Chamber and committees

I recognise what Ruth Maguire said, but I am reading the letters from both conveners and I still think that the two groups should be one CPG. The letters mention how they work together and do everything collaboratively, so, to me, it should be one CPG. I am not sure how the rest of the committee feels. It is a good example, as Ruth Maguire has just pointed out, but duplication on the topic is happening everywhere.

The convener has already touched on this, slightly.

Your remarks might be seen as a warning shot. It is partly due to where we are in the parliamentary session that the CPGs are being permitted to carry on as individual CPGs. Perhaps you could be a bit firmer in your communications.

A tiny bit.

You mentioned the importance of young people and looked-after young people specifically. We heard from the Electoral Commission that there was going to be

“a round-table ... with organisations that work with care-experienced young people to explain to them the changes”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 4 September 2025; c.14]

and what that meant for them. What work does the Scottish Government have planned, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission or other organisations, to ensure that looked-after young people or those formally looked after and aged under 21 are aware of the declaration of local connection change with regard to their ability to exercise their right to vote?

In a data-driven world, the commission will be best placed to reflect on the success of the change.

I agree.

I agree. As convener of that committee, I was fortunate that we had only one commissioner reporting to us, making it easier to programme that in. I know that having many commissioners would make that even harder to do. As I said, the lack of accountability cannot be right and is just another reason why the current landscape is not working well.

There has been much food for thought throughout this welcome debate, including about how well Parliament operates when disbursing public money. In order for us to take stock and think carefully about the way forward so that we can provide a more coherent and effective structure, we want a dedicated, short-term committee examining the options and a moratorium being put in place on any new commissioners while it does so.

Again, I thank Mr Macpherson and his committee for their work.

I put on record that Liz Smith was very much hoping to take part in the debate this afternoon. I hope that I can do some of her comments justice.

I very much welcome the report and the engagement with MSPs on the part of Ben Macpherson and his colleagues. I am pleased to note that there is a common theme in the findings of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee and those of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is an important reflection of where we are. I remember giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee during its inquiry when I was the convener of the Education, Children and Young People’s Committee.

The most important thing about the entire debate is the context in which it is taking place. We need to recognise that the current structures have evolved over time and on an ad hoc basis rather than through any coherent structure, which has clearly led to the questions that we face on sustainability. There are significant financial pressures on public finances.

There are then the concerns about the delivery of some of the public services—that has been seen as deficient, and we have heard about that today—and about the Scottish Government’s delay and confusion in setting out exactly what parameters will drive much-needed public sector reform and on what basis the Government will be measured in delivering better public services.

All that context was important to enable the Finance and Public Administration Committee to understand better what was driving the substantial increase in the number of proposals to create new SPCB-supported bodies, following a period of relative stability in the commissioner landscape. As Mr Macpherson’s committee acknowledges, as did Mr Gibson’s committee, the evidence is clear that the current model is no longer fit for purpose, as it lacks clarity and coherence, sufficient accountability and transparency over budget setting. That combination produces a cocktail that is bad for stakeholders and bad for the reputation of the Parliament.

However, as well as setting out that recognition, the committee was clear that we need to look at the advocacy type of commissioner, for which demand is increasing. I agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner when he said that

“a lot of the desire for future commissioners is a bellwether to the lack of trust and confidence in a lot of public services.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 16.]

Age Scotland commented that the SPCB-supported body model is

“an established way of getting more effective action on particular issues”,—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 7 May 2024; c 3.]

especially as the model provides for more independence. In other words, it implies that the best route might not always be via ministers, but it is clear that the current model is deficient when solving the problem and that the Government finds it far too easy to pass the buck for those failures. I do not say this lightly, but on some matters today, I agree whole-heartedly with my colleague Lorna Slater.

On more than one occasion, committee members felt compelled to ask witnesses how convenient it was for the Government to think, when problems arose, that the matter could be dealt with by a commissioner rather than by a minister. Would it not be better to target money at the public service that is failing, rather than at the commissioner process?

The committee’s report says that it found too much duplication in the system and too little public awareness about the role that each commissioner plays. Some commissioners also told the committee that they did not really feel accountable because they were seldom, if ever, called before a committee to give evidence. That cannot be right.

As a former councillor who campaigned and fought alongside the community, I can report that the new facilities in Currie are quite special. However, the campus is far from complete. Following the demolition of the old building, the ambitious plans to create outdoor learning spaces and first-class sports facilities are under threat. Will the cabinet secretary meet me and parents to understand the need for the ambitious campus to be delivered as promised, following the successful community campaign to keep both Currie and Wester Hailes high schools in the heart of their respective communities?

Stop the fraud.