Professor White mentioned conscientious objection. I have had a constituent who is a health professional contact me about that.

I am interested in how the law in Victoria provides for the option of conscientious objection. There are issues around providing information and support or assessing a person for voluntary assisted dying, or even supplying medication—that would involve pharmacists and nurses, which is who I am thinking about. Will you say a bit more about how the law works in Victoria and elsewhere in relation to supporting persons who conscientiously object?

I forgot to mention that I have an interest, in that I am still a registered nurse, with experience in the perioperative environment and clinical education.

I have a final question. Has there been any assessment of staff who have felt pressure to participate in voluntary assisted dying when they have actually been firmly conscientiously objecting?

Thank you.

I am okay, convener—I have had my questions answered.

Professor White mentioned conscientious objection. I have had a constituent who is a health professional contact me about that.

I am interested in how the law in Victoria provides for the option of conscientious objection. There are issues around providing information and support or assessing a person for voluntary assisted dying, or even supplying medication—that would involve pharmacists and nurses, which is who I am thinking about. Will you say a bit more about how the law works in Victoria and elsewhere in relation to supporting persons who conscientiously object?

It is reasonable to suggest that various commissioners have an advocacy role but that members of the public do not have a clear understanding of that. There should be a review so that there is more clarity on the role of each commissioner, including whether they have an advocacy role.

As I mentioned, the duplication of the functions and duties of commissioners in Scotland has been a concern. There is potential for the overlap and duplication of functions among different commissioners and across other organisations in Scotland, particularly as the number of commissioners is proposed to grow. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the complexity of the current landscape and the cost to the public purse of the commissioners’ appointments, along with their offices, their support staff and other associated administrative costs. With new bodies potentially adding to that complexity, some argue for a broader approach that prioritises human rights and equality for all, rather than creating multiple commissioners for specific groups.

One of the areas of concern that I have discussed with constituents and others is the potential democratic deficit that can be caused by the use of commissioners. Paragraph 142 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report discusses democratic accountability concerns. Some argue that the commissioner system outsources Government decisions and policy direction away from ministers, who are democratically accountable through elections. The committee’s report broadly agreed with those points. It found that there is a need to is ensure that commissioners deliver value for money and effectively address the needs of the population, including by addressing the potential risks associated with duplication and working towards enhancing the efficiency of commissioners. It is welcome that the Scottish Government has accepted that point and will reflect on it as we move forward.

My final point relates to the financial aspect of commissioners. We are in challenging budgetary times, with the UK budget announced yesterday. As the committee’s report helpfully points out, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body supports these independent office-holders and sets the terms and conditions of their appointment and annual budget. I will not repeat the figures, but I welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the intention of the committee’s report in driving to improve governance, accountability and efficiency across the parliamentary commissioner landscape. The Scottish Government has already adopted the position that any new public body should be created only as a last resort, and the Cabinet has approved the use of the ministerial control framework.

I did not catch that, sorry.

In our scrutiny of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, representatives of disabled groups have come directly to us to provide evidence, which we then scrutinise. There is also the Scottish Human Rights Commission, as well as the person’s own MSPs. There are already routes in place to help lots of different groups—I am not just speaking about persons with a disability.

The remits of the commissioners overlap—indeed, “overlap” is mentioned 17 times in the committee’s report. Therefore, I welcome that the Government, in principle, agrees with the committee that there should be a moratorium on the creation of new commissioners until a root and branch review of the commissioner landscape is undertaken.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee members and clerks for producing their report and carrying out this important inquiry, and I acknowledge all the witnesses who provided evidence.

I remind members that I was a member of the selection panel for the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner and that I am currently a member of the selection panel for the patient safety commissioner.

I have discussed Scotland’s commissioner landscape on numerous occasions recently with both members of the public and my office team. There are clearly many benefits to commissioners, but I agree with the committee that the landscape has become cluttered in recent years.

One of the issues that was raised with me recently is the overlap in the roles of commissioners, which Ross Greer highlighted, naming individual groups. One of the questions that was posed to me was, “Which commissioner would be right for an elderly neurodiverse person with a disability who was the victim of a crime?” How to represent and support all the different people who, rightly, need to be supported is a challenge.

I am conscious that Mr Hoy wants to make an intervention. Let me finish my point, and then I will let you in.

A root and branch review needs to be done, as colleagues have said in their contributions.