Chamber and committees

On the point about skills, one thing that slightly concerns me is how MSPs robustly scrutinise commissioners. Is there something in and around supporting MSPs, given their very important role in scrutinising commissioners, as has been reflected on today?

I commend the Finance and Public Administration Committee for producing its detailed report on the commissioner landscape, which drills into a range of issues and makes timely recommendations. As the committee’s motion states, it calls for

“a ‘root and branch’ review”

and the establishment of

“a clear strategic framework to underpin ... the ... landscape”.

In my short speech, I will first reflect on some of the points that are outlined in the report by referring to the evidence that has been taken on a proposal for a new commissioner, and secondly draw on the evidence that has been given by an existing commissioner.

I was particularly interested in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s consideration of how commissioners fit within existing democratic accountability structures, which has been referenced in this debate. That is particularly relevant given the increase in the number of new commissioners who are being proposed. They include a victims commissioner, as we have heard. I was pleased to give evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny of that proposal and the challenges that were faced by that committee, which I convene, in making sense of the evidence and reaching agreement on recommendations.

At the time of the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny, members were unaware of the existence of the ministerial control framework, which might have been of assistance to members. I am still slightly unclear on how the published framework should be applied, especially at the committee stage of scrutiny of a proposal for a new commissioner. I note for the record that my comments today reflect a personal viewpoint.

The proposal for a victims commissioner arises from a perceived need for an independent voice to put victims at the heart of the justice system. Support for the proposal varied. There was a strong sense that, for victims, the status quo is not acceptable and that a commissioner would play an important role in changing that. It was no surprise that cost was raised as an issue, with the suggestion that the funding that would be required could be put to better use. A witness stated that they would rather fund legal representation for survivors than a commissioner.

There was an expectation, and perhaps some confusion, among some witnesses that the commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That is not the case, but the proposal highlighted the need for clarity on the individual roles and responsibilities of commissioners. Would a commissioner interfere with the ability of experienced third sector organisations to engage directly with the Scottish Government and other justice bodies, where strong relationships already exist? Scotland is considered to be leading in that regard. Similarly, would there be a synergy between a commissioner for victims and the likes of His Majesty’s inspectorates for policing and prosecutions, or the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner?

The issue of overlap was also raised—it has already been spoken about in the debate—for example, in relation to the existing role of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in representing the rights of children as victims. I hope that it is of some interest to Jeremy Balfour that, on the basis of the evidence heard, the Criminal Justice Committee remains to be convinced of a strong case for a victims commissioner. It recommended that, if a commissioner post is established, it should be for a time-limited period to allow for an assessment of the value of the role.

I also note the minister’s response to Martin Whitfield’s intervention seeking clarity on the status of commissioners’ posts that are currently the subject of live scrutiny, which was very helpful.

By contrast, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, whose role is scrutinised by the Criminal Justice Committee, fulfils a fairly clear function of supporting lawful practices relating to biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA. I note the excellent evidence of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow, who described the model of commissioners in Scotland as having “evolved organically” over time—in his case, following controversies over what was described at the time as a “biometric wild west”. He stressed the importance of commissioners’ independence, sharing services to ensure best value and avoiding scrutiny purely through the lens of cost, which are points that have all been referenced this afternoon. I do not disagree with Dr Plastow's view that the scrutiny role of the SPCB, Parliament and committees is a bit of a mixed picture at the moment, with scope for it, especially the role of committees, to be far more proactive.

I was particularly interested to note Dr Plastow’s evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee regarding post-implementation review. He said:

“Often, these posts arise because of a particular wicked issue—a controversy ... but, 20 years down the line, that might no longer be relevant, so I think that there needs to be a more systematic look at how this entire landscape fits together.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 17.]

I note the committee’s consideration of the merits of a sunset clause in enabling legislation.

My final point relates to the need to ensure that elected members fully understand their role in scrutinising the role and function of commissioners and holding them to account—a point on which I intervened on my colleague Michelle Thomson—in particular when a commissioner’s role is specialist or technical.

I commend the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its work, and I very much look forward to following the progress of the review, should it be agreed to today.

I am very pleased to bring the debate to the chamber. I thank every member who signed the motion, and every member who is speaking today.

The motion centres on the recent Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”, which takes account of the current status of non-native species in Scotland, the part that they play in biodiversity loss and the urgent action that is required to tackle them. I commend all the organisations that contributed to the report, and I thank the report’s authors for producing a comprehensive review of the non-native species landscape in Scotland. I also thank all the organisations that have shared helpful briefings ahead of the debate, and I extend special thanks to Andrew Marks, Susan Madden, Dr Lorraine Hawkins and Jan Simpson for their insight and support.

As nature champion for the freshwater pearl mussel, I am pleased to have secured the time to debate this topic. The urgency of the work that is required to shift the dial on habitat and species decline, including tackling invasive non-native species, cannot be overstated.

