 Good morning and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2024 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Ross Greer. The first item on our agenda is to take evidence in relation to our inquiry into Scotland's commissioner landscape. For this session, we are joined online by Katie McMillan, director of Research Scotland. I welcome Katie to the meeting and I invite her to make an opening statement. Can he hear you? Thank you. I think that someone is in control of whether I can be heard or not, but that's good. Hello, I'm Katie McMillan. I'm from Research Scotland and thank you very much for inviting me along today. I'll just tell you a little bit about the research. We were commissioned in September 2022 to undertake this research and published in March 2023. What we were asked to do was look at the role of existing commissioners in the UK and in Scotland. Her brief was very much to explore the role of commissioners to inform the development of the Learning Disability Autism and Neurodiversity Bill, which included a potential new commissioner. Within the brief, there was an absolute particular focus on how commissioners have been used to protect the rights of vulnerable groups. We were very focused on commissioners who worked to protect human rights. We looked at what helps and what hinders in performing those roles, how the roles intersect and what lessons can be learned. It's maybe worth saying that, for the research, there was an audience of both the Scottish Government and a lived experience panel, which was being set up to inform the Bill development. In terms of the method for the research, the research involved a very brief literature review. The main purpose of that literature review was to inform the research tools and the discussions, to inform the questions that we were going to ask the commissioners and to inform which commissions and commissioners we were going to involve within the research. We then held 11 interviews with commissioners and commissioners who protect the rights of vulnerable groups. Five of those commissioners were in Scotland and two were out with Scotland. Just in terms of our findings from the literature review, we found that there was very little published research or evaluation on the role or approaches of commissioners and there wasn't consistent guidance in place for designing the role of commissioners. Just very briefly in terms of the findings for the interviews, we focused quite a lot on the powers that different commissioners and commissioners had and the approaches that they took. Most of the people that we spoke to felt that they had the powers that they needed. The commissions and commissioners emphasised that they needed to have clear and well-written powers set out within law. Even if those powers weren't always used, it was useful to have those powers. People emphasised that it was a balance. They didn't want to use powers to punish people. They were focusing on improving outcomes and improving rights for vulnerable people. Most of the people that we spoke to felt that they had the resources that they needed to protect human rights, but they did feel that they needed to prioritise within their work, so they had clear plans for what their focus was each year. A few said that they would use a different approach if they had more resources. Some said that they would be more proactive, more collaborative, more focused on culture change and would put a bit more resource into research and policy influencing than they were currently able to. There was some concern that, as new commissioners were created, it would limit the powers of existing commissioners, and some of them emphasised that it was particularly obvious in relation to their investigation powers where there could be some overlap. Just briefly, in terms of governance, most of the commissioners and commissioners we spoke to felt that their governance arrangements worked well. Some felt that it was useful and helped with clarity to have a single commissioner which created clear accountability and decision making, and some mentioned that a little bit of extra effort could be needed to clarify governance arrangements where more than one commissioner was in place. Some emphasised that over time, as the commissioner changed, they could have different approaches and it could lead to quite different approaches within the organisation. In terms of joint working, there were different arrangements in place. Some had very close joint working arrangements and written agreements in place with other commissions and commissioners, while others had more ad hoc arrangements depending on the focus of the work at the time. Commissions and commissioners felt that joint working arrangements were simplest where their roles were very clearly different and they could be clear about how each could contribute at the time. They felt that joint working could really help where organisations had different powers, for example a power to take cases, while others couldn't and they can link up and follow through on their work. Commissioners did emphasise that there could be some confusion sometimes about their mandates in protecting human rights, particularly when individuals are considering which commissioner or commissioner could help in terms of protecting and upholding their rights. They emphasised that, because there are still great areas, there is absolutely a need for a structure for talking through how they work together on a day-to-day basis. We then asked a number of questions about how people felt about the creation of a new commissioner. Interviews stressed that they would consider this in detail over time as the proposals developed, but, in terms of initial reactions, there were concerns that creating commissioners for particular groups could lead to a large number of commissioners. It could further complicate the existing landscape and could potentially confuse individuals. There was some concern that creating new commissioners could duplicate or reduce the value of existing commissioners. That is just a high-level overview of some of our findings. That is just a way of introduction, thanks. Thank you very much for that very helpful introduction. I noticed that you interviewed five of the commissioners. I was wondering why you decided not to interview all seven in Scotland, just to ensure that all the reviews were heard. Yes, absolutely. Our focus was on commissions or commissioners that had been used to protect the rights of vulnerable groups. We identified a long list of commissioners in Scotland and across the UK, because that was our brief that could be included