Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Official Report 636KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6256, in the name of Trish Godman, on the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill. We do not have a lot of time to spare in the debate.

14:22

It is with great pleasure that I return to the front bench to ask the Parliament to pass the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill later today. That will, I hope, see the conclusion of an 18-month journey from the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee’s first meeting in mid-November 2008, after which we received numerous submissions providing many helpful and interesting suggestions.

That we have reached today is down to the hard work and assistance of a number of people, not least the original committee and the clerks from the non-Executive bills unit, ably assisted by the lawyers. Particular mention should be given to one of the legal team, Rachael McLean, who somehow found time during the process of assisting us not only to get married but, recently, to welcome baby Emily into the world. But then, Rachael is a woman and multitasking is no problem for her. Thanks are also due to the Finance Committee and its clerks for assistance with consideration of the bill at stage 2.

This is the third debate on the committee’s proposals in less than a year. I will later briefly cover what the bill does, but I start with a history lesson covering how we arrived here today. We have developed a habit of approving new commissioners and commissions to protect and enhance services and to keep them independent of Government by putting them under the Parliament’s control. That started in 2000, when the Standards Commission for Scotland and the chief investigating officer arrived under the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000, although those two organisations were under Government control.

In 2002, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body was given a new, statutory role to support independent office-holders. The first to be established was the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, closely followed by the Scottish Information Commissioner and our own Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. In 2003, the corporate body’s portfolio of office-holders increased to include Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland. Finally, in 2006, the Scottish Human Rights Commission came into being. When those bodies were created, much of the focus was on their functions; less and variable attention was paid to their governance arrangements, although their combined cost last year was more than £8.5 million. That initial lack of focus quickly changed and, in particular, the Finance Committee showed great interest in budgetary and governance matters.

Without statutory powers to approve budgets, the corporate body had a difficult role in trying to balance budgetary control with the office-holders’ functional independence. It is worth noting that the office-holders confirmed that the corporate body had achieved an effective balance. Over the years, Audit Scotland has inquired into and reported on the issues that are involved in this area, as did the Finance Committee in 2006. Further, the Crerar report examined public bodies in general, and one of its offshoots led to the Sinclair report. All those pieces of work had in common a desire to improve our public services for the benefit of the public who engage with them. They also recognised that we need to keep a close eye on costs and ensure that each public service delivers effectively and efficiently, providing value for money while adopting best practices.

To complement the work of Crerar and focus specifically on the parliamentary bodies, the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee was established in 2008 to examine terms and conditions, structures and support arrangements. Its work also included consideration of possible mergers, none of which was externally or internally unanimously agreed, straightforward or free from controversy. We were lobbied hard, as members can imagine, and had to consider a great deal of evidence for and against all ideas. In the end, we came to our own conclusions—which is how it should be—and they are reflected in the bill.

One aspect that we did not consider, because it was not within our remit, was that of the functions of the bodies concerned. Those remain as they were originally agreed by the Parliament, and nothing in our bill impinges directly on the discharge of statutory functions, although that might not remain the position into the future. It is right and proper that functions are reviewed, but that is not what we are here for today.

The bill creates a new commission by amalgamating three existing commissioners and the posts of the chief investigating officer and the parliamentary standards commissioner into a single post. The holder of that post, along with the Commissioner for Public Appointments, will form the commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. That body will do what its name suggests—monitor standards in public life in Scotland—in relation to appointments to public posts and the conduct of the holders of various public positions.

We agreed that the functions of the prisons complaints commissioner for Scotland should be transferred to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. In addition to simplifying the complaints landscape, such a move will show a significant financial saving of an estimated £163,000 in a full year, in the context of continuous improvements to the service.

No other structural changes are made in the bill. The remainder of the provisions concentrate on improving and tightening governance arrangements. We have striven to produce a consistent approach to governance, which entails significant change for some bodies, and not quite as much change for the newer bodies. The differences in approach were entirely historical, reflecting thinking when legislation was originally passed.

