On Monday 16 September, the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee published an inquiry report regarding Scotland’s commissioner landscape which called for a moratorium on the creation of any new commissioner-style bodies in Scotland. The committee noted that once the Patient Safety Commissioner becomes operational, there will be eight commissioner, or commission, bodies and proposals in place for a further six. Ahead of the committee’s inquiry debate on Thursday 31 October, this blog aims to outline the perspectives of MSPs, stakeholders and the government in relation to these commissioner roles which are typically seeking to advocate for marginalised groups.
Each of the six bodies being proposed recognise the need to tackle health inequalities across Scotland, with three of these being lodged as Members’ Bills and three being longstanding Scottish Government legislative commitments:
- Jeremy Balfour MSP’s Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill has been undergoing Stage 1 scrutiny since early 2024
- Colin Smyth MSP lodged the final proposal for a Commissioner for Older People (Scotland) Bill this month
- Sarah Boyack MSP has secured the right to introduce her proposed Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill which would deliver a Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Commissioner
- The Scottish Government pledged to deliver a Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill in its 2022-23 Programme for Government (PfG) which would deliver a Future Generations Commissioner; however, Sarah Boyack noted in a recent debate the bill was absent from the 2024-25 PfG
- The Scottish Government has published draft provisions for a Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill which would deliver a Learning Disability, Autism and Neurodiversity Commissioner
- The Scottish Government’s Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, currently undergoing Stage 2 scrutiny, aims to deliver a Victims and Witnesses Commissioner
The parliament has taken a range of evidence this year on the benefits and risks of an increasing number of commissioner bodies supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB); both through the commissioner landscape inquiry and through Stage 1 evidence on the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill. When Kenneth Gibson MSP, Finance and Public Administration Committee convener, posed to SPCB members that the increase was driven by a perception of “systemic failures”, Maggie Chapman MSP acknowledged concerns around how people are being treated in justice or health systems for example, whereas Jackson Carlaw MSP stressed members should be the advocate for resolving issues. Giving evidence to the finance committee on the financial memorandum for his bill, Jeremy Balfour MSP said an arbitrary cut-off for commissioner roles would be unfair as disabled people should be given the same chances as other groups to benefit from a commissioner.
In scrutinising Jeremy Balfour’s Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has taken evidence from health inequality stakeholders who have predominantly supported the commissioner’s creation but have also touched on possible solutions to concerns around a “cluttered” commissioner landscape. Amy Dalrymple from Marie Curie Scotland said existing commissioners could be reviewed to ensure they were specifically championing the rights of people with disabilities and Suzi Martin from the National Autistic Society Scotland suggested bodies working in similar policy areas should utilise memorandums of understanding. On proposals to empower an existing body like the Scottish Human Rights Commission with disability commissioner responsibilities however, witnesses such as Jamie Cooke from ENABLE argued an enhanced body couldn’t account for the scope and complexity of the disability landscape.
On the three Scottish Government proposals for commissioner bodies, it would appear the government is looking to move away from this policy approach after the 2024-25 PfG made no mention of commissioner bodies. In the government’s consultation analyses for a Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill and a Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill, the government acknowledged concerns around delivering value for money amid an increasing number of commissioner offices and has yet to formally deliver legislation on either of these areas.
During evidence to the Conveners Group this month and facing questions from Kenneth Gibson MSP on a possible commissioner moratorium, John Swinney stressed any decisions were a matter for parliament but tentatively reiterated the commitment to delivering a Victims and Witnesses Commissioner. This emphasis on parliament having the final say on commissioner decisions, rather than government, was also employed by Ivan McKee, Minister for Public Finance, in evidence to the finance committee; however, he acknowledged the government did have an evaluation role when proposing the creation of new commissioners and a role in guiding legislation through parliament.
The dilemma is clear for the government as it acknowledges financial resource concerns about commissioners and seeks to distance itself from their creation, while concurrently seeking to establish three new commissioners in order to deliver on legislative commitments. Meanwhile, a number of MSPs are pressing ahead with commissioner proposals due to perceived government failings and in seeking to deliver mechanisms for health inequality campaigners. Jeremy Balfour’s committee evidence appeared to strike at the overarching issues at play regarding commissioner roles: is it fair to “arbitrarily” set a cut off point for commissioners at the expense of supporting marginalised groups which are suffering under public service delivery failures and health inequalities?
Ian Woodbyrne is Head of Monitoring at Newsdirect. Please email Ian for details about Newsdirect’s political monitoring services
.