in that group, and we chatted to the policy team about how to select the commissioners or commissioners that should be involved. We were looking at commissioners and commissioners who reported in different ways. Some reported to Parliament, some reported to Government, some reported to UK Government and some reported to UK Parliament and beyond that in Northern Ireland and Wales. We worked with the policy team to develop our long list into a short list and focus very closely on those that were intended to uphold the rights of individuals and those where there was an interest in how their roles might potentially intersect with the role of a learning disability autism and neurodiversity commissioner. In your opening statement, you talked about the importance of improving outcomes. Alzheimer Scotland in its submission said that the financial cost of the changing landscape must be considered against improved outcomes. Through your research review, you identified whether or not the commissioners have been able to deliver improved outcomes for those that they are advocating for. If so, can you give it an example or two? That was not necessarily the focus of our work. The focus of our work was to look at the different powers that commissioners and commissioners had and to explore how those powers were used. We did not have a question about any examples of where that had resulted in improved outcomes for individuals or groups, so I do not think that I would be able to comment on that. No, it was just because you mentioned it in your opening statement that I was not originally intended to ask it to all of you. That is why I thought that, because you mentioned the outcomes word, I thought that I would just throw it in there. That is what they are trying to do, is not it? The whole purpose of those commissioners is to look at outcomes and there is a concern about the lack of overall research. It is important that we ascertain whether they are in fact delivering greater outcomes than if the commissioners did not exist or if, indeed, there were other forms in which organisations and individuals could be assisted. Yes, absolutely. I think that the reason that I was mentioning improving outcomes is that people felt that it was a balance in terms of their role. We were asking people questions about what powers they had and how they used them and what approaches they took. I think that what they were saying is that they understood that their ultimate role was about improving outcomes for vulnerable people, but in using their powers they wanted to be careful about that balance and to recognise that is their end outcome. How do they best get there? How do they best use their powers to improve outcomes for vulnerable people? Another area that you touched on in your opening statement was that you talked about duplication. You said in your report that one interviewe highlighted that the focus on creating more bodies to promote and support human rights did not support the findings of the Crerar review in 2007, which reviewed regulation, audit inspection and complaints handling of public services in Scotland and found out that scrutiny arrangements in Scotland were complex and aimed to simplify and reduce bodies. The Deputy First Minister has contacted us about this particular issue in relation to the strategic approach to the commissioner's landscape and said that, as agreed by Cabinet in last May, the Scottish Government's ministerial control framework aims to ensure that decisions around the creation of new public bodies are made based on evidence and value for money. The first of the three principles that she touches on are that new public bodies should not only be set up as a last resort. That is completely different, incidentally, from what the Times reported today. We have been talking about the Scottish Government wanting to double the number of commissioners or something. I certainly wasn't aware that they were trying to do. I wonder how you view the whole issue in the context of your research about the number of bodies and duplication and how that can be avoided. I can comment in terms of what the commissioners and commissioners that we interviewed said to us could be other options and how that could be avoided. When we were speaking to people, they were very clear that they would absolutely welcome investment and resources in protecting the rights of vulnerable people, and that was the right thing to do. People did have some questions about whether the creation of a commissioner or a commissioner was the way to go. Some alternative options that people suggested to us were more resources for existing organisations that champion human rights, so rather than creating a new organisation and investing in some of the existing organisations, and more resources for existing commissioners so that perhaps a strand of work could focus on protecting rights for certain vulnerable groups. Some suggested the creation of champions or advocates within public bodies who would really champion the rights, for example, in this case of people with learning disabilities, autism and neurodiversity. Others suggested that a really core part of the work of a commission or a commissioner was actually about supporting good practice and that there were other ways to do this than creating a commissioner, so some suggested investing more resources in supporting good practice in different ways. Finally, some suggested an alternative could be creating a lead within an existing commission for, in this instance, learning disability, autism and neurodiversity. Some suggested that that would be an option, but some were very unsure about that option because they felt that the focus of a human rights organisation should be on protecting human rights for everyone, and they were unsure about whether, if they created a lead for one group, they would require to create a lead for all sorts of different groups and weren't sure where that would end. Yes, I mean page 55 of your report, which you've touched on there, I think that's a really important part of your report because it does look at how this isn't the only game in town that organisations, one could argue, are looking for specific outcomes, improved outcomes, and then we perhaps see commissioners as a way of getting there more easily than constantly having to battle for additional resources. Would that be correct? I'm not sure. I think that we are the commissioners and commissioners that we were speaking to were coming from where this was, we were speaking to them at quite an early stage in terms of the development of a new commissioner for learning disability, autism