Chamber and committees

It is sometimes one or two people.

Thank you for that. Moving on to the green industrial strategy and the just transition, I hear what you say about the restrictions on what you can say during the purdah period. However, already this morning, you have talked about cross-Government working and the need for a strong economy to support our ambitions—you talked about ambitions in relation to health, education and apprenticeships in response to Brian Whittle’s questions. Do you see the green industrial strategy as being an overarching economic approach, or as being more to do with specific and narrowly focused—not in a bad way—objectives and aims?

My next question was actually going to be about making the energy transition fair for everybody. As you say, we have not done that sort of thing well in the past, with the result that inequalities have widened and perpetuated in our economy and our society.

As well as the issue of macro-energy, if I can call it that—I mean the big stuff around renewables—we desperately need a focus on and investment in things such as retrofitting houses, because we cannot build new houses for all the people who are currently living in shoddy homes. Action in that regard is as urgent as action on renewables and so on, and must take place concurrently. How do you see the supply chain and people’s skill sets working in that regard?

That links to what you said about communities, because one of the things that came out strongly in the inquiry that the committee held on the just transition for the north-east and Moray is that communities do not trust that the things that you mention will happen. I think that that is because they do not see material benefits in their own lives—for example, they do not see their homes being retrofitted or local transport links improving so that they can get to local jobs that might be available. That direct translation of economic activity into people’s lives is utterly missing at the moment. How will all the work around the just transition and the green industrial strategy deliver in that regard?

Good morning. I am interested in talking about the green industrial strategy and the just transition, but first I have a question about Glasgow Prestwick Airport Ltd. When we visited the airport, we heard that some employees there are still not receiving the real living wage. Given that the business is owned by the Scottish Government, do you think that that is appropriate? What steps will you take to remedy the situation?

Can I ask one final question?

When it comes to the commissioners whom we currently support and the proposals that come forward—those that have been enacted and those that are in the pipeline—campaign groups, individuals and organisations seek to establish commissioners for a variety of reasons. Some of those elements stem from systemic failure and from a recognition that maybe people’s rights are not being realised or respected or that there are fundamental issues with how people are being treated, particularly in the justice and health sectors. We have already referenced the patient safety commissioner for Scotland; we are also aware of a victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland, which is in a bill that is going through the Parliament.

Such systemic failures are for the Parliament and the Scottish Government to address. Often, people think that a commissioner can provide an independent and separate view as an advocate, a champion and a mechanism to remedy some of those systemic failures.

I do not know whether Jackson Carlaw or David McGill wants to comment further.

Yes—we probably share that view across the corporate body with regard to mergers or amalgamation. There was a clear suggestion in that respect in 2009.

There needs to be general acceptance across the whole Parliament of exactly the points that Jackson Carlaw made. What are commissioners for? Are they there as a last resort, or to provide particular independent regulatory or scrutiny functions? There is the acceptance that some are for that purpose and are required. However, on the issue of advocacy or champion commissioners, a key question for Parliament as a whole to understand is exactly what the issues are and whether an existing structure or mechanism would be a better route.

For example, we have seen an increase in rights-based questions coming in. We have a national human rights institution in the Scottish Human Rights Commission. What is it not doing? What does it not have the powers to do? What does it not have the resources to do effectively and appropriately that makes people think that we require additional rights-based or rights-focused commissioners? There are questions to be asked of existing structures in this place and in the existing commissioner landscape, but also of our public bodies more generally around their responsibilities and accountability. If accountability keeps coming back to Parliament and if scrutiny is for our committees and Parliament as a whole, are we doing that role effectively?

On obstacles for the generation of new commissioners, there is a body of work in this place to help us all to understand exactly what such bodies are for and, as your first question indicated, where the systemic failures are that people think commissioners are the answers to. Is that relationship, or the line of cause and effect, the correct one? Are there existing bodies—either in the scrutiny committees that we have already or in public agencies—that should be developing those lines of accountability and responsibility?

As Jackson Carlaw has already outlined, the limitations of the corporate body’s role are set out in the legislation that was passed that establishes each of the commissioners.

Our role comes into effect to enact the will of Parliament; it is not a pre-judging role. If we were to establish those processes, it would not be for the corporate body to do so, but for Parliament. It might then give those functions to the corporate body, but we do not have within our remit the ability to create that kind of assessment framework.

If such a framework were to be created, we might have a view as to whether we were best placed to fulfil that role, depending on what it was. At present, however, we do not have the powers to create that role; it would have to come to us from Parliament.

I suppose that this partly answers Patrick Harvie’s earlier question, too, but I come back to why the corporate body is concerned about the current situation. Yes, the issue is about burgeoning costs—or potential burgeoning costs—but it is also about accountability. Why are these bodies set up? Why are they established? What is the underlying cause? Can that cause be addressed in a better way, whether by having somebody specific to advise committees, by giving committees additional responsibilities and powers, or by having different lines of accountability and redress within existing public service structures and how those relate to Government? I think that we need to look at those things, but it is not for the corporate body to say, “This is what we should do.” Instead, it is for us, as we are doing this morning, to say, “These are our concerns, and this is where we see things going if we don’t do anything about them.”

It is for us to point out the financial consequences, the consequences for accountability and the consequences in terms of disappointment, disillusionment, failure and trust being broken even further. After all, if the commissioners do not sort out the problems that people think that they are going to sort out, people are not going to trust them. They play a legitimate—and, as we have outlined, very important—role with regard to regulatory issues and complaints and, I would argue, in relation to some rights and advocacy issues. If the whole suite is brought into doubt or question because they are not achieving what they set out to achieve, that is not good for any of us.