Meeting of the Parliament 18 September 2025
In some ways, I can see why members and others might look at the distinction between the two bodies critically. However, our committee heard quite good evidence—I refer the member to it—about the benefits of the two bodies being separate and distinct.
When our committee was established, there were proposals for up to five new SPCB-supported bodies with advocacy functions to be created before the end of the parliamentary session. As is set out in the motion for the debate, we are concerned that such expansion
“risks further fragmenting the current landscape, increasing complexity for service users, and placing additional strain on the SPCB and parliamentary committee resources”.
Therefore, I urge Parliament to reject the amendment if it is moved. On the basis of the evidence that we received, our committee was clear in its view—which was unanimous—that the SPCB-supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type bodies. Although we understand the benefit in organisations with a public trust element, such as the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Scottish Information Commissioner, being SPCB supported, we believe that advocacy bodies, where required, could just as effectively sit within the wider public sector landscape.
We accept that there may be future occasions when the establishment of a new SPCB-supported body is justified, but a clear need must be demonstrated. That is why we have recommended the implementation of two-tier criteria comprising justification and effectiveness tests that must be satisfied before any new proposal can be brought forward. The four justification criteria for establishing new SPCB-supported bodies are:
“Last resort: Alternative models, such as enhanced powers to existing public sector bodies, or statutory duties on ministers must be exhausted and deemed insufficient to address the issue.
Functional gap: There must be clear, evidenced and persistent absence of the proposed body’s functional gap across the full Scottish public sector landscape, not just within SPCB supported bodies.
Permanent: The proposed body must address an issue in perpetuity. It cannot be created to deal with an issue that might have arisen due to a short-term failure or perceived failure in public service, or which could be resolved with a fixed-term dedicated piece of work by an existing body.
Independence: The proposed body must require a high degree of operational and perceived independence from the Scottish Government.”
The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to explore incorporating those criteria into its own ministerial control framework for new public bodies.
I turn now to the governance and accountability of SPCB-supported bodies, which operates in two broad streams. First, the SPCB is responsible for governance and resourcing, including oversight of budgets, staffing and accommodation. Secondly, parliamentary committees are responsible for holding SPCB-supported bodies to account in the exercise of their functions.
Both our review and the review by the Finance and Public Administration Committee identified capacity as a core challenge. The governance and scrutiny of those bodies has been limited not because of a lack of willingness but because of the finite time and resource that are available to the SPCB and to committees of the Parliament. Our view, therefore, is that solely recommending that the SPCB or parliamentary committees “do more” would not, in itself, bring about the improvements that are required. In that regard, we appreciate, in particular, the amount of legislation that committees have recently had to deal with, and we should all consider that with regard to the next session of Parliament.