and neurodiversity, and they were saying just in terms of early reflections, you're absolutely right, it's about the outcomes for protecting human rights. It's that there are different ways to get there, and while a commissioner or a commissioner may work in some instances, there are other options which it would be worth considering. One of the things that I found interesting, certainly with regard to the submissions that we received as distinct from your report, is that a lot of the existing commissioners are only too enthusiastic about additional commissioners. For example, the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland said, and I quote, that the proliferation of commissioners' offices will be a costly exercise. I may not provide good value for money for taxpayers, especially if there are multiple bodies tasked with intervening on similar or identical matters. Did you find in your research that there was something of a resistance from the commissioners themselves and those bodies to extending the remits to more commissioners? Again, I think that people were very reflective when they spoke to us and were very clear that this was early on in the stage of development of a potential new commissioner, so they emphasised that, over time, they would be considering any clearly developed proposals and responding to that, but we definitely, when we asked about how rules could interact and the potential creation of a new commissioner, there was definitely some concern about potential duplication. Some of the people that we spoke to stressed that it was extremely important to make sure that, if there was a new commissioner or commissioner, it did not duplicate existing activity and that, really importantly, it did not take powers away from existing commissioners. As I said in the introduction, I think that some were concerned that it could create quite a lot of confusion among individuals about which specific commissioner or commissioner would protect their rights and in which circumstance should they go to the right commissioner or commissioner. One of the issues is that, in terms of commissioners, they seem to develop in different ways. Do you think that there is an argument for having a much more coherent approach to the development and creation of new commissioners? I was appointed to do this one specific bit of research and gather the views of the interviews that I spoke to, so I am not sure that I am best pleased to feel that I have a view on that. I think that the people that I spoke to felt that it might be useful to consider the duplication and overlap and rules of commissioners, but I do not think that I should be expressing any problem on that. I will try not to stray too far from my own research then. It is very tempting, of course, but I will ask a couple more questions. There is talk of, obviously, when a commissioner is restricted to three to five years and then replaced by another commissioner, but I did not say anything in your research, so let me know if I have missed it, about sunset clauses, i.e., it seems to be that, once commissioners are in existence, I would expect that, when a commissioner sets up with lots of energy and enthusiasm, they will probably think, oh, there are things that we want to do for the last 10 years. Now that we have a commissioner, we can press head and do it, et cetera, et cetera. Then one would think that a lot of what they would hope to deliver would start tailing off, perhaps. Is there an argument, perhaps, for a sunset clause, so that, for example, when a commissioner steps down or retires, it should be looked at to see whether that body should continue, actually, if it is completed its tasks, or if indeed a new commissioner should be appointed? Again, that was not something that we explored through their research. I looked back at our discussion guide, and we had a lot of questions that we wanted to explore with each commission and commissioner, and we had some questions that were optional, depending on the amount of time that people had available. Most of the questions on governance and resources were optional. We only had two questions on that strand, and in some cases we did not have enough time with the relevant interviewee to explore that, so that kind of issue was not explored in depth. The only thing that we did come across that was similar or related was that we had, I think, one interviewee who mentioned that the approach of one commissioner when they left could be very different to the new commissioner that came in, so they recognised that they were working in very different ways. I did not speak to anybody who felt that their work was reducing over time. I spoke to lots of people who felt that there was always more to do and with more resources they could do more. I did speak to some people who felt very much that the approach of the organisation changed over time, that they were set up, that they had new powers, that they wanted to show that they were able to use those powers and maybe came in and used the powers in some key cases or key examples where people would notice the impact they were having, but then over time they would shift more to co-operation, best practice, standards, working jointly with organisations. There were some that talked about absolutely a change over time. I do not think that I spoke to anybody who said that their work was reducing, but it was always that there was more to do and it was a key step of prioritising. I have certainly all had significant increases in the resources in the current financial year, not least for staffing. One of the issues for the committee is scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament corporate body. The responses that we have had in the submissions and I am not going to quote any submissions, because you will not have seen them probably. They all seem to feel that they are being well enough scrutinised. My understanding is that there is only one and a half, possibly two members of staff dedicated to scrutinising them from the Scottish Parliament corporate body. Is that something that you are familiar with about the level of scrutiny? They all seem to be marked in their own homework and say that the scrutiny that we are receiving is excellent, but I am just wondering from your perspective if there is anything that you want to comment on in that regard. I am really sorry, but our research did not focus on scrutiny of commissioners or commissioners, so unfortunately I am not able to comment on that. I did not think that you would, but I thought that it would be worth a point. Okay, let us open up the session to colleagues first