The most significant changes are the move to a single term of office of no more than eight years; the placing of restrictions on other employment, to ensure that the office-holders’ main focus is on their posts; and the adoption of a consistent approach to future activities on demitting office, to avoid any perceptions of conflicts of interest. A requirement for strategic plans has been added, along with an enhancement of the role of the SPCB in relation to financial governance, including the power to approve budgets and the sharing of services.

We took the opportunity to make some minor changes to assist the SPSO operationally, addressing issues that have arisen in practice.

One other recommendation that I want to commend to the chamber, although it is not in the bill, is the suggestion that committees be much more proactive in working with the office-holders, and scrutinising their work. They would welcome such an approach, and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has been asked to consider whether changes to standing orders might support that.

This bill is, in many ways, unique to Scotland, in that it is the product of a committee inquiry that the committee itself has brought to Parliament. We should be proud of our ability to do that and of the fact that our committees can operate independently of Government in a consensual, cross-party way. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to see at first hand that power in action, and I commend the procedure, as well as the bill, to the Parliament.

I ask members to support the motion in my name at 5 o’clock tonight.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc. Bill be passed.

14:29

It was good and useful to hear a summary of the background to the bill from Trish Godman. I hope that baby Emily is doing well. I have no envious DNA when it comes to the deal that nature has handed out to us men, with no requirement to go through childbirth; in those circumstances, may women always be the best multitaskers.

As members might expect, the Scottish Government continues to support the Scottish Parliamentary Commission and Commissioners etc Bill. The Government has consistently highlighted the close links between the bill and the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. We are pleased with, and supportive of, the work on improving the landscape of parliamentary bodies and enhancing the Parliament’s relationship with those bodies.

The Government has already taken a range of actions to simplify the public sector landscape and improve approaches to public services in Scotland. Our wider public services reform agenda, which the First Minister announced two years ago, has focused on simplifying and integrating public services. It is also focused on promoting the sharing of services through closer collaboration on matters such as procurement. The Government remains committed to reviewing and simplifying Scotland’s complex landscape of national public bodies. The provisions in the bill are therefore very much aligned with the Government’s aims.

As members have noted in previous debates, there is to be no dilution or diminution of the services that the affected bodies provide. The operational independence of all parliamentary commissioners will remain unchanged among a series of provisions that actively enhance their status and effectiveness. In fact, the bill should significantly enhance the effectiveness of the parliamentary commissioners. Not only will it enable support services to be shared, but it will enable for the first time a consistent approach to be taken to accountability for all the Parliament’s commissions and commissioners.

The changes to the handling of prisoner complaints that the bill introduces are part of a wider set of changes that are linked to provisions in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. In the debate on the original Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee report in June last year, the Scottish Government welcomed the proposal that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman should take on the new role of designing and implementing a single set of principles for complaints procedures. The 2010 act delivers on the commitments that the Government and the Parliament gave to take forward recommendations that arose from the Sinclair report, which examined complaints handling across the public services.

The 2010 act gives the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman the complaints standards authority role, which enables the SPSO to carry out the role that Sinclair suggested. The SPSO can now set out principles and good practice on complaints handling across all Scottish public services. Appropriately, those complaints handling principles must first be endorsed by the Parliament.

The bill will transfer some responsibility from the Government to certain bodies. That will not represent a saving for the Government, as the Parliament will simply top-slice the necessary costs for those bodies from the consolidated Scottish block, which will have the effect of reducing the overall pot before it can be distributed to Scottish public services.

As with all actions that we have undertaken that impact on public services—even before these straitened times—we will look for savings and efficiencies to be delivered, taking advantage of the changes that we make. The financial memorandum to the bill shows some of the transition costs in moving to the new structures as they are currently proposed. It is clear that the reduction in the number of bodies and the potential for greater sharing of resources between parliamentary commissioners that the bill introduces provide welcome scope for future savings. The bill gives the Parliament, through the SPCB, increased powers to scrutinise office-holders’ budgets and their draft strategic plans.

All of us in the chamber recognise the implications of the financial pressures that we now face. The need is now even greater than it was when the bill was first introduced for us all to work together to deliver effective and efficient public services that reflect our shared priorities and ambitions.

