Chamber and committees

We are well aware of the issues that developed there. I know that you are talking about a vacuum of accountability, which you have said should be explored, but what is your instinct about where, ultimately, responsibility for that should lie: the Parliament, the Government or the commissioner?

Thank you for your welcome contributions and, also, I hope you start feeling a lot better, Clare, and that we will soon see you back here at the ranch.

Without further ado, I call a five-minute break in order for our witnesses to leave and other witnesses to settle in.

Welcome back, everyone. We will continue taking evidence for our inquiry into Scotland’s commissioner landscape.

I welcome to the meeting Sue Webber, convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and Martin Whitfield, convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

I will open up the session to questions from members, given that there are no opening statements. First, how do the committees scrutinise the performance of the commissioners within their remits?

I will open up the session to colleagues around the table. The first will be Liz Smith, to be followed by Ross Greer.

Thank you.

Turning to Clare Haughey, I note that your committee took a somewhat different view on a patient safety commissioner for Scotland. You said:

“It is important to ensure public confidence and trust in the healthcare system in Scotland.”

What was it that you felt was lacking that a commissioner could deliver?

The committee is not keen, but if that goes ahead, you want a sunset clause. Is that right?

You have almost touched on the next question that I was going to ask, which is about a concern. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s “Stage 1 Report on the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill” said:

“Stakeholders noted concerns over ... the potential for overlap and duplication of roles and responsibilities within the system, and the future role of the proposed Commissioner within an already complex landscape.”

It is clear that there are issues relating to where the commissioner will operate relative to the existing landscape. How can the commissioner really work within that landscape effectively without there being duplication and overlap?

I have a question for Clare Haughey before I open up the session to colleagues around the table. We had a round-table session last week. One of the issues that came up in that session was that commissioners could potentially take away some of the democratic accountability of ministers. Where do you think that the patient safety commissioner fits in with ministerial responsibility?

Do you think that there is enough parliamentary oversight of that landscape, which, to put it mildly, does seem to be rather complex?

I note that the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner falls within your remit. On scrutinising that individual’s work and the work of his team, he gave really interesting evidence when he came to this committee, and I was very impressed by the work that is being done. Would your committee consider not just taking round-table evidence, as we do, but going out to visit the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner to look at the work that is being done on the ground, for example? Do you think that that approach might be beneficial in assessing the work of a specific commissioner, such as the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner?