Chamber and committees

How would we go about making that comparison? How do we decide whether the right person to do something is a commissioner, rather than a champion or some other public sector body, whoever it might be, maybe not living up to their reputation? What should the criteria be for us, as a Parliament, to use in deciding on that outcome?

Dr Plastow, you gave an interesting response earlier when you said that you had been a bit surprised that you had not been asked for further scrutiny on the seven reports that you have done over your time. Do you think that the Parliament could benefit from greater scrutiny of such reports on a more regular basis, so that we are deciding what has been delivered effectively and what has not?

It is much more difficult with the advocacy remits to define what it is that you are trying to do than if you are regulatory or dealing with complaints, where that is easier to measure. Our difficulty—and the Parliament’s difficulty—is that quite a few of the potential new commissioners are to do with advocacy. To try to measure and define what it is that they are going to be looking at is quite difficult. Thank you very much for your comments. They are very helpful.

Ms Agnew, you raised an interesting point earlier when you said that you felt that there was a bit of a gap sometimes. Does that gap come about because other bodies that could be looking after a problem are not doing their job sufficiently well? One of the questions that the committee is looking at is the almost doubling of the number of commissioners in future. Quite a lot of the new proposals are about commissioners who have an advocacy purpose. Has that resulted from the fact that there are other areas or other public bodies that are not doing as much as they could to address a problem?

Some of the proposals for new commissioners have been made in members’ bills. Individual MSPs who, for one reason or another have been working with constituents or on a particular issue, have decided that there is a gap. Should the Parliament be looking at that, to give more scrutiny to the process of deciding where the need lies, or is it just up to the member to make a proposal?

Ms Johnston and Mr Bruce, do you have any reflections on exactly what the problem entails? We have a situation where we are technically almost doubling the number of commissioners. Does that reflect poor scrutiny or problems within the delivery of public services? Why have we got into this situation?

That is a very helpful answer. Thank you very much.

Good morning. This is a difficult question but, nonetheless, it is an important one. Mr Hamilton, it picks up on your comment that the development of the commissioner landscape has been organic over time. Obviously, some have regulatory functions, some have advocacy functions and some have complaints at their heart, so they are all quite different. Do you have any advice to us about the criteria that should be used to decide whether a commissioner’s office is being efficient in delivering what it has been asked to do?

I asked the previous panel this question and I know that it is a difficult one. Are there specific criteria that we can use to discover whether what you are delivering is effective and good value for money? I know that that is difficult, but this finance committee has to look at the outcomes. What do we have to do to measure how successful you are?

The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, on the previous panel, said that he was slightly surprised that, given that he had submitted seven reports, he was questioned only once. As children’s commissioner, do you feel that you are being scrutinised well enough?