On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

The Scottish economy is currently part of a UK economic model that is less productive, with lower national income per head and greater inequality than independent countries that are comparable to Scotland. The UK’s relatively poor economic performance was evident before Brexit, which has made our economic prospects even worse. Can the Deputy First Minister outline how making decisions in Scotland, combined with our economic strengths, will lead to better outcomes?

I am pleased to speak in this debate as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I preface my remarks by saying that they come from my own perspective, while drawing on the work of that committee.

I pay tribute to the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee for its detailed scrutiny, which was a really important and worthwhile piece of work. I also pay tribute to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its diligent work on this area. I gave evidence to that committee during its review of the supported bodies landscape.

It is right that we review not only the number of commissioners but other important factors such as cost, functions, shared services, governance and effectiveness. I note that the review committee’s report outlines the anticipated drivers that have led to the proliferation of supported bodies in place today. I agree with the direction of travel in relation to new commissioners and with the recommendation that a strategic mapping exercise should be undertaken to look at functions, areas of overlap and what the supported bodies landscape should look like in future.

That said, I consider Parliament’s decision yesterday to create a new victims and witnesses commissioner to be the right one. When the Criminal Justice Committee considered that part of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, we heard concerns that the cost of a new commissioner could be put to better use elsewhere and questions about whether an existing commissioner might be able to take on the role. One witness told us that they would rather fund legal representation for survivors than a commissioner.

We considered whether a commissioner would interfere with the ability of third sector organisations to engage directly with the Scottish Government and other justice bodies where strong relationships already exist. However, on balance, we supported the establishment of a commissioner, while caveating that with the recommendation that the post should be time limited, to allow for its effectiveness to be reviewed.

I also point out that, at the time of our scrutiny and while we were considering our proposal, the Criminal Justice Committee was unaware of the ministerial control framework, which I do not think has yet been mentioned today. It would have been helpful to understand that framework when we were scrutinising the case for having a new commissioner. In short, we wanted to see clear evidence of the existence of a commissioner noticeably improving the experiences of victims and witnesses, which is why we requested a review.

The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner promotes the ethical and lawful use of biometric data in policing and criminal justice in Scotland, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigates incidents involving public bodies in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of both offices, which undertake highly specialist but different functions in the justice space. In relation to the recommendation that a two-tier approach be adopted to the establishment of new commissioners, I have no doubt whatsoever that both those offices would pass the test, so to speak. I welcome that recommendation, and I note the committee’s view that standardising functions would risk constraining the flexibility that commissioners need.

Turning to the issue of governance, which was an area of particular focus in the review, I think that we are all agreed that there is significant room for—and, indeed, a need for—far more proactive scrutiny. I acknowledge and agree with the view expressed by the Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow, when he told the review committee—in the words of the report—that

“it would be unrealistic to expect committees to respond to every report laid before Parliament.”

He suggested that a structured approach, whereby each relevant committee would hold a dedicated session once a year, for example, might strike a more manageable balance.

I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s findings and recommendations regarding the wider public bodies. In the case of the justice sector, there might be scope to extend the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny to other bodies, such as the inspectorates of prisons, policing and prosecution.

Finally, I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s recommendation that

“a new governance structure be introduced on a time-limited basis”

in the next parliamentary session.

I thank my colleague Ben Macpherson for leading the committee’s important review, and I look forward to following it in delivering positive change across our supported bodies landscape.

Thank you very much.

I might come back to a couple of those points, Rhoda.

That is helpful.

Liam Kerr wants to ask a question, and then I will bring in Ben Macpherson.

Our next item of business is consideration of a negative statutory instrument. I refer members to paper 4, which sets out the purpose of the instrument. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made no comments on the substance of the instrument; rather, its comments related to minor defective drafting. If members do not wish to make any other recommendations in relation to the instrument, are we content for it to come into force?

Members indicated agreement.

We are interested in what that impact is, and we will tease that out during the meeting.

Suzy Calder, you are last but not least.