to ask questions. We will be less to be followed by John. Good morning, Ms McMillan. You have been very clear to the committee that you had a very specific remit, and that was about advocacy for disability and autism in their vulnerability. Nonetheless, your report from March 2023 is the role of commissioners in Scotland and the UK. Does it strike you that perhaps the very specific remit that you had does not quite fit with that title? Perhaps, yes. Can I just pursue that a little bit? The committee, with all due respect, is looking at the big picture. Not only do we need that from the overview, the scrutiny for this committee, but also from the cost aspect. When I see that title, that is exactly what we are wanting to look at, is the role of commissions and commissioners in Scotland, and the impact that the UK might have on that as well. The issue that we have is to look at commissioners who have different roles. You have been very clear that the research that you have been doing has been about advocacy for one particular group. However, there are other commissioners, some of whom are handling complaints. There are some with a regulatory basis to them, and there are some who are investigatory. I think that we want to have some idea of where that whole picture sits. In the specific remit that you have, have you any concern that there isn't an overall strategy about where that bigger picture might lie? I am so sorry if you feel that the research isn't useful or covering all the issues. Sorry, I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that it's only part of the bigger picture. What I'm asking in relation to the title that you presented us with, which is the one that I think we want to delve into, the specific role that you have, I would have thought, would raise questions about the overall strategy for commissioners in general. I'm just asking if that's something that came up, either with your own research or from the people to whom you spoke. In terms of the research title and focus, it was agreed with the Scottish Government policy team that we worked with. That's why the research has that title. I appreciate that it maybe isn't appropriate. The remit was set very clearly by the Scottish Government. In terms of a strategy or overall approach to commissioners, again, that's not something we specifically asked. We were asked to look at the particular creation of one new commissioner and to explore that with commissioners. We were also asked to explore powers and approaches and doing working. We were asked to explore certain particular things. I don't think that I'll be able to comment on that. That's not something that we asked. I understand fully that you've been looking at one specific aspect. You've said that several times now. I understand that. Does that not raise questions about the overall role that commissioners and their respective staffing arrangements have as to how best they are serving Scotland? Has that not even come through your research at all? That wasn't something that we were exploring. We were looking at duplication and joint working between ideas on the creation of one particular commissioner, but I don't think that that, in terms of an overall strategy, came up in the research. If you are looking at potential overlap, that means that your comments must have been provided about other commissioners. Does that not raise questions as to how well you put it this way? Do you think that there should be a strategy about the overall aspect of commission? I really don't feel like I'm able to comment on that. We spoke to individuals about their views and reported on that and produced research on that. I really don't feel like I'm best placed to comment on whether there should or should not be a strategy. I could ask one more question, which is very specific about the issue of the Autism Learning Disability Commissioner. Do you feel that the demand for that new commissioner was a result of the fact that those vulnerable groups are not being as well looked after by other groups who might look after their needs? Has that arisen because there is a gap in the care that they fully deserve and to which they are entitled? Has that come about because of those gaps, or is this something that is in addition to the care that they provide? I'm not sure that I'm best placed to answer that question. We were asked to speak to existing commissioners about their roles, their powers, their views on this commissioner, not particularly why this need or issue arose. I know that the Scottish Government policy team has done quite a lot of consultation on why people believe that there is a need for a commissioner. I know that the views that came back were very mixed. Some people felt that there absolutely was a need for a commissioner, and some people felt that there absolutely wasn't. I think that there are very mixed views on whether a commissioner or commissioner is needed in terms of learning disability, autism and neurodiversity. I'm not sure that I can comment further on that. One of the points that I picked up was one of the interviews in your report on page 54 that starts off talking about the Government being enthusiastic about commissioners, and then making the point that it's becoming very confusing what a commissioner is. Now that the phrase commissioner is starting to lose its value in terms of what it is, do you think that there's an issue that a commissioner seems to mean quite a lot of different things in quite a lot of contexts? Yes, I definitely think that that came through from the interviews that we held, that it does mean lots of different things. When you speak to commissions and commissioners they are taking lots of different approaches, they have lots of different powers and they're set up in lots of different ways, so I absolutely do believe that there are lots of different ways in which a commissioner can work, and in some cases that's because of the way that they have developed with the people whose rights they are protecting, and that's why they have developed in that way, but definitely some mentioned that it was in some cases creating some issues in terms of joint working potential duplication and requirement to think about where additional commissions or commissioners are created, thinking very carefully about that landscape. Yeah, because I think you and we are kind of understanding the area that we're looking at, but there's other commissions altogether like we also deal with the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which is completely different from any of this, but we still call it a commission with commissioners and