Item 3 is to consider a draft protocol between the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Finance Committee. Members have a note from the clerk and a copy of the draft protocol. As the note says, the protocol has been drawn up to regularise the arrangements for the annual budget process; we are being asked to approve it. If it is approved it will be signed by the SPCB, the ombudsman, the commissioner and by me, on behalf of the committee. Do members have questions on the draft protocol?
The note states:
I do not have an answer to that. I can write to the Presiding Officer to seek clarification from him, on behalf of the SPCB.
We are carrying out an inquiry into relocation policy. Given that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is a new body, it would be appropriate to establish that there are no agreements or contracts that would determine a permanent location for it. It is the Parliament's creature and it would be appropriate for it—as well as other bodies—to be located outwith Edinburgh.
I suspect that the horse might have bolted in that case, but you make a fair point. My intention is to introduce a paper on relocation at our meeting next week or the week after. Perhaps we could discuss the issue in that context.
Given that we are contacting the bodies that you mentioned, would it be in order to ask that no agreement be entered into that would be binding for the future of the ombudsman?
Perhaps I could ask the Presiding Officer that; he might then reroute the matter to the ombudsman. I could attach your point to the letter outlining the point that Fergus Ewing made. Subject to those points, are members prepared to agree the draft protocol?
Previous
Scottish Water