—because we are so far behind?

This week, we saw major investment in turbines in Hull. When are we going to get manufacturing transition in Scotland?

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the repeated delay to the energy strategy, never mind the length of the consenting process for projects such as Berwick Bank, means that we are missing out on supply-chain opportunities, and we are not getting the green jobs—

Thank you for enabling me to come back and give feedback. It is quite some time since the petition was discussed, but we still have an accountability problem, which our constituents are experiencing daily.

I am disappointed that we have not seen progress on the voluntary code and that we are still reliant on the current legislative framework. Constituents continue to get in touch with me with new cases—I am not just hearing from constituents who have already reported their problems.

The current framework is not user friendly. The First-tier Tribunal is slow and can be daunting, and people have to make a huge amount of investment in order to use it. There is concern that some firms have been found to have failed in their duty on multiple occasions, and yet, in the process, no questions are asked about their being factors. The challenge of relying on the sheriff court means that legal representation is required, which is expensive and is on top of the bills that people are already paying. Fundamentally, it comes down to a lack of independent scrutiny and accountability, and no control over rising costs. At the end of the day, the factors can do what they want.

There is no incentive to seek best value. One issue that has been raised is that factors might be linked to developers who have developed a project. That is another accountability gap. Although consumer rights are referred to in the legislation, they are not implemented, and that is a major issue that still needs to be addressed.

The last time that I spoke to the committee, I gave examples of costs. Since then, representatives have made the point to me that quarterly fees in Edinburgh have gone from £300 to £800. That is a huge increase.

For a lot of our constituents, it is really a now issue. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister for Housing offered us a round-table meeting. We have seen the Competition and Markets Authority report, but we have not yet had action. I am very concerned that we have not seen any actual progress since the committee last took evidence on the petition.

I very much welcome that commitment by the committee and I look forward to hearing when the meeting will happen.

Does the member acknowledge that a range of different commissioners are being proposed? If he looked at the proposals for a future generations commissioner and a wellbeing and sustainable development commissioner, he would see that the consultations for both of those referred not just to advocacy but to a range of other roles, including scrutiny, accountability, best practice and guidance.

That is exactly what I have been considering with my proposed wellbeing and sustainable development bill. The consultation looked at the fact that it is not enough just to have a duty; it is also necessary to think about how the duty will be monitored and implemented. The idea of taking an approach that is independent of Government is a key issue that was strongly welcomed by lots of organisations.

Absolutely. I would not go as far as Professor Alan Page, who suggested:

“is my MSP not my commissioner?”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 70.]

There is something about structural integrity, accountability and reporting back that, as individual members, we cannot do. I would love to scrutinise the national performance framework and question how it is implementing the sustainable development goals, but there is no way that I can do that as an individual member. There is a point about having collective responsibility and focus.

The report acknowledges that not all commissioners are the same, as a couple of other members have said. This week, we saw the importance of the Scottish Information Commissioner. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner made valuable comments in the report about timescales and changes relating to the purpose of commissioners that occur between when they are established and the years after. It is important that those issues are considered by such a committee as gets established.

Another point that has been made is that the term “commissioner” can mean different things to different people. However, stopping all commissioners would potentially be throwing the baby out with the bath water. We need proper consideration.

I want to give a sense of the discussions that I have been having in relation to my member’s bill, which recommends establishing a commissioner for sustainable development and wellbeing. The Scottish Government has also consulted on a future generations commissioner. The two consultation documents are incredibly similar, and there is a huge overlap. I had an excellent meeting with the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Employment and Investment, and we have agreed to engage constructively on my bill. They are very keen to see the draft that is currently being prepared by the non-Government bills unit. That does not mean that they will support my bill or, indeed, any of the details in it, but it was a constructive dialogue, and responses to the consultations that we have carried out were incredibly supportive.

Comments were made, by Craig Hoy in particular, about value for money. We have an ageing population and there are huge pressures on our national health service, and the recommendations of the Christie commission in 2011 have still to be implemented. There is also the need to tackle our climate crisis while creating jobs and investing in our communities. We need joined-up action, which we are simply not getting at the moment.

The recent academic report that was produced by the Carnegie UK Trust pointed out that the national performance framework is insufficient when it comes to ensuring that sustainability and wellbeing are at the heart of policy making.