things. I mean, did you pick up at all that the public get a bit confused by this or even the organisations themselves? Yeah, so the organisations that we spoke to mentioned that both members of the public and within the organisation could be confused about which commissioners have particular roles, how those roles interact, how they protect human rights, and how they best support the people that they're working for. So yes, absolutely, we did pick up from the interviews that there was, there could be great areas, and organisations are working very hard to make sure that they reduce those great areas. They have written agreements in place where they're working on particular issues. They work closely together with another relevant commission or commissioner, but they mentioned that there can still be great areas within the organisation, so they need constant communication, good joint working arrangements, but also that there could potentially be some confusion out with the organisation, with the public. I think you made the point already to the convener that even when you've got one, if we just look at one commission, say the children's commission or whatever, when the commissioner changes their approach to that can be quite different from the previous commissioner, is that because we've given them quite a lot of scope and they can work within that, rather than if the role was more clearly defined, then they would be more fixed as to what they do? Gosh, that's interesting. We didn't get into that level of detail about why there were such different approaches, but it was very clear in some instances that one commissioner can take a very different approach than another. For example, in terms of things like joint working and different approaches, I suppose that that will be about the individual and how they believe the outcomes are best achieved and what methods and approaches they should use. They have a range of powers and a range of approaches and it's clear that they can be used in lots of different ways, so I suppose that each individual will have different views about how those are best used. One of the differences that came up, which she said is page 33, is that some commissions and commissioners are looking at very much at individual cases and some are much more looking at systemic issues. Is that because of the way they've been set up and what they've been told to do? Yes, absolutely. There are some commissions and commissioners that don't have the power to take individual cases whereas there are others who are supporting individuals as their main role. The way the powers are set up for the commission and commissioner will influence what approach they take, so some won't be able to get involved in individual cases at all. Some felt that their strongest power was around inquiry and investigation, so taking a thematic issue or a particular issue and exploring that in depth, while others felt that they weren't able to do that because they didn't have the power to establish what they were going to investigate and respond to the cases that were coming through from individuals. Absolutely very different approaches depending on the way the powers are set up, but also on how the commissioners decide to use those as well. Some were very clear that they had quite clear powers that they were able to use, but either they had never used them or they had decided to very, very rarely use them because they wanted to work in a way that fostered co-operation, good practice and higher standards without going to the use of powers. Would you say then that they just adapt to the powers they have and get on with it, or did you pick up a level of frustration either from the commissioners or even from outside bodies that some of them wanted to be doing other things but couldn't? Yes, there was definitely a level of frustration in some instances in some of the people that we spoke to that they felt that it would be useful to have more powers or certain powers that weren't specified within law. I don't know how you said you were limited sometimes by time and how much you could ask people, but I picked up one of the, somebody had said to you, I don't think that given the chance to start things from scratch you would choose to create the institutional landscape that you have now. I just wondered if you explored that any further with them or with anyone else as to if we were starting from scratch what would we do now? No, unfortunately we didn't explore that. I think we did explore what other options you might use for a commission or a commissioner. We did explore how they interrelated joint working potential duplication, but that's a very interesting question, but we didn't explore that in terms of the overall context for commissions and commissioners. We did ask what alternatives might you suggest to a commissioner in this particular instance for learning disability, autism and neurodiversity, and we've already talked about the responses people gave there. Okay, and again perhaps following on from that, because one suggestion I think has been that the Scottish Human Rights Commission should just do everything and then should have within it departments or individuals or spokespersons or whatever to look at different aspects. I think you picked up particularly that elimination of discrimination against women had been particularly suggested to them as a possibility. Can you just tell us what their reaction to that was and how, if that was likely to be a difficulty, if they seemed to think that that was a difficulty? In the interviews that we did for research ethics we have to be very careful about making sure that when we report what we're saying we report it anonymously, so I can tell you what everybody thought about that concept, but I can't tell you specifically what the SHR thought. We did hear that there was from some that that might be an option, so creating a lead within an existing commission for a particular group. In this case we were looking at learning disability, autism and neurodiversity, but equally as you mentioned for women and girls I know that issue has come up, but some were interested in that idea and felt that that could be a way of making sure that there was protection for certain groups of people within the system without having to create a new commission or commissioner. However some did not think that that was a good idea and were concerned that that would result in the creation of a wide range of different leads within the organisation for lots and lots of different interest groups, so I think that there was some interest in the idea, but there was also some concern about