taxation, to be as transparent as possible.

As the minister will know, the Law Society of Scotland considers that the bill should make it clear that the set-off powers that the minister referred to would not apply when there is a dispute over the relevant tax amounts. That is the reason for my amendments 30 and 31, which relate to sections 52 and 56. I have listened carefully to what the minister has said on amendment 18, but we would welcome a little clarity about exactly how that amendment will cover the points that the Law Society has raised.

That is an interesting point about those commissioners who have regulatory, complaints handling or investigatory functions.

Take, for example, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. They are, generally speaking, well supported by parties across the Parliament. However, when it comes to the measurement of achievements, such as on child poverty, on attainment and on a whole lot of other issues in which we are trying to improve the lives of children, you could argue that that advocacy has not been desperately successful. What is the Scottish Government’s view on how you measure the effectiveness of commissioners who have an advocacy function and are trying to improve human rights and give a voice to those who are more disadvantaged?