I reiterate the Government’s support for the bill, which is a key milestone in a shared journey towards reforming Scotland’s public sector landscape that started in 2006 and has been taken forward by the current Government. Since the bill was first envisaged, the financial challenge facing Scotland’s public services has changed, and it is now even more essential that we continue to work together not only to deliver for the people of Scotland positive outcomes with regard to their engagement with the public services on which we all depend, but to ensure that we who provide those services are as efficient and effective as we can be and can be held to account.

Depending on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, it might be necessary—indeed, unavoidable—for the Parliament to undertake a fresh review of the architecture of the commissioners and commissions to see whether any further efficiencies and savings can be gained to help us to deal with the stark financial challenges of the future. I look forward to hearing other members’ views in the debate.

From now on, speeches should be no more than four minutes.

14:35

On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and record that we will support the passing of the bill at decision time. During the stage 1 debate, we agreed that the public gallery would probably not be crammed full of members of the public to view the bill’s successful passage, but I assure the school party that has just arrived and taken the trouble to attend this afternoon that the bill will have some impact on their lives, albeit at some point in the future.

The minister referred to the new mechanisms for parliamentary accountability, and the bill’s benefits come from the Parliament’s ability to ensure, for the first time, that consistent standards apply to all parliamentary bodies. This legislation is being developed for the right reasons and in our constituents’ best interests. Indeed, in this Parliament we do not revise legislation as often as we should, and we should take that fact into consideration.

We have heard in recent days, and will no doubt hear more in future, about the economic challenges that face us. Given that the SPCB-supported bodies are responsible for expenditure of more than £7.5 million, we should take every step to improve their governance arrangements, and the bill provides for that.

Although, as Trish Godman said in the stage 1 debate, the start-up costs for the new commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland, for example, will be considerable, there will in future years be savings compared with the cost of running three separate bodies. Also, I noted that in that debate it was estimated that accommodation costs would fall by between £18,000 and £25,000, and that a further £10,000 in savings would be made by merging the chief investigating officer and the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. I also believe that, in the first full year, other savings will amount to £163,000. Given the current economic climate, we should welcome that, and I welcome the minister’s commitment to ensure not only that we deliver effective services but that we are open to considering how best our Scottish commissions and commissioners might deliver those services. However, we must ensure that at every step along the way the Parliament is involved in discussing and interrogating the whole process.

Finally, I pay tribute to the hard work of Trish Godman and the other members of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. Members of such committees realise that their work is not always the subject of headlines or mentioned in the Press Association cuttings that we all receive, but I am sure that I speak for every member in paying tribute to Trish Godman and the members of such committees. Their work is important in the Parliament and it should continue.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I call on the Parliament to support the passage of the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill.

14:39

Presiding Officer, you rarely take me aback, but you astonished me when you said that we would be pressed for time in this debate. I was tempted to offer to surrender my opportunities, such as they are, to the army of colleagues who are bursting to speak.

To members who are familiar—I think that they are, by necessity of being a certain age—with the “Blue Peter” expression, I say, “Here’s one I baked earlier,” or, as is sometimes said in Parliaments elsewhere, “I refer my honourable friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.” At this stage in proceedings, much of what we might want to say has been said comprehensively in the parliamentary proceedings that we have already enjoyed. For my colleague Alex Johnstone and I, only the prospect of the forthcoming one-and-a-half-hour debate on cycling marks out today as an event in the Parliament’s history and in our lifetime on which we will look back with enormous affection and enthusiasm.

I, too, pay tribute to Trish Godman. Normally, such occasions are something of a reunion for all the colleagues who were members of committees. I see Jamie Hepburn, the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee’s deputy convener, but—sadly—some of our other colleagues appear to have been detained elsewhere and to be unable to join us. Collectively, we all pay tribute to Trish Godman’s work as our convener in steering us through what Paul Martin described accurately as proceedings that would not necessarily generate headlines, although controversies were attached to them, particularly in relation to the various commissioners whose responsibilities and future designations we discussed.

We have said before, and I am happy to repeat, that the Conservative party supports the bill—we are happy to support it tonight. Many sensible suggestions have been made. Although they are dry, minor and mechanical, as I have said, they will improve how Scotland is governed. We support the merger of various functions and the wider access and changes to the SPSO.