the idea as well. Although I mean this isn't your view obviously, but the fact that they said that it would lead to a wide range of different leads seems slightly ironic to me because we are facing a wide range of different commissioners instead of leads, so it sounds like we are going in the same direction. Absolutely, I mean people had different views there. I think the other concern that people brought up in relation to that was that human organisations that are protecting human rights should be protecting the human rights of all, so there was some concern about whether if there are particular strands and leads whether that would still fulfil their requirement to protect the human rights of all, so that was another issue that came up in that regard. Okay, that's been very helpful. Thanks, Gavir. Thanks, John. Michael, to be fought by Jamie. Thanks, convener. Obviously, Ms McMillan, we're trying to draw some of the broader lessons from your report as it applies to the kind of just the outset of our inquiry and it's been useful so far. I think it's quite clear to me that you're saying that there is a lack of coherence across the landscape, and that comes through quite strongly in your report. Is that fair? Yes, I think that's fair that people were concerned about duplication and join working arrangements. Also, it jumped out to me that you said that it's coming through the questions that my colleagues are asking, that you're observing the report that there is in a quote very little published research in this area, and you're going to say that there's little evaluation exploring the pros and cons of different approaches. At the outset of this inquiry, we are working from the basis of very little published work exploring this area, and that's probably where you found yourself as well, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Did you find that that, so that you then went about a process of those structured interviews, having conversations with that limited number of people? It's probably fair to say that it's quite difficult to draw a broader framework in which you were basing that evaluation on? Yes, and that wasn't necessarily the role of the research. Okay, I can hear on that. Your colleagues, and obviously I think the committee through this inquiry is going to be quite concerned about talking about outcomes as politicians and trying to understand how the commission landscape best provides for better outcomes for specific groups of people in Scotland and for the broader population. I think that you've said that that wasn't the purpose of your research either, to evaluate the outcomes of it. You do state that the evidence that you gathered indicated scepticism from different parts of the communities in relation to this proposal that a commissioner would lead to better outcomes. Is that correct? Almost. The research that the Scottish Government policy team had already done before we did the series of interviews indicated to them that there was some scepticism about whether a commissioner or commissioner was the correct approach or perhaps not scepticism but some different views about whether a commissioner or commissioner was the right approach from members of the public and from other organisations. We didn't speak to members of the public at all. I'm keen to get your any observations across this work around the causality in this in terms of the relationship between better outcomes and almost the theory of change, if we could put it that way, between having a commissioner as understood by the people you spoke to and the idea that it might come out with better outcomes. I'm not asking you to comment on the outcomes themselves but actually that theory of change in terms of that person being appointed and the idea that things might get better. Yes, I suppose when we spoke to, so we didn't speak to members of the public or any wider organisations at all in this research, we spoke to a limited number of commissions and commissioners and when we spoke to them they were unsure about whether the creation of a commission or a commissioner was the correct way to go and whether there were other options that as you see could better protect or advance the rights of the group that we were looking at and we've talked about those other options. The commissions and commissioners suggested that there could be other ways to go. Everybody that we spoke to was very clear that at the time we were speaking to them these proposals were in their very early stages so they were clear that as work progresses they would engage with it, they would respond, they would write written papers, they would respond to consultations so there would be much more work. So this was a very early stage responses to something that was just an idea or a proposal that hadn't been developed in any clear proposal that people could respond to. It was just a concept at that stage. Okay and so none of that was really based as far as you could determine their experience of other commissioners. Nobody mentioned that, no. I mean there was some discussion about how they had to be very careful not to duplicate the work of other commissioners and that they had to work very closely on a day-to-day basis with others. I couldn't comment on whether it was based on their personal experience of other commissioners, sorry. On page six of your report you mentioned the accountability gap. I wonder what's meant by that phrase, the accountability gap? The report, the cross-party group on autism recommended in its report the accountability gap. Is that what you're referring to? I suppose I'm wondering what that area is. So there's also a mention in there about the need to bridge the gap between good intention and policy and practice on the ground as referenced in the report. Is that what's meant by that space? I suppose I'm trying to dig into this kind of idea about the purpose of one of these things and I'm not really sure what that accountability mechanism means. I'm not sure, I think probably that would be something that the cross-party group on autism would have to comment on or I could go away and have more of a look at the report and come back to you on that but I'm sorry I don't actually, I can't actually comment on that at the moment. That's fine. I suppose there's some concerns raised then that this could be the establishment of a commissioner could be a drain on resource in essence a substitution so would we be better off spending the money on actual direct services or interventions rather than a commissioner? Did that come through some of the evidence that you took? Yes absolutely so when we spoke to people about