Seòmar agus comataidhean

With the proposals that are going through now, one of the questions that we have discussed—again, it is not for us to dictate or mandate—is whether, if a commissioner is proposed to deal with a particular systemic failure, there should be a sunset clause that limits the lifetime of that office to deal with that specific issue and then that is the end of it.

As Jackson Carlaw said, where is the on-going accountability? Commissioners are accountable to Parliament and committees but, in terms of role expansion and role creation, if they are established to do a particular piece of work, how do they grow, expand and take on more responsibilities? Never mind the work that they do—where is the accountability for the overall role changes that happen over time?

I would reiterate those comments and thank you for taking up this issue. What exercises us in the corporate body is our ability to provide the resources and governance support required, not only through the corporate body itself but by the offices that provide the on-going, routine, sometimes daily but more often weekly or monthly support to the different office-holders. The question for us is how sustainable the current system is if we keep adding office-holders. Thank you, again.

It is a numbers game.

I will kick off, then David McGill can come in.

Michelle Thomson talked about siloing and how witnesses have spoken about their patch. There have been a couple of exceptions to that, and I refer again to the Scottish Human Rights Commission review report from last year, which looks at the landscape as a whole, from an external, non-Government, non-Parliament point of view, and says that it will cause a problem if it carries on. There are certainly areas of concern, maybe specifically within the rights and advocacy space, but there are concerns beyond this place about the proposals that we might have to consider in the coming months and years. I do not think that there is necessarily the antagonism to have those discussions on a broader holistic footing.

I think that it is about governance and accountability. Jackson Carlaw and I probably come at this issue from opposite sides—Jackson in his finance role and me in a more governance-focused role—but I think that there is a mutuality there. If we get a better structure of commissioners—or whatever those roles turn into, if they are not office-holders—will it deliver better for people? That is ultimately what we should be ensuring.

From my point of view, the financial aspect is a concern and a worry, but we need change, because at present we are not necessarily giving the commissioners the scrutiny that they require across Parliament, and they are not necessarily undertaking functions in a way that meets the hopes and wishes of the people who established them right at the start. There is an opportunity to restructure and amalgamate, and I would welcome the space in Parliament to have those discussions in a comprehensive way.

I will be brief. I thank the committee for inviting us to give evidence for its inquiry into Scotland’s commissioner landscape. As you are aware, the corporate body currently supports seven office-holders and funds the devolved Scottish activities of the Electoral Commission. We will also support the new patient safety commissioner for Scotland when they are appointed and their office is established.

As you know, we have previously raised concerns with the committee and with the Scottish ministers about the growing number of commissioners and the impact of that on the corporate body’s workload, overall budget and staff. A lot of our responsibilities are reactive and responsive to decisions that are made by the Parliament. We are therefore grateful to contribute to the inquiry and to your work, and we look forward to the discussion this morning.

For all commissioners, there are written agreements between ourselves and the relevant committees that clearly outline the different roles and responsibilities of the corporate body and the subject committees. Those agreements set out a robust governance role for the corporate body and support the effective scrutiny of committees in their respective functions. The corporate body has responsibility for funding the various office-holders, as you have already heard, as well as oversight of the governance arrangements, which includes ensuring that the office-holders follow the appropriate practices for employment and standards as employers. The corporate body sets those conditions.

Office-holders are accountable to the Parliament for the functions laid out in legislation, and they do so by providing annual reports. Committees will also call in office-holders on an annual basis for scrutiny sessions. The corporate body’s role is discrete: it looks at funding and at how the governance arrangements are set up. We appoint the accountable officer for each of the commissioners; we also receive the annual reports and discuss the budget asks, given our role with regard to funding. There is a separation between the funding and governance aspects, and the scrutiny and accountability of the commissioners’ functions—the corporate body scrutinises funding and governance while committees scrutinise their functions.

We can certainly ask for that information, but there is no power to compel committees to provide it. One of the reasons for establishing the agreement between the Conveners Group and the corporate body last year was to address some of these issues and to open a line of communication that had perhaps not been as effective as it might have been in the past. It was also about supporting committees in understanding where the different responsibilities—that is, the corporate body’s responsibilities and their own—lay.

As Jackson Carlaw said initially, it is probably the case that not many MSPs come into Parliament with a desire to scrutinise the work and functions of a commissioner or a commission, and when they understand that such scrutiny is among the responsibilities of a committee, I would not say that it comes as a shock or a surprise, but people just do not seem to be aware of such things. The agreement, therefore, was an attempt to try to strengthen that awareness.

I also point out that, as Jackson Carlaw outlined, we have changed the way that we call in commissioners and commissions; we now do so at least annually to hear about issues—that is separate from the budget scrutiny and the annual report stuff that we do. There are mechanisms in that respect.

Does the corporate body routinely get told when committees call in office-holders? No. Can we ask? Yes, but there is no obligation on committees to let the corporate body know what they have done in a particular year.

Tracey Francis, what are your views on what “good” looks like?