The issue that I have tended to dwell upon was also raised by Des McNulty in a prescient speech in the debate on the committee’s bill proposal last June. Subsequent events mean that the issue that he raised—whether further consolidation will have to take place, in view of the financial position in which we find ourselves—is even more important today.

I see in the chamber Mr McCabe, who expressed to the committee trenchant views on commissioneritis. I very much enjoyed his contributions. He knows that I was slightly surprised that the saliva of enthusiasm had hardly had time to drip off the end of his tie when I noticed that his name was attached to a colleague’s motion calling for another commissioner to be appointed. That was an extraordinary volte-face in just 48 hours. He explained to me that such are the conflicts of loyalty between one’s conscience and one’s colleagues, so I forgive him that indiscretion.

I will avoid making any partisan political point, but we all recognise that financial pressures exist and that we as a Parliament and the Government or any future Government could be asked to consider all manner of questions that members of the public who look at the structure of commissions after our reforms might feel need further examination. I end by leaving that thought with members.

14:43

Jackson Carlaw said that everything had been said, but not everyone has yet said it—several more speeches have to be made.

I was nominated to speak in the debate as the Liberal Democrats’ finance spokesman, because the Finance Committee considered the bill in part. I reread our committee report as I thought that it would give me ample material to make a speech this afternoon. However, one conclusion in the report’s summary of evidence is:

“No issues of real substance were raised”.

That did not give me much material.

I will reflect on one aspect to which the minister referred. The bill is the result of one consequence of devolution—the establishment of commissioners. It is worth noting the significance of those commissioners not only to public debate in Scotland but to citizens’ rights in Scotland.

In 2002, the Parliament had a busy year legislating on reforms. We set up the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, who is concerned with the probity and transparency of the operations of members of the Scottish Parliament. We also had the introduction of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman—I am sure that all MSPs have interacted with the SPSO either directly or on behalf of constituents. Perhaps of greatest significance was the setting up of the Scottish Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. All that legislation affected in some way community groups or individual citizens, so it is right that we consider how to reform the bodies and ensure that they are fit for purpose.

The essence of all the bodies is that they respond to and are funded by and accountable to the Parliament, through its corporate body, and not the Government. The bodies are wholly and absolutely independent of the Government and rightly so. In fact, the delivery of their functions is, critically, reliant on their being independent of the Government and being seen to be so.

I want to refer to the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 and the concerns that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues raised during its passage, as they should give us slight moment to pause in considering the bill. The bill should have been unnecessary, because under part 2 of the 2010 act the Parliament created new procedures—unsatisfactory ones, I believe—that in effect give the corporate body a new role to ask the Government to introduce legislative proposals on its behalf.

Trish Godman mentioned the value of the current process of legislation being introduced by parliamentary committees, which are answerable to the Parliament. That could be sidestepped by the corporate body asking the Government to produce a statutory instrument to reform all the commissioners and, critically, their functions. Although such an instrument could come into force only with the agreement of the Parliament, the Parliament would not have the ability to amend it. The fact that we had about a dozen amendments during the bill process, many of which were lodged by the member in charge of the bill, highlights the benefits of having a three-stage scrutiny process for considering important issues such as the functions of the Scottish Information Commissioner. That process will not be gone through for a statutory instrument, which gives us concern.

Although we absolutely support the bill and the commonsense approach of the committee that has been in charge of it, we have concerns about the operation of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Interestingly, the minister gave over the vast majority of his speech to that act, rather than to the bill that we are debating.

14:48

I remind colleagues that, in the debate on the committee’s report, and in the stage 1 debate on the bill, I suggested that fresh faces would be required for further consideration of the issues. It is clear that my purchase with my party hierarchy is no greater than it was previously. Gratifyingly, it is obviously no greater than Jackson Carlaw’s purchase with his party hierarchy, given his similar return to the subject matter. Against that backdrop, I say that I speak with considerable relish.