Michael Marra’s points about advocacy are important, but I note that the term “commissioner” can cover very different roles in the areas of accountability and scrutiny. There is an issue about ensuring that successive Governments of any party meet legal targets and achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals across all policy areas. There is significant scrutiny in that area currently. The Carnegie report talked about the need for a “helicopter” approach, which is about not just individual committees but cross-committee and cross-ministerial reviews.

Reform of the commissioner landscape should include greater consideration of progress made in other countries. I hope that that will be included in the work of the proposed committee. The approach of the Welsh commissioner has shaped my thoughts on the drafting of my bill, on which the non-Government bills unit is currently working. I have considered the financial savings that were generated by establishing the Future Generations Commissioner in Wales, and the clarity and sense of direction that the Welsh Government has picked up since then.

Colin Smyth mentioned lobbying by organisations. Earlier this month, all members were issued with a letter from more than 130 organisations, which urged the First Minister to support my bill. Reform has been an issue since before 2021, so that conversation has been on-going.

I very much welcome the opportunity for a proper discussion on the commissioner landscape. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has highlighted the need for a coherent infrastructure, but we should be careful not to downplay or reduce the effective work of existing commissioners. More integrated working and support are important, but let us not forget the importance of those commissioners’ remits. The Scottish Parliament regularly struggles with long-term thinking. Commissioners potentially enable a bigger-picture approach to be taken to legislation, improve scrutiny and increase action on the important issues that our constituents have elected us to act on.

I move amendment S6M-15086.2, to, leave out from “; agrees with” to end and insert:

“, and notes the recommendation that a dedicated committee should be established to carry out a ‘root and branch’ review, to be concluded by June 2025, with the purpose of creating a clear strategic framework to underpin and provide more coherence and structure to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) supported body landscape.”

There is a question of representation and there is a question of scrutiny. It is not just about advocacy. There is a discussion to have when my colleague Colin Smyth moves forward with his member’s bill; that proposal needs to be discussed.

Members have agreed that proper scrutiny and parliamentary accountability are important, but we all know that committees are stretched beyond capacity. The approach that they have in Wales—an annual scrutiny process—makes a huge amount of sense.

As the report acknowledges, not all commissioners are the same.

I thank the committee for its report because this is an important debate for us to have. In the words of the report, it is important that we have an SPCB-supported body landscape that is “fit for the future”.

I very much welcome a review into the SPCB-supported bodies to make sure that Parliament money is being spent well. It is a question of good governance, and I hope that we can move towards that together as a Parliament.

Any review would have to have a timescale attached to it to avoid endless delays. The motion before us does not include a timescale, so I strongly welcome the fact that all three amendments highlight the need for a deadline for the report to be concluded by June 2025.

Although a review is necessary, we must not downplay the impact of existing commissioners. For example, Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights) prepared a briefing that highlighted the vital contribution that the children’s commissioner has delivered.

I also worry that the reference in the report to a moratorium on creating new SPCB-supported bodies is ambiguous and needs clarification. Therefore, I welcome the minister’s clarification that his amendment means that members who have secured the right to introduce a bill will be able to progress that bill as it is being drafted. That is important, because it leaves it up to the Parliament to make a decision on each of those bills.

In relation to the phrase,

“creating any new SPCB supported bodies”

it is important to clarify what constitutes the creation of a body. Would that follow the passage of a bill? Would what is proposed not necessarily preclude the three-stage legislative scrutiny process?

One or two issues need to be clarified in relation to the potential committee that has been suggested. The point has been made several times that we all know that the capacity of Parliament and its committees is stretched. More ministers means fewer back benchers. The Scottish Government’s staff is bigger than ever—there has been an increase from 6,000 to 9,000 staff. The Parliament has to scrutinise more topics as new responsibilities have been devolved, as well as delivering post-legislative scrutiny on the hundreds of bills that have been passed since 1999. Maggie Chapman’s points on the pressures that the SPCB faces were extremely well made.

The report recognises the need for the commissioners and why some roles are being suggested. In relation to the older people’s commissioner, I thought that the Independent Age briefing was really important; it highlighted that methods must be developed urgently to ensure that older people’s interests are understood and advanced within political decision-making processes.

The timescale for the introduction of a budget is tight. Presumably, there would be opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of that budget to include the wider environmental and climate impacts.