Chamber and committees

Do you think that it is a problem that the evidence to support whether they have been efficient, well run and effective in delivering outcomes is very hard to find?

I will follow on from Michelle Thomson’s line of questioning. When we had Professor Alan Page and Dr Ian Elliott in front of us two weeks ago, they both recommended a root and branch review of the whole commissioner structure. If the committee recommended that and Parliament agreed, would the Scottish Government be supportive?

Could you also reflect on the fact that the level of accountability to the Parliament is perhaps not sufficient when it comes to ensuring that commissioners are doing their job properly?

That is an interesting point. As I think that you suggested in your opening remarks, there may have been a piecemeal approach to the existing commissioner landscape, which has evolved over time. On the other hand, the recommended new commissioners would largely be on the advocacy side, and we have heard complaints that that advocacy might be needed because public sector services are failing.

Do you think that the existing commissioner structure—never mind the proposals that we have now—has been effective in delivering what the commissioners are there for?

We as a committee felt that that was surprising and maybe a problem. The problem might be that the parliamentary oversight and the scrutiny of the work that commissioners are doing is not good enough. Will you reflect on that?

Which raises the question whether we need any of them at all. I will leave that there, though.

Would you make that point on a financial basis, as it might save us money, or because you genuinely think that there is too much overlap?

Does the corporate body have any views on the potential for merging existing commissioner roles? I am sure that some of my colleagues will question you further on that. In general, though, do you think that there are possibilities for merging the roles of some commissioners?

That is an interesting and very important comment that you have just made.

It all comes down to the question of accountability. Two weeks ago, we took evidence from somebody who said that he had been required to put only one report before a committee. I was very surprised by that; in fact, I found it extraordinary that that was the level of accountability for that particular commissioner. In trying to restructure things and ensuring that we have greater efficiency, we must ensure, too, that there is greater accountability to the Parliament for any job that a commissioner has. It is my view—again, it is a personal one—that we are not doing that very well just now. Some commissioners are not having to go before committees too often to put forward their views and be questioned about them. I wonder whether that is something that the SPCB would agree with.

In your opening remarks, you made it very clear that proposals for new commissioners are largely for commissioners with an advocacy role. A big question is why that has come about. Not all the existing commissioners have a regulatory or a complaints role—or whatever it might be—but most do; they are not generally on the advocacy side of things, with one or two exceptions.

If we are trying to change the structure, we need to ask whether we should be concentrating on that advocacy perspective. Speaking personally, I think that that flags up failures in the delivery of public services. You have talked about people not feeling that their rights are being respected properly, so is that a line of thought that we should be looking at in more depth?