Invasive non-native species, or INNS, are one of the five principal direct drivers of global biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, pollution, changes in land use, natural resource use and exploitation. Globally, natural barriers such as oceans and mountains restrict the mixing of species from different regions and allow global diversity to be maintained. INNS are species that have been introduced to a country, whether deliberately or accidentally, thereby breaking down those barriers and eroding biodiversity. International trade and the movement of people and goods are the most likely means by which INNS move across borders.

Not all INNS have immediate or detectable environmental impacts, but many of them do. There is no doubt that the pressure of INNS on biodiversity is intensifying across terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. Many of us are familiar with Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, but there are many other INNS that cause issues, including the grey squirrel, American skunk cabbage and American mink, to name but a few.

The greatest threat to Scotland’s rainforest is the rhododendron, with which we are all familiar. It blocks sunlight from reaching the forest floor, stifling the growth of native flora and fauna, which in turn impacts mammals, insects, moss and lichen. In the north-east, the Dee Catchment Partnership has undertaken a number of targeted projects, including in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, to control giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed and piri piri burr.

Japanese knotweed is highly invasive in woodlands and on riverbanks, forming very dense clumps that overshadow native plants. Dispersal is particularly problematic for riverbanks because fragments of root wash downstream, only to spread further.

As well as the environmental cost of INNS, their economic cost is significant. The cost of INNS to the UK economy is estimated to be almost £500 million per year. The cost over the past 40 to 50 years is estimated to be more than £5 billion, which is one of the highest totals in Europe.

How effectively are we controlling INNS? The Scottish biodiversity strategy notes the spread of 190 INNS across Great Britain during the past six decades, with an estimated 10 to 12 new non-native species establishing themselves each year. Projects such as Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels and the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest are working successfully to tackle INNS in Scotland. However, efforts to control and eradicate non-native species have been patchy, and work to control the spread has been largely inadequate. The existing Great Britain invasive non-native species strategy is not considered to take full account of the unique and, in part, vulnerable Scottish ecosystem.

However, the forthcoming Scottish INNS plan, which was signalled in the draft Scottish biodiversity strategy, presents the Scottish Government with an opportunity to make key strides in the control and eradication of INNS. Scotland could look to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework for guidance when considering the forthcoming plan. The KMGB framework sets a target to reduce rates of introduction and establishment of INNS by at least 50 per cent by 2030, and it puts forward targets for significant progress on the eradication or control of INNS, particularly at priority sites that are susceptible to them.

On funding, financial support to date has derived from a wide range of sources including the Scottish Government nature restoration fund. It is disappointing that the Government has signalled that that fund is to be withdrawn. I hope that the recent United Kingdom budget affords some flexibility for that to be reconsidered, and I ask the minister to provide some clarity on that point in his response to the debate.

Looking ahead, I trust that the Scottish Government will engage closely with environmental non-governmental organisations to create a Scottish INNS plan that is both clear and comprehensive in addressing the impact of INNS on the ecosystem as well as on Scotland’s native species.

Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems play a key role in tackling climate change, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber to highlight the threat that INNS represent to Scotland’s biodiversity. I thank everyone who supported my motion and I look forward to listening to members’ contributions.

As convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, I have heard much testimony from survivors of sexual violence and what they perceive to be barriers to their cases getting to court. Will the First Minister outline whether yesterday’s appeal court decision on corroboration will improve access to justice for victims of sexual crimes?

Will the member give way?

Our next item of business is the selection of a new deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party are eligible for nomination as deputy convener of the committee. I understand that Liam Kerr is that party’s nominee for the post and I invite members to agree that we appoint him as our new deputy convener.

Liam Kerr was chosen as deputy convener.

That is helpful. I move to other members, because I know that there is a lot to cover and our time is limited.

I want to come in on the back of one of Ben Macpherson’s questions, on borrowing powers. James Gray, you gave a helpful answer and a bit more detail on the on-going discussions with officials and, in your written evidence, you quoted a figure of £200 million that you would be looking to borrow. Has there been any discussion about the practicalities of that? How would it work? Who would you be borrowing from, and who would cover risk if there was a default? What about interest payments? I am thinking more of the practicalities. Have you reached that point yet?

Thank you very much. That brings this evidence session to a close. I thank all our panel members. We will have a short suspension to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

Our next witnesses are representatives of the Scottish Police Authority. I welcome Martyn Evans, the chair; Ms Lynn Brown, the chief executive; and Ms Fiona Douglas, the director of forensic services.

I intend to allow around about 60 minutes for the evidence session. Martyn, I will ask you the opening question to set the scene before we move to questions from members.

This morning, the committee has been listening to evidence from Police Scotland, but what does the SPA consider to be the main financial challenges that Police Scotland and your organisation face? What is the position with regard to the SPA’s advice to the Scottish Government on the budget resource that is needed for policing, given the scenarios that the Scottish Government has asked Police Scotland to model?