I echo Trish Godman’s comments and thank committee colleagues, the clerks and the witnesses who contributed to the committee’s work. I echo Jackson Carlaw’s tribute to the convener. She kept us in order and we were all glad that she bore the burden of dealing with the bill, although I was slightly concerned when she informed me that, if she fell under a bus, it would fall to me as deputy convener to deal with the bill. I am glad that she has taken care of herself.

The proposals that are before us were considered in microscopic detail. I cannot quite say that it will be a lifetime achievement if the bill is passed today, although the committee deliberations often felt as though they took a lifetime. [Interruption.]

Mr Hepburn, I would be grateful if you would turn off whatever it is that is switched on.

I do not think that it is my BlackBerry. I believe that it is off—I thought that it was off, anyway.

It is important to emphasise that the suggested changes in the bill do not threaten the quality of service that is delivered by the bodies that we considered and they do not compromise the bodies’ independence. The various office-holders to whom we spoke were content with the current arrangements and confirmed to the committee that the SPCB’s measures protect office-holders’ functional independence and ensure that proper accountability does not encroach on their operational independence or cause any problems. The committee was content with that approach. However, we ensured that the bill provided for adequate parliamentary scrutiny and recommended that SPCB-supported bodies should be subject to monitoring by committees, to increase their transparency. The creation of the new commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland will ensure the on-going accountability of elected representatives, that is, MSPs and councillors.

Given the limited time available, I will focus briefly on the proposals to secure better value for money, which is imperative, as the Minister for Parliamentary Business said. The committee’s remit was not particularly to achieve financial savings, but we managed to do so through, for example, the early transfer of prisoner complaints to the SPSO, with anticipated savings in the region of £37,000 this year and considerably more thereafter. We will also see expected initial savings of around £10,000 a year through the creation of the commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland and, in due course, there might be further savings for the Scottish Government.

Like Trish Godman, I commend the bill to the Parliament. It simplifies the public bodies landscape, making it more readily understandable by the public. A key point is that it protects the functions and independence of the affected bodies while improving this elected Parliament’s scrutiny of their work. It will also lead to public moneys being saved. I am sure that those objectives are shared by all members.

I have just been informed of the withdrawal of a speaker, so I do not have to be quite so draconian on time, as Mr Whitton will be pleased to know.

14:52

I am delighted to take part in this debate, not least because it allows me the opportunity to welcome the school party from Lenzie academy in my constituency who are here today as students of modern studies. What on earth they will make of this debate I am not sure, but I believe that they should regard it as an important part of the democratic process.

As we have heard, the driving force behind the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill is the desire to create one new body out of two and to transfer the functions of the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. There are two compelling reasons for Parliament to agree to the measures. First, there will be one fewer office, and secondly, rationalisation should eventually save money, although not initially, as the financial memorandum observes bleakly.

I have to confess that when we debated the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is now an act, we opposed the idea that ministers should have the right to dispose of public bodies at will, and that is still the case. It is the Parliament’s role to consider such action, because that which it creates it should be able to unmake. I was disappointed that there were no proposals in the bill to cut further the number of commissioners, but we heard what Trish Godman had to say about that.

Would the member care to share with the Parliament which other commissioners he thinks could be disposed of effectively?

I will be more than happy to do so if Mr Adam can contain himself for a minute or two until I get to that point.

I pose the simple question: do we really need a separate Scottish Information Commissioner, based in St Andrews, when functions of that office and office-holder could be placed under the authority of the SPSO? For that matter, do we need a separate Scottish Human Rights Commission ? I stress that those are my personal views and not those of my party. That is probably a debate for another day. However, if the predictions of slash and burn from the Conservative chancellor at Westminster are anything to go by, we will be facing up to questions such as those sooner rather than later.

As we have heard, the bill proposes that the posts of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and the chief investigating officer be combined into one new post and given an even longer title than the previous two, of public standards commissioner for Scotland. Benefits and potentially savings will come from the merger of those posts plus the merging of administrative support.

Before I go into detail on the level of savings that could be made through the bill, I want to pose another question, which Mr Adam might be willing to listen to. Why does each of our parliamentary commissioners have someone dealing with human resources and someone else dealing with the finance function? Surely both services could be centralised with consequent cost savings without needing primary legislation, perhaps under the office of the SPSO.

