Chamber and committees

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government noted in her statement on 3 September that impact assessments would be carried out. However, they were not published until 3 October. Impact assessments, including equality impact assessments, should be done before that, so what was the rationale for the delay and for the assessments not being published until a month later?

There were net funding changes of £19.6 million. That money was moved from net zero and energy.

I accept what you have said about the remaining uncertainties and your intention. When do you anticipate that you or the finance secretary will be able to be unequivocal about that money reverting to its original intention, which related to net zero funding and growing the wider supply chain in that regard? That included a variety of things.

Okay. There is a lot of data in the documents, so are there any other areas in which there has been a deduction in the net zero budget that has gone to the enterprise one—in other words, is there anything else that fits this anomaly of deducting money from the climate emergency to put into growing the economy?

I will move on. To what extent do in-year transfers reflect the Scottish Government’s priorities?

I have looked at the impact assessments, and a third of them state that there will be no impact. Women are mentioned just twice—I fully accept what you said about the UK budget revision—but we know that cuts generally affect women disproportionately. I am just commenting that I was somewhat surprised, because it looked to me that the assessments had been done not only late but quite quickly. Any further information on that would be helpful.

I want to pick up on a comment that the convener made regarding the process that I referred to, when we were chatting earlier, as “internal shoogling”—moving money from budget pot to budget pot. I entirely understand the need for some of that, because new information will be coming in. Given the extent to which that happens—fairly regularly now—how does that fit with the drive for fiscal sustainability? The amount and the extent of that clearly indicates that a lot needs to be done. I understand some of the reasons for it, and what the drivers are, but it does not exactly scream of fiscal sustainability, considering the extent of the process.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My connection dropped, but I would have voted yes.

Does Mr Hoy agree that the addition of scrutiny of public administration to the finance brief for the first time in this place has been very worth while and that, arguably, that has been evidenced by the report that is before us?

Each year, as we approach the budget, the FPAC—that is what I will shorten it to—hears the same refrain, which is broadly summarised as, “We’re great and we deserve more money.” Each successive group of witnesses says the same, and each successive group does not necessarily consider the bigger picture. The strategic landscape—I use that term deliberately to ensure that we in this Parliament take a long-range view in relation to commissioners—seems to have been going the same way. I can imagine a multitude of areas in which, if we consulted people and asked them whether they would like a commissioner to deal with their area of interest, they would say that they would like one.

However, as an existing postholder said:

“As commissioners, we see regular frequent flyers ... looking for an angle in on their particular issue, and sometimes the more angles you have, the more risk there is and the more inefficiency there is in a system.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 16-17.]

I hope, and suspect we all agree, that public service reform is long overdue; that efficiency, effectiveness and coherence must be at the heart of our public spend; and that the processes in this place are still evolving.

I was pleasantly surprised, on receiving the usual briefings ahead of the debate, to find that they, too, were supportive of the position adopted by our committee. That provides a welcoming backdrop to today’s debate.

I plan to pull out a few points to add to the contributions from members so far, which I have found heartening. First, it is worth reiterating the strong cross-party agreement in committee for a moratorium on the creation of any new commissioners. We should bear it in mind that the Finance and Public Administration Committee is, of course, a cross-party committee, as is standard, and we have robust exchanges on a regular basis. The strength of feeling within the committee was heartening.

Secondly, on democratic accountability, of the various types of commissioners that are listed—investigatory, regulatory, complaints handling, specialist oversight and advocacy—we know that the new ones that are being proposed are mostly advocates. I agree with that, but what are we here to do, as MSPs, if not to advocate? That point was succinctly made by Jackson Carlaw:

“When it comes to advocacy, that is what MSPs were elected to do.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 28 May 2024; c 2.]

My third point concerns parliamentary accountability. Professor Alan Page noted that the bodies concerned

“are not really accountable to anybody”.

That is a strong view, but I would certainly agree that their accountability is uncertain. On scrutiny, or the lack of, we heard from the Law Society of Scotland, which noted that committee scrutiny

“can sometimes seem a little perfunctory.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 54, 56.]

That may well win an understatement of the year award, given the large workload of all our committees.

Fourthly, on cost, the estimated cost for 2024-25 is certainly above £15 million, and is heading towards £16 million, I think. We do not have all the costs for any of the new commissioners, but it would certainly be many millions of pounds, which is on top of an already stretched budget. Ironically enough, the Finance Committee of 2006 got a lot right with its tests for the creation for future bodies, namely clarity of remit, distinction between functions, complementarity, simplicity and accessibility, shared services and accountability. Our committee reiterates some of those tests in our recommendations—and rightly so.

Fifthly, perhaps the most interesting area where consolidation may be considered is that of rights. The SHRC makes a number of comments in its briefing, principally that creating new commissions or commissioners could create significant challenges for the protection of human rights. It notes that that makes matters more complex for accessing justice and dilutes human rights—it also makes various other points. What struck me was the SHRC’s view that silos could be an issue regarding the protection of rights. I make no apology for noting that that was an issue with the Parliament’s consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Balancing rights is messy and complex, but it is entirely necessary. I thought that that point came through strongly.

I will make a final few comments on the dedicated committee that is proposed. Of course it will be a cross-party committee, and rightly so, but can the minister confirm that a bit of attention will be given to the skills of the members gathered on it? If we are going to do what is an important piece of work, we want to give ourselves the best potential outcomes by getting the right people on that committee.

The minister will note that the committee recommended that the ministerial control framework should be published. Is the Government willing to do that?