Chamber and committees

I will set out what I think the main challenge is—namely that, as quite a lot of our witnesses, particularly Professor Page and Dr Elliot last week, have been very intent on making it clear to us, we should be thinking about overhauling the existing commissioner structure completely. However, as Mr Carlaw has rightly said, there is an issue with trying to remove existing commissioners, as it would be quite difficult to do.

Therefore, we have the existing commissioners—plus the commissioner for patient safety, which has already been confirmed in legislation—and we have proposals for new commissioners. Do slightly different arguments need to be made in relation to those existing and proposed roles? Do we need a different focus when it comes to proceeding with demands for new commissioners?

That is a very helpful answer. Thank you.

That is interesting. Professor Page also said something very interesting when he suggested that, if we were to go back to the evidence from 2006, it would make sense for us now to have a complete overview of what the structure should be and to consider where we are going with this and how we can make public life and the Scottish Parliament more effective. That begs the question: should we accept some of the demands for individual changes or should we have a complete review of the whole set-up and of what a commissioner is supposed to do? From your responses so far, I think that you are suggesting that it should be the latter.

My apologies for being slightly late this morning. Can I return to the question of fiscal transparency and sustainability, which is the most important thing for this committee? Is it your view, Mr Marks, that the increasing number of framework bills that we have seen over the past 18 months has made the challenge of identifying the transparency and sustainability of the money that goes with those bills more difficult?

Why do you think that we have had an increasing number of framework bills compared with what we have had in previous Parliaments?

Thank you for your very interesting, thought-provoking responses so far. Has the increasing demand to have commissioners come about because we are failing to deliver the public services that people want? I do not mind who goes first.

This is an important question for our deliberations. If the demand has come about because certain aspects of public services are failing or there is a gap in delivery, can we do something to improve delivery rather than having another commissioner? That is the real question.

I think that the evidence that we have had so far, which is now quite extensive—we have been scrutinising the topic for something like six weeks—is that the demand for commissioners to deal with an advocacy issue rather than a regulatory matter or something to do with complaints is a result of an issue not getting the attention or the delivery that it needs in order to improve, for example, the lives of vulnerable people, whether that is disabled people, older people or children. I am interested to know if you share that reflection.

Lynda Towers, you mentioned the possibility of a fourth estate, if you like. Do you think that demand for greater integrity has come about because the public trust in Government and in the ability to be effective in delivering public services has been questioned or is perhaps failing?

That was very helpful, permanent secretary. It is undoubtedly a frustration that we have felt, and I think that we as a committee have put it on the record that we do not appreciate having to come back several times to review something that could have been worked through in a much better way.

I am very conscious of time, convener, so I will leave it there.

I think that there are two frustrations for the committee, the first of which is that, too often in the recent past, we have found ourselves, as Michelle Thomson and Michael Marra have said, having to send back a financial memorandum, because it has been incomplete and, in some cases, inaccurate and based on out-of-date figures. When it comes back to the committee, it takes up time in our work programme that we should be using for other things. I am interested to hear your reflections on that. After all, if we want Parliament to work effectively, it is not terribly helpful to have financial memoranda coming back to the committee all the time.

The second issue is the timing of some of the preparation for bills. I absolutely understand why a framework bill might be advantageous if you want to involve a lot of stakeholders in designing the legislation, but if that co-design process is to go on for quite a long time after the bill starts the legislative process, that puts us in an almost impossible situation, because it is very difficult for us to have any idea of how to estimate the cost. Do you accept the committee’s frustration about these two things?