The explanatory notes to the bill state that savings of around £37,000 will be made in 2010-11 when Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission functions move to the SPSO. Mr Martin has already mentioned that. The figure will rise to £163,000 in 2011-12 and £174,000 in future years. Those savings are welcome. The explanatory notes go on to say:

“It is possible that other savings could arise should the Parliamentary corporation determine to utilise the power in the Bill to rationalise the number of premises occupied by the various officeholders and bodies covered by the Bill. In that event other savings could accrue through the sharing of services or the central provision of services such as human resources, payroll, finance or procurement. Such actions and opportunities will require to be considered should rationalisation of premises occur.”

As I have mentioned previously, the age of austerity is upon us, and we are waiting to see where the financial axe will fall. With that in mind, I was pleased to hear Mr Crawford mention the financial challenges that the Parliament will face. If I took down what he said correctly, he said that there might be a fresh review of the number of parliamentary commissioners. I am sure that he will confirm what he meant by that and perhaps even answer Mr Adam’s question. Which other commissioners would the Scottish National Party Government like to see got rid of in future years? I respectfully suggest to the corporate body that if it is not already doing so, it should re-examine the costs of all the parliamentary commissioners, consider shared services and even look to bring services together under one roof.

However, those matters are not included in the bill that we are discussing. We are deciding on a merger and a transfer that should perhaps be regarded as just the start. I commend the bill to members.

We move to the wind-up speeches, such as they are. I call Jackson Carlaw, if he has anything to say.

14:57

This is unexpected, Presiding Officer, but I thank you for the further opportunity to speak. I am reminded of a question that I asked a lady who had invited me to speak at a lunch. I asked her how long I had. She said, “You can speak for as long as you like, Mr Carlaw. We’ll all be getting the bus at quarter past 2.” I suspect that the invitation to speak that I have just been given is not quite as open as that.

Mr Whitton’s speech has been by far the biggest bull-in-a-china-shop speech in the debate so far. He tackled in detail an issue that Des McNulty, I think, raised back in June last year, and which I have also raised on previous occasions—that of the additional commissioners. I think that most members of the committee understood that issue in our deliberations. It will have to be considered further. I will directly answer the point that Mr Whitton made. My party has canvassed the notion that it may be appropriate at some point to have a rights commissioner in whom all the potential responsibilities in question could be housed. The distinction for the committee was the relative youth of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Proportionately, one would almost have expected it to be the father of the wider rights commission but, in budgetary terms, it has very much less money. I think that it has a couple of hundred thousand pounds, compared with more than £1 million for Scotland’s Commissioner For Children and Young People. There was a belief that it made sense for that arrangement to be allowed to establish itself. It was also clear that the ways in which both commissions and their respective commissioners understood their responsibilities and the approach that they took to their functions were incompatible with a merger at this stage, but we will have to return to the issue.

The debate needs to be had on the number and function of commissioners, albeit that the bigger debate is on shared services. Every commissioner has a role to play, but do they need all the backroom staff that each of them has?

The committee considered the point. I am sure that the convener will return to it in her summing up.

Exercising judgment on such matters was hard. We acknowledge that, if the Parliament were to decide in future to establish additional commissioners, each with a separate infrastructure, huge costs would result. The issue is not one of cost alone, however. We took the view that, if a victims’ commissioner or older person’s rights commissioner were to be established, the correct thing to do may be not to establish an additional commissioner but have a rights commission per se, that monitors all the areas. That said, in considering the merger of two commissions, we were, at times, looking to make only marginal savings. I think that we will return to the matter. In any event, having responded to the point that was raised in the debate, I am happy to confirm once more that the Conservatives will support the bill at decision time. Again, I thank Trish Godman and the clerks and colleagues who made the experience of progressing the bill painless.

15:01

This short debate has provoked very little disagreement. Many members may say that that is a new form of coalition in the debating chamber, although I am not sure why Mr Purvis did not want to contribute in that spirit, given his party’s history in coalitions.

