Seòmar agus comataidhean

In your opening remarks, you mentioned the strength and potential of Scotland’s wind energy economy. One of the concerns around that is whether we can connect up the necessary supply chains in Scotland. The business objectives and the pressures on businesses are important in that regard. However, you have not talked about how the economy supports communities and how we can ensure that the private investment that comes in to do the important and valuable work does not just suck the benefits out of local communities. How can we strike a balance in that regard? What is your role in that? How can the green industrial strategy ensure that we support vibrant local economies as well as maximising investment and generating the profits that we need in order to support public services?

Good morning. I am interested in talking about the green industrial strategy and the just transition, but first I have a question about Glasgow Prestwick Airport Ltd. When we visited the airport, we heard that some employees there are still not receiving the real living wage. Given that the business is owned by the Scottish Government, do you think that that is appropriate? What steps will you take to remedy the situation?

Can I ask one final question?

That is right. There need to be differences in what “accountability” even means. It is not possible for 129 MSPs to have the technical expertise that is necessary for some functions, but it is possible for 129 MSPs to understand what rights realisation outcomes look like. There would be very different routes and requirements for accountability in that different architecture.

There are a couple of different points in that. Overall, £18.2 million is not a large proportion of the overall budget. It is the expectation of members of the public for such bodies to deliver for them that is of interest to us, however. The resources enable commissioners to carry out their role, but it is the task that should be of primary interest. When there are disparities in resource—with £640,000 as the expected budget for the patient safety commissioner, I think David McGill said—what would that office be able to do in comparison with some of the similar mechanisms that might already exist within the NHS, with all the financial and institutional backing that it has? There are legitimate questions around those issues.

When these discussions started a couple of years ago, the corporate body did discuss how best to start such conversations. Would it be through mechanisms such as you outline, Mr Marra—letters to party leaders, for example? Would it be through direct approaches to committees or to members who are proposing commissioners or backing proposals for commissioners? Given the way in which our responsibilities are currently outlined, they are post-event. That is the politics of it. I think that we at the corporate body do a pretty good job of not engaging in those kinds of discussions.

I would make two points on that. First, at the corporate body, we have had conversations with the Scottish Human Rights Commission about the level of resourcing and the expected additional resources that the commission considers might be necessary should proposed legislation go through the Parliament.

As for what that would mean, we have received requests for additional resources, we have knocked some of them back and we have granted some of them—or granted them in part—depending on what has been going on. If there were a change in the structure and responsibilities of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, with a rapporteur or similar model, there would be a fairer expectation of redesigning how the commission’s resources are allocated. If some of those additional people—the rapporteurs—came with powers and additional functions, it would be safe to assume—

The corporate body recognises that there are different models. You mentioned the police and the prisons inspectorates, which might fulfil part of the role that some of the commissioners fulfil.

You asked about the difference that it would make to us. We do not have any role or responsibility in relation to the inspectorates that you have mentioned or bodies such as the Scottish National Investment Bank. Our role kicks in once an office-holder is identified and created. There are clearly other models where the Government has responsibility for the establishment of the body and retains that responsibility, and committees engage and scrutinise as they see fit.

The corporate body has responsibilities for funding and governance, and it would be easier to deal with one contact than with several. That is a pretty clear line.

We have an interest in, if not a responsibility for, scrutinising the commissioners’ functions. Alongside any changes that the corporate body might have to make, there would be consequential changes to how committees function and how they deal with their scrutiny role. As Jackson Carlaw said, we are not convinced that that happens as robustly as it ought to now, so how would that change, what would be put at risk and what might be improved if there were a different model?

A reduction in the number of commissioners would make it easier to deal with funding lines and budget requests. We might ask slightly different questions to help us understand how the different rapporteurs would fit together within that structure, but any questions about commissioners’ functions would probably sit better with committees.

One challenge that we have had in looking at that bit of our overall budget is that about 80 per cent of the budget is staffing costs. As staff costs increase, there is very little wriggle room, because of the substantial proportion that staffing costs make up.

If we were to fix that, that would, over time, be expected to result in a reduction in the number of staff carrying out the same number of duties. Unless there is a consequential change in the duties that office-holders are required to perform—some of which are in legislation—there would be significant challenges in that regard.