���˿���

There might be different models that could be used. However, independence from the Government is critical. There is a challenge for many existing bodies: you could ask them to increase their number of priorities or to do more coherent cross-Government or cross-policy thinking but, if it is not in their day job and they do not have the capacity to do it, it will not happen.

One part of my proposed bill is about establishing a commissioner, and two parts are about having a clear definition of sustainable development and wellbeing, and introducing a public duty to promote them. However, even if both those components of my bill were to be passed, the extra scrutiny still would not happen—because who would be checking up on it?

There are different types of commissioners, and I know that some of them have different roles. However, we need to think about what changes we want to make. For me, the changes are about implementation—making things happen and accountability—and that comes back to the Parliament.

It is simply not happening, though. We need a push to make it happen and to kick the issue up the agenda. If organisations do not see that role as an immediate part of the day job, who is going to do it?

All public sector organisations are under pressure. One group that I have not mentioned so far that would be covered by my proposed bill is local authorities. We know that they are under pressure, and my bill would help by giving them support and advice and helping them to share best practice. It would also provide focus, because it would mean that there could be an investigation if it was clear that clearly defined legislation was not being implemented. It is about going beyond thinking about the issue as a nice to have or thinking, “We’ve legislated on this, so we tick the box and move on.” The scrutiny is not happening in real life.

Pressure on committees is definitely an issue. They need expertise and support, as we can see when committees appoint experts for short pieces of work in addition to the Scottish Parliament information centre’s capacity. We could increase that capacity through annual reporting, so that commissioners report to specific committees. A commissioner would have an expectation of which committee it might report to, but it might have done work in one year that relates more to another committee than the one to which it previously reported, so that would be an issue.

The points that you make about pressure on the SPCB are important. Could the Scottish Commission for Public Audit provide overarching support that would help to prevent the SPCB’s having to do everything? It goes back to the question earlier about why we choose the SPCB model—we do so because we know it and it works. That relates to why the committee is doing the inquiry. What lessons can be learned?

There are ways in which we could support commissioners without overwhelming the SPCB, and if we think about what capacity exists, there are definitely wins to be had, which would be a big benefit for our committees and help us to learn from best practice and experience.

That is very kind; I will take that.

I will follow up on the link between access to services and funding. The stats on supported bus services and the impact of bus service cuts show that the impact is falling disproportionately on people who are already in deprived groups, and how it affects rural and peripheral urban areas is clearly an issue because people have a bus pass, but they cannot necessarily use it. We had a cross-party group meeting on sustainable transport, and that is what the young people said. They said that they loved the concept of a bus pass, but that it is not much use if they do not have a bus to use it on. What is the joined-up approach to give people access to bus services?

Would it be possible to get a briefing on that so that we can translate what you have said into what that change means for people? It sounds very nice, but I would like to know how people put in a complaint and ask for information. As I understand it, the system no longer involves speaking to someone—it is an automated system. Could you provide us with a briefing on what that means?

Does the redeployment of staff mean that nobody has lost their job? I was told that staff redundancies were coming.

It would be good to get a briefing on that.

The questions follow the discussion about the increased climate impact and nature emergencies that our constituents are experiencing.

SEPA recently updated its assessment of areas that will potentially be vulnerable to flooding between 2028 and 2034. Can you give us an update on that assessment? Has there been much change in the vulnerable areas for that period? I am very conscious that businesses and constituents are increasingly having problems just getting insurance for their properties. It is a real-life issue, now.

From looking at it, it is about having a joined-up approach. If we are here next year having a similar discussion, is it your expectation that we will have the same number of bus services or fewer bus services, and what is the geographic impact of that likely to be?

Thank you. I can say that, as a bus user in an area where I get to use my bus pass, it is fantastic, because we have buses in my region. On the edge of the region, however, I can see the difference. Bus services have to be higher up the political agenda.

We have seen that a lot of money—around £170,000—is being spent on coaching senior members. Should you not have asked people when they applied for those jobs whether they had those skills?