Finance Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Official Report 404KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill: Financial Memorandum

The existing post of Commissioner for Public Appointments is retained, but the posts will be put together under one commission, so the same support staff will work for two commissioners. Each commissioner’s functions will be reserved to them, so one commissioner will be unable to interfere in the other commissioner’s decisions about investigations. The commissioners will work together on the running and servicing of the commission to provide an office and staff. Does that make the situation clear?

I am pleased to appear today in front of the Finance Committee in relation to the financial memorandum to the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill.

In many respects, I am presenting the committee’s own bill, as many of its provisions derive directly from a Finance Committee report from session 2. In relation to bodies that are supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the bill takes forward the recommendations that responsibility for support should remain with the SPCB; that strategic plans should be required; that the SPCB should have additional budgetary control powers to improve financial monitoring; and that the SPCB should have powers to require the sharing of services and to determine the location of offices. In addition, the bill merges three bodies into one, with the loss of a commissioner; increases the corporate body’s responsibilities by bringing the Standards Commission for Scotland and the chief investigating officer under its control; and transfers prison complaints to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, with the loss of a further commissioner.

I turn to the financial memorandum. There is no initial startling reduction in overall running costs as a result of the bill, largely because of the start-up costs for the new commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. However, there will be savings in the running of the new commission in future years, compared with the cost of running three separate bodies.

The early estimate is of reductions of between £18,000 and £25,000 in accommodation costs and of a further £10,000 from merging the chief investigating officer and Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner posts, both of which were part-time. Significant savings will arise from the ombudsman taking over prison complaints, amounting to £163,000 in the first full year. In addition, the potential for future savings exists after the corporate body receives its new powers, particularly through the sharing of services and premises.

It is important to note that the bill is not about the functions of the sponsored bodies; it fully respects their independence while delivering significant governance powers to the corporate body.

I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has. If I cannot answer them, I am sure that Janice Crerar and David Cullum will be able to—if not, we are in trouble.

In effect, the number will be one. A new body with two commissioners, who have discrete functions, is being created. The principal reason for that is that the chief investigating officer’s duties and role—

I am sorry to interrupt, but I still do not understand. Will you explain that again? I am mixed up about what is happening with the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the chief investigating officer and the Commissioner for Public Appointments and how that relates to the commission for ethical standards in public life. I am not quite getting something.

The bill merges the existing positions of chief investigating officer and Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to form one new commissioner.

No—it is one new commissioner.

Paragraph 322 of the financial memorandum refers to increasing opportunities for the SPCB, office-holders and the Scottish Government to consider further procurement savings. Have any estimates been made of what those savings could be?

Paragraph 301 itemises transitional costs, which include removal and furnishing costs, that amount to an estimated £48,000. Who will incur those removal and furnishing costs?

The opportunity here is to look at the financial memorandum, but there may be other opportunities in Parliament for you—

I am sure that we will find some way round that.

But there must be recourse for parliamentarians to ask the type of question that I have asked.

I am sure that you will.

To whom are we sending our report on the financial memorandum?

The committee will report directly to the Parliament.

How will the bill progress through the Parliament?

Who will deal with the bill at stage 2?

This is a case of the biter bitten. Instead of our asking the witnesses questions, the questions are coming the other way.

I am frightened now.

That is correct.

Okay. I will think about that for a wee while before I ask another question.

I understand that the Scottish Government currently meets such costs centrally and that savings will result for the Government in future years. We seek a transfer of appointment costs, given that the corporate body will incur direct costs and that those costs are not included in the Standards Commission for Scotland’s budget provision.

Will there be scope for savings on items such as telephones and banking and payroll arrangements, given that there will be only one commission?

Where?

You may have the opportunity through parliamentary questions or committees, or direct to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The purpose today is purely to consider the financial memorandum.

Can I help? We can provide a briefing to the committee, if it wishes, to clarify the situation that Linda Fabiani asked about. However, we are just giving evidence on the financial memorandum today.

To reassure you, the issues to which you refer were considered by another parliamentary committee, so they have already been investigated.

There will be a stage 1 debate.

The lead committee has not been agreed yet. It will be a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau to refer the bill to a committee. However, the lead committee is likely to be the Finance Committee.

Oh, right, so I can ask my questions next time, then.

No, thank you.

Thank you for your presence and evidence today.

Item 4 is evidence on the financial memorandum to the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill. I welcome to the committee Trish Godman MSP; David Cullum, head of the non-Executive bills unit; and Janice Crerar from the allowances and office-holders department of the Scottish Parliament. I invite our witnesses to make an opening statement.

Right. I am sorry—I will not interrupt again.

My first question is basic. The Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the chief investigating officer and the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland will be reduced to two groups, one of which will be the commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. That will leave the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland separate. Why are we going from three bodies to two, rather than three to one?

Which is the ethical—

So we end up with one commission that has two commissioners.

The bill will not directly bring about such opportunities, but I understand that the corporate body shares several contracts with the Scottish Government, and arrangements are being made to allow office-holders to have access to contracts when they are let or re-let. That should negate the need for each office-holder to undertake individual and resource-intensive tendering exercises, which could result in more competitive fees being agreed.

Perhaps somewhat strangely, the Scottish Government has questioned the wording of paragraph 305, because it is concerned that it might be liable for appointment costs from 2013-14. For the record, will you confirm that the corporate body will meet those costs?

The furnishing costs arise in part because the Commissioner for Public Appointments is currently in furnished accommodation, so the figure includes the costs of required furnishings and fittings. Business system changes include the need for a reprogramming of the telephone system, enhanced IT hardware and software upgrades. They also include the need to communicate changes of organisation and address to stakeholders, and to get in and get on with business planning, awareness raising, training and team development. There will also be a website redesign.

There will be no savings initially, but there will be eventually.

Does Linda Fabiani want to ask another question?

Yes, now that I have had time to digest my misunderstanding of what I had read. I think that David Cullum was going on to explain this, but why was it felt necessary to maintain the two commissioners under one commission, rather than combining all the posts? Why was it felt necessary to retain the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments posts?

That is a policy question, which is not relevant to the financial memorandum. The Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee deliberated and arrived at the conclusion to which you refer. We regarded that as the best way forward in terms of what the committee was charged with.

It was a nice try, Linda.

I ask for clarification, convener. Given that there is no lead committee for the bill, where do we get the opportunity to ask policy questions on it?

That is fine. It is just that I have questions but do not know where to put them if there is no lead committee.

That is fine, but I am still entitled, not having been a member of that committee, to ask questions. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to do so when the bill comes back to the Parliament.

Members have no more questions. Do our witnesses wish to make any final comments?