One thing on which we have agreed is our aim of increased efficiency. As I said in the previous debate, we need to be cautious in our approach to that. Efficiency should not be sought at the cost of the service that we wish to deliver. That is the challenge that faces many of us as we try to ensure that the services that our commissioners deliver are accessible and transparent. There is absolutely no point in having the sort of one-stop shop that we have debated today when no one understands what it is or even realises its existence. How then can it help them in their everyday lives? It would be a problem for us all if the bodies that deal with complaints responded only to those who shouted the loudest or articulated their complaint most efficiently. We cannot empower only some people. Doing that would result in those who lack confidence failing to make their views known to commissioners.

As Jamie Hepburn said, there are issues for commissioners to consider in looking at how to communicate with our local communities. For example, I am not convinced that the constituents in the Blackhill area of my constituency know exactly what the commissioner for children and young people or the Scottish Human Rights Commission can do for them. Members of the Scottish Parliament have a role to play in ensuring that the commissioners are supported to do their job properly in our local communities and that their roles are understood beyond the debating chamber. As members have said during the three stages of the bill, it is important that the Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the commissioners, but also to look at how we can work closely with the commissioners on behalf of our constituents.

I have to be fair to the commissioners. In my experience, they have shown a genuine willingness to work with the committees of the Parliament. Indeed, their input has been invaluable to the committees over the years. At times, I have disagreed with their contribution, but their relationship with the Parliament during the passage of the bill has ensured clarity; there is goodwill on the part of commissioners in that relationship. The passing of the bill will draw a line in the sand. It will ensure that we provide absolute clarity on the process.

The debate has been reasonable, albeit that it has lacked the sort of turbulence that we see in chamber debates at times, although that is to be welcomed. On behalf of the Scottish Labour party, I commend the passage of the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill.

15:04

It is customary for Jackson Carlaw to provide the chamber with some of the more light-hearted moments in debate. That said, he also made some important comments on the process that is before us today. I was reminded of his opening speech when we debated the bill at stage 1, in which he said:

“I hope that you will permit me to begin by saying that Trish Godman’s opening speech and the contribution from Labour’s front bench are without exception the finest that I have yet witnessed in my time in this Parliament”.—[Official Report, 24 March 2010; c 24859.]

What an accolade, and what a thing to say about the fantastic Labour front bench. I wish Trish Godman well with Jackson Carlaw’s recommendation of her for debater of the year. It is obvious where that will go.

Jeremy Purvis took a slightly more curmudgeonly approach. I point out to him that the Parliament supported the arrangements that we proposed in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, which put a double lock into the system. Not only do suggestions for reform need to come from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, but the Parliament must have a chance to debate any instrument that is laid before it. It is erroneous to say that the Parliament will have no role, as David Whitton suggested, and that ministers have unfettered powers. Sometimes I wish that that were the case.

I am grateful to the minister for taking another curmudgeonly intervention. Although the Parliament passed the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill—Mr Whitton reminded us that it did so by one vote, but one vote is important in this place, as in other places—does the minister accept that statutory instruments cannot be amended by members and that, consequently, any Government will have to give proper care and attention to statutory instruments that reform the functions of commissioners that the Parliament has established?

The Government always tries to ensure that it lays instruments that the Parliament can support. Any proposals to reform the functions of commissioners will need to be initiated by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. If the Parliament does not support those proposals, it will have the power to say no to any instrument that the Government lays before it. As David Whitton indicated in his speech, the current environment is completely different from that in which consideration of the bill started. If we began the debate today, the end result might be different from what it has turned out to be, given the reality that we face. As I said in my opening speech, it is inevitable that in the next couple of years we will need to re-examine not just this area but many parts of the architecture of the Scottish public sector.

I hope that Jeremy Purvis will forgive me for referring to the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 on so many occasions in my opening speech, because there are substantial and material links between the 2010 act and the bill, not least with regard to prisoner complaints, Waterwatch Scotland and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

As all members know, it is ultimately for the Parliament to take a view on its various commissioner roles and their performance. However, work on the bill so far and today’s debate have shown that consideration of the topic is not a matter for the Parliament and the Government alone. All parliamentarians have a contribution to make; I was interested to hear David Whitton’s comments on that point. The process includes not only the commissioners but the vulnerable groups that can and, sometimes, do look to the commissioners for help and guidance. The bill harmonises the way in which commissioners will work, which can only help to improve the service that they offer. It also helps MSPs to ensure, via the SPCB, that continuous improvement takes place in all the bodies that the Parliament supports and for which it is responsible.