the idea of a new commissioner there was some concern about that kind of duplication and a suggestion that perhaps investing more resources in existing organisations that support or advance the rights of the group that we were considering may be an alternative approach absolutely. I wanted to close then with around the process of establishing essentially you were kind of almost a participant in that providing the background research to this idea that the government department was approaching and I was intrigued by the quote that's on page nine of your report which said the campaign for a commissioner had been done to their communities not with them as a feeling that correspondence had. Again that's evidence that you've taken and I suppose it probably talks to some of the concerns maybe that the committee in terms of the policy making process of establishing a commissioner at the outset of this. Is this something that is a kind of a politicians or a third sector idea rather than something that's based in the community of people that the commissioners meant to be serving? Yeah again so this was evidence that was provided to the policy team within Scottish Government so not evidence that was provided as part of our research so this was kind of a response from various organisations to the Scottish Government policy team who then assessed that there so that's not something that we spoke in any more detail with people about unfortunately. Okay thank you. Thank you very much Jamie to follow by Michelle. Thanks very much convener. Some of the points I was looking to make have been covered by Michael Murray but I do want to focus a little bit on the outcomes side. In your report obviously it's informing discussion and consultation on the potential set up of a new commission or commissioner and in the introduction to your report you say the research was to provide a nuanced understanding of how commissioners or commissioners effectively complete their functions working jointly with others. Surely evaluating outcomes would be part of that. So what we were asked by the Scottish Government policy team to focus on was what powers the different commissions and commissioners had and their approaches that they took and how they used those powers basically so that was the main focus of the research. We were not in any way infalluating the commissions or commissioners that we spoke with it involved one to three interviews with each of the commissioners or commissioners involved and it wouldn't be possible to undertake any sort of evaluation in that regard. We were gathering the views and opinions of the people that we spoke with about what powers they had what approaches they took and towards the end their views on how that might interact and work jointly with any new commissioner for learning disability, autism and neurodiversity. In this report that you've been asked to remit for this report that you've been asked to do by the Scottish Government actually evaluating whether the outcomes of commissioners or what the outcomes of having commissioners was not part of what you were asked to do just to be very clear on that. We were not asked to evaluate the commissions or commissioners, no? Do you find that slightly surprising that looking at as I say being asked to conduct a report on a potential new commission or commissioner you're not asked to evaluate the outcomes of other commissioners you're asked to look at all the governance and other aspects and overlap but not actually on whether they work? I think that the research was commissioned to fulfil a particular purpose to understand as the Government was looking at developing the potential new commissioner to understand what powers or approaches might be useful for that commissioner to have. It was a reasonably small bit of work. It involved as I say 11 interviews in total and a very brief literature review. In terms of scope and scale it was absolutely not surprising that we weren't asked to evaluate the other commissioners. That would be a much, much larger piece of work. That was just what the team was interested in, was the powers, the approaches, the understanding of how they work jointly and how a new commissioner might kind of influence that or be involved in that. As far as you're aware what reports are there, what analysis is there, has there been done of the outcomes or the success of commissioners in fulfilling their duties? Has there been a widespread piece of work done on that? In terms of overall reports on commissioners and their roles of commissioners, there is very little research. I would imagine that each organisation probably undertakes reviews of various different powers and bits of work and evaluations, but that's not something that we were asked to look at, so that's not something that I can comment on in detail. You'll appreciate the difficulty we're looking at, the landscape and a whole, well, a number of areas of the work of commissioners, how they overlap, as I say, their government's accountability, the financial costs, but we can't seem to pin that down to actually what they achieve for the people they're meant to be achieving those things for. There are certain specific areas as well. For example, I represent the Highlands and Islands. I want to see if there's any issues around rurality and some of the impacts on that, which other groups have missed that. Unless we have an idea of outcomes, would you accept that our ability to do is limited or limited by that lack of detailed information on outcomes? I'm sorry, I haven't done a review of what evidence there is of outcomes of commissioners and commissioners, so I'm unfortunately not able to comment on that. Thank you for joining us. I've just got a couple of quick questions as well. You've stated in a report that it was the Scottish Government that commissioned you, but can I just check that it was the same directorate that's looking at introducing a new commissioner for learning disability, autism and neurodiversity? Was it the same directorate that commissioned you to look at that? It was the learning disability, autism and neurodiversity policy team? Right. In other words, it's in their interests potentially to limit the scope of what you would evaluate in your research. Let's imagine for a minute that they are keen on introducing a new commissioner for their area of interest. It would make sense therefore to limit, as you set out today in your evidence, the scope of what you were asked to evaluate in terms of the wider landscape. Is that a fair assessment? I'm not sure that that is fair. I think that in their review and exploration of whether a new