Hansard

Absolutely. I would not go as far as Professor Alan Page, who suggested:

“is my MSP not my commissioner?”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 70.]

There is something about structural integrity, accountability and reporting back that, as individual members, we cannot do. I would love to scrutinise the national performance framework and question how it is implementing the sustainable development goals, but there is no way that I can do that as an individual member. There is a point about having collective responsibility and focus.

The report acknowledges that not all commissioners are the same, as a couple of other members have said. This week, we saw the importance of the Scottish Information Commissioner. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner made valuable comments in the report about timescales and changes relating to the purpose of commissioners that occur between when they are established and the years after. It is important that those issues are considered by such a committee as gets established.

Another point that has been made is that the term “commissioner” can mean different things to different people. However, stopping all commissioners would potentially be throwing the baby out with the bath water. We need proper consideration.

I want to give a sense of the discussions that I have been having in relation to my member’s bill, which recommends establishing a commissioner for sustainable development and wellbeing. The Scottish Government has also consulted on a future generations commissioner. The two consultation documents are incredibly similar, and there is a huge overlap. I had an excellent meeting with the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Employment and Investment, and we have agreed to engage constructively on my bill. They are very keen to see the draft that is currently being prepared by the non-Government bills unit. That does not mean that they will support my bill or, indeed, any of the details in it, but it was a constructive dialogue, and responses to the consultations that we have carried out were incredibly supportive.

Comments were made, by Craig Hoy in particular, about value for money. We have an ageing population and there are huge pressures on our national health service, and the recommendations of the Christie commission in 2011 have still to be implemented. There is also the need to tackle our climate crisis while creating jobs and investing in our communities. We need joined-up action, which we are simply not getting at the moment.

The recent academic report that was produced by the Carnegie UK Trust pointed out that the national performance framework is insufficient when it comes to ensuring that sustainability and wellbeing are at the heart of policy making.

Michael Marra’s points about advocacy are important, but I note that the term “commissioner” can cover very different roles in the areas of accountability and scrutiny. There is an issue about ensuring that successive Governments of any party meet legal targets and achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals across all policy areas. There is significant scrutiny in that area currently. The Carnegie report talked about the need for a “helicopter” approach, which is about not just individual committees but cross-committee and cross-ministerial reviews.

Reform of the commissioner landscape should include greater consideration of progress made in other countries. I hope that that will be included in the work of the proposed committee. The approach of the Welsh commissioner has shaped my thoughts on the drafting of my bill, on which the non-Government bills unit is currently working. I have considered the financial savings that were generated by establishing the Future Generations Commissioner in Wales, and the clarity and sense of direction that the Welsh Government has picked up since then.

Colin Smyth mentioned lobbying by organisations. Earlier this month, all members were issued with a letter from more than 130 organisations, which urged the First Minister to support my bill. Reform has been an issue since before 2021, so that conversation has been on-going.

I very much welcome the opportunity for a proper discussion on the commissioner landscape. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has highlighted the need for a coherent infrastructure, but we should be careful not to downplay or reduce the effective work of existing commissioners. More integrated working and support are important, but let us not forget the importance of those commissioners’ remits. The Scottish Parliament regularly struggles with long-term thinking. Commissioners potentially enable a bigger-picture approach to be taken to legislation, improve scrutiny and increase action on the important issues that our constituents have elected us to act on.

I move amendment S6M-15086.2, to, leave out from “; agrees with” to end and insert:

“, and notes the recommendation that a dedicated committee should be established to carry out a ‘root and branch’ review, to be concluded by June 2025, with the purpose of creating a clear strategic framework to underpin and provide more coherence and structure to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) supported body landscape.”