As I said in my opening speech, we are acutely aware of the challenging financial times and the hard decisions that must be made collectively. The financial memorandum to the bill contains a key message for these difficult and challenging times. It states:

“This Bill will not initially deliver substantial financial savings ... However in due course, through in particular the new powers given to the Parliamentary corporation to direct in relation to office accommodation and the sharing of services, it is anticipated savings could emerge.”

David Whitton made a good point about the number of services that could come together. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that accompanies the bill suggests savings of around £66,000 between 2009-10 and 2012-13. As we all know, we might ultimately be required to consider savings beyond that. However, it is vital that the Parliament ensures that the opportunities that are presented in the bill—and any further opportunities that might be required to be taken—are for the sake of those whom the commissioners ultimately serve: the people of Scotland. I am happy, on behalf of the Government, to support the bill.

15:10

I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I will start with a couple of comments in response to Jackson Carlaw and David Whitton. The Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill gives the corporate body the power to issue a direction to any of the office holders as to the location of their office, or to make them share one with another office holder or public body. That applies in the combining of the chief investigating officer with other posts, and there will be a sharing of staff in that case.

David Whitton has asked me to point out that pupils from Lenzie academy are now sitting behind him—now I know why he volunteered to speak in the debate.

I say to Jeremy Purvis that I cannot comment about what corporate bodies might do in the future, but I expect that, should a corporate body make any proposals that would have a material impact on the bodies that are supported, those proposals would first be raised with the Parliament, before any request was made of the Government.

Bruce Crawford said that we are in difficult financial straits and that things will not get any easier, but there has been continuing dialogue between the corporate body and office-holders over future provisions. A working group has been established, with representatives of each of the office-holders, including the Standards Commission for Scotland. The corporate body will consider the potential sharing of services and co-location, and will identify areas of potential savings as well as other approaches to collaborative working. The working group is meeting as I speak.

What will the bill mean to the people of Scotland? There will be no change in the functions that will be delivered to them. Although the number of bodies that are supported by the corporate body remains unchanged, at six, the functions that are delivered will be increased. There will be a reduction in costs, which we have discussed. An ethical standards in public life commission will be created, resulting in a centralisation of expertise on standards issues relating to elected members. There will be enhanced and improved governance arrangements, leading to potential future savings. There will be a maximum term of eight years for office-holders. There will be restrictions on outside employment and on employment after leaving a post.

Since coming into the Parliament in 1999, I have always been a convener. I was the convener of the Local Government Committee. Then I went into the Deputy Presiding Officer’s job, and I am the convener of the Conveners Group. Convening the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee was an interesting experience. It has been a technical committee, in some ways, but the support of my colleagues helped me through it and allowed me to carry out the task in a way that I would not have been able to envisage otherwise.

The experience underlined the fact that the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill is a committee bill. Part of my job as a Deputy Presiding Officer is to show elected members from other countries round this place. If there is one thing that they are very interested in, it is the fact that committees can instigate legislation. I will say again what I said in my opening speech: we do not use that facility enough. The bill before us might not be the best example, but there have been other good examples: the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003, the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002, the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act 2009. We could use the committee system more in that way. Bruce Crawford is smiling—obviously, that would mean more legislation.

I thank my committee colleagues sincerely, as they helped me to get through things that, at some moments, I found difficult. What can we say about the clerks from the non-Executive bills unit, and the lawyers? What could we do without clerks? Nothing. If we did not have clerks supporting and helping us here, the legislation would not get through the Parliament.

I am not feeling very lucky this week. The first ball of the world cup is about to be kicked, and I have just lifted my team out of the Labour sweepstake. It is Paraguay. I do not think that I am going anywhere fast with that.

I commend the bill to the Parliament, and I ask members to support it.