Chamber and committees

We heard from a number of people who gave evidence in previous sessions on the commissioner landscape that one of the plus points would be if commissioners did their job in making things better, but no commissioner seems to be anywhere close to being able to, on the advocacy side, say, “That’s me done. I’ve achieved everything, so we can move on.” Outcomes are key, and our concern is that, after proposals are made and commissioners are put in place, they are not able to measure outcomes and what they have achieved. That is a real concern.

I know that you do not want to write the commissioner’s role or their responsibilities for them or, certainly, do the recruitment, but what background would you expect the commissioner to have?

So, once a commissioner is set up by the Scottish Government, there is no evaluation or scrutiny by the Government whatsoever.

I appreciate that, and I think that it is right that there is a focus on the pounds, but the pennies add up as well.

I want to come in on Michael Marra’s earlier point. I recognise what you said about £18 million not being a huge amount of money, but part of the problem is that when projects get out of hand, they do not involve huge amounts of money straight off, and it happens in incremental increases—the cost of the ferries going up by £12 million or £15 million, for example.

I do not want to bring in the 50 commissioner threat again, but do you not feel that, if we are not careful now, the whole area could get out of hand?

You have no concerns about that process, no opinion on whether that is happening and you do no checks on whether that is taking place. We have heard from a number of different sources that the scrutiny process differs from commissioner to commissioner.

Should there be more commissioners? There are some in the pipeline. I am not necessarily talking about John Mason’s nightmare scenario, in which there are 50 commissioners, because you recognise how that was received by the committee. However, if the Scottish Government is looking to have new commissioners in certain areas in the future, particularly on the regulatory side, do you think that the ability for those roles to be scrutinised and for their outcomes to be evaluated is a key part of that? Could you be confident that that is happening, or is it the case that once the Government has created a commissioner, it is no longer its responsibility but that of the Parliament?

No, it is not a question of the Government scrutinising; it is a question of the Government ensuring that there is a process for properly scrutinising bodies that it has set up, and that there is an evaluation of outcomes. It seems that that is not happening, for commissioners across the board. Government has a key role in setting up commissioners in certain cases, but do you not think that it is of concern that you can create a commissioner, but there might not be scrutiny?

Good morning to the minister and his colleagues. I want to explore the points that Michael Marra has just raised. Do you feel that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that, when it has set up a new commissioner, proper scrutiny can take place of that commissioner and their role?

We have heard a number of times that the scrutiny is not there, or that it varies in relation to the various commissioners. If the Scottish Government is setting up a commissioner, surely it is its responsibility, or in its interest, to ensure that such scrutiny is in place. Do you believe that that is happening at the moment, or is it a question of the Scottish Government setting up the commissioner and leaving it up to someone else to ensure that that role is scrutinised?