commissioner was required, the evidence was very balanced about whether there should or should not be a new commissioner. They had done some good work already gathering lots of different views about whether people felt that a commissioner was necessary or not and the views were very mixed. I think that they were just interested in finding out more information about how a commissioner could work to use, to have the appropriate powers, to have the right approach to work jointly with others. You would need to ask them, but I don't think that that is what happened in terms of the development of the research and it didn't feel unusual or anything like that. As you set out in your statement there, they want there to be a new commissioner for this area, and that is certainly a statement of fact. Yes, you have obviously found out some other incidental stuff, but, as Smith pointed out at the start of our session, we are looking at the wider landscape, if you like, independence, governance, accountability, cost, budget lines, overlap, underpinned by strategic positioning and, of course, critically outcomes. It sounds very much like you were given a different brief to look more gently at the concept of introducing a further commissioner by the directorate that wants to introduce a further commissioner. I'm not sure that I can comment on that. I think that you probably need to ask the directorate about that. What reception did you get to your research and have you met with them subsequently to it and taken any feedback from them? What was that? We produced the report in early 2023. The Government provided some minor comment on the report. We finalised the report in early 2023. Since then, I have been in touch with them once to let them know that I was coming to this evidence session. Is there a possibility that the report was commissioned to neutralise objections given that this committee was going to be doing this work to look at the landscape? Certainly that was not something that ever came up. I didn't know about this committee. That wasn't a conversation that we had. Last week's question you mentioned earlier about human rights. Did any of the discussions about the concept of a number of different commissions or commissioners looking at that, the complexity around an emerging almost hierarchy of rights—we've seen in this Parliament some challenges with recognising different sets of rights and almost—and we see that in the wider environment as well—was there any recognition that creating a hierarchy of rights can be problematic or did it not go to that depth? I would say that that wasn't something that came up specifically. The only way in which that came up really was when we were looking at, when some people suggested alternatives to a commissioner or commissioner, and some people suggested a potential lead within an existing commissioner for a particular group. Then others talked about, well, is that appropriate? How many leads would we need to have? Are we still protecting the human rights of a whole? Are we still meeting our requirements as a human rights organisation? I would say that that is probably as close as we go to that really important conversation. Thank you very much. That's all, convener. Thank you very much. I can understand that there's an element of frustration from members of the committee because we've seen the research and I can understand that you've only undertaken the research that you were commissioned to do. You've been asking people about whether they support a new commissioner or whether they think that their resource could be better allocated. It's a two-dimensional exercise, wouldn't you agree, without being able to know what the potential outcomes will be in terms of either improvements or not, as the case may be, through having a new commissioner? Perhaps. When we spoke to people, they were very clear that they had already been involved in conversations about the potential development of the new commissioner and that they would expect to be involved in many, many more conversations about the potential development over time. I suppose that that was an exercise that fulfilled a certain purpose. It absolutely didn't cover all the issues that you're looking at, and I completely understand that, but it had a particular purpose and the interviews were very clear that it was part of that journey that they understood that they would be involved in further conversations as things progressed. I'll finish with one issue that came up in your report. You said in page 13 that, in Scotland, there's a range of commissions and commissioners, however, there is very little to publish research on commissioners and to no handbook or blueprint within government for designing the role. Do you think that there should be? Again, I think that I'm not best placed to comment on that. I was researching and speaking to research based on the discussions. You've got to understand the frustration of the committee. We're looking for some kind of answer, some kind of lead, some kind of steer. You've undertaken this comprehensive research. It's not as comprehensive as I would like, but it's a not insubstantial document. You've covered a lot of ground. Speaking to the people you've spoken to, do you not feel that there should be a more robust mechanism for developing those commissioners? You've said that there's no handbook or blueprint within government for designing the role. The implication from that is that you surely feel that there should be one. I suppose that we're just stating a fact there. It's difficult to speak to the interviews that I spoke to. Some were clear. They're very different organisations. They are very different. The organisations that we spoke to all reported in different ways, so not all reported to Parliament. They were all set up in different ways. I really don't feel that I'm best placed to answer that. I think that's something that probably commissions and commissioners or others within the Scottish Government system would be better placed to answer. I don't have a view on that. Thank you very much. Are there any further points you want to make to the committee before we wind up? No. Thank you very much for giving your evidence today. We'll continue taking evidence in relation to our inquiry into Scotland's commission on landscape at our next meeting on Tuesday, 23 April. Before then, we're going to have a private session with regard to this particular issue, which we'll discuss some other aspects of it. That being the only public item on the agenda today, I now close the public part of this meeting and call a five minute break. Thank you very much.