Official Report 139KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is consideration of a letter from the convener of the Finance Committee on that committee's inquiry into accountability and governance. Copies of the letter have been circulated to members. The letter sets out the remit of the inquiry, which is to examine the statutory independence of parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen and their accountability for expenditure. As part of the inquiry, the Finance Committee will consider other bodies that have a degree of independence to establish whether different accountability mechanisms exist. The letter invites comments from committees that had a role in establishing any of the bodies that the Finance Committee has identified or that have taken oral or written evidence from them. The letter identifies the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator as one such body.
Members indicated agreement.
Before we go through the bullet points, do members have any general comments on the letter?
I have none apart from the fact that the inquiry is worthwhile. I do not know whether we want to note that in our response to the Finance Committee. It might be difficult for us to make informed comments on OSCR, given that it is a relatively new body, certainly as it is now constituted.
With that, we will make a start on the bullet points. The first one is:
Would it be possible to make a general point about the issue of overlap being misinterpreted? Two organisations might work on the same issues but have different purposes and remits. They might be required to work on the same issues but from different points of view. That should not necessarily be seen as overlap. It depends what the wording of the question means.
As Scott Barrie and the convener suggested, we have to respond to the letter as a committee. Many of us have opinions from our own experiences of working with different organisations, but we can respond to the inquiry as individuals. We are discussing the committee's experience of working with the bodies that the Finance Committee mentions in its letter.
I appreciate Patrick Harvie's point and I have some sympathy with it on one level, but we are responding purely from the perspective of the evidence that the committee took on OSCR. We did not take any evidence about the issue of overlap. I think that we should state that in our response. Are you satisfied with that?
Okay, I take the point. Will we preface our response by making it clear that, given that OSCR is a new body, issues might arise after the office has been in operation for one or two years that we will want to address?
It is important that we do that. Although there appear to be no issues in the context of the points that we have been asked to consider, matters might arise when OSCR is up and running. It is important to note that we are reflecting on a snapshot that is based on the evidence that we took. Are members content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
The next bullet point says that the total budget for all parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen is around £6 million and asks whether the committee thinks that that is too much, too little or just right.
We cannot comment on that.
We need to phone a friend.
Did we hear evidence that there is concern about OSCR's funding? I am trying to remember; perhaps the clerks will check.
My understanding—with the clerks' assistance, I should add—is that it is unclear whether OSCR's budget, which is about £4 million per annum, forms part of the budget of £6 million for parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen. It seems unlikely that the £4 million is part of that budget. The Communities Committee and the Finance Committee thought that £4 million was a reasonable and proportionate budget. It is expected that the budget will be reduced after OSCR has established the Scottish charity register and reconsidered the charitable status of all charities in Scotland.
Convener 1; Christine 0.
I suppose that we are saying that OSCR is regarded as a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman for the purposes of the Finance Committee's inquiry. However, there is a debate to be had on the matter.
The Finance Committee is keen to consider different regulatory frameworks, which includes the framework for OSCR.
A general point might be made about transparency of budgets. I do not know about OSCR, because I was not a member of the committee during the passage of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. Which department funds OSCR and which budgets fund individual commissioners? I think that the budget for the commissioner for children and young people comes from the Scottish Executive Education Department.
OSCR's budget comes from the Scottish Executive Development Department.
That is fine. However, we are told that the total budget for parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen is £6 million and OSCR's budget is £4 million. I am not clear about the situation and it might be helpful if there were greater clarity about where funding is located in the overall Scottish Executive budget. This might be a general point, but it is difficult for the public to follow the trail—that is my impression from budget discussions in different committees.
I understand that OSCR's budget comes from the Development Department. In our response we should note that we are unclear whether the £4 million per annum that has been allocated to OSCR is part of the £6 million—it is unlikely to be part of that figure. We can include the point that Mr Robson made.
That mechanism might be appropriate for other commissioners and ombudsmen.
The clerks have pointed out that I missed a rather important not. I should have said that OSCR will have operational independence and will not be directed by ministers or Parliament.
A key issue in the discussion is the fact that although a body is not directed by ministers, a level of budgetary interference is another form of control. It is not the same as giving directions to a body, but it reduces its independence. Whether the budgetary control or interference comes from ministers or from Parliament, the effect on a body's independence is the same. Can we limit our comments to the term "direction by ministers"? To be independent, a body must be able to decide for itself how it will do the job, rather than be constrained by financial or budgetary controls from outside.
That will not be the case for OSCR. Although it has an initial operating budget of £4 million, it will not always stay that way because OSCR's work will become self-financing. Therefore, it will not rely on the Executive for its income to allow it to function. OSCR is an example of how such an organisation can be truly independent. We are commenting solely on OSCR, not on how other ombudsmen or commissioners might operate.
Members indicated agreement.
The next bullet point asks whether Parliament or its committees should be able to influence the policy or work programme of commissioners or ombudsman, or whether that should be a matter for the commissioners and ombudsmen themselves.
Members indicated agreement.
The next bullet point asks whether there should be an identical model of accountability for all commissioners and ombudsmen and, if so, whether we favour common budgetary controls as a key feature of such a model.
Sorry to be the one who is putting a spanner in the works, but our responses to some of the previous questions seem to indicate that OSCR is in a distinctive situation and is a different kind of body. It seems a bit much to accept
Would you be happy if we were to say that it is important that the Finance Committee explores all the issues to ensure that the models are robust and work?
I would be happy for the Finance Committee to explore them.
Can we agree that response?
Members indicated agreement.
The next bullet point asks for our views on the adequacy of existing budgetary controls on ombudsmen and commissioners and on whether there is any alternative to the model of having commissioners and ombudsmen under the control of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
So the answer to the second question is that there is an alternative.
Indeed, and we are offering OSCR as an example of that alternative. Perhaps our response should say that there is an alternative, which is the model that OSCR is using. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next bullet point asks:
Give your answer in 500 words.
We have not considered the matter in detail, but it appears that section B.2 could apply to OSCR—do not ask me why. Section B.2 refers to bodies being independent of Government, not of the legislature.
My colleague John Home Robertson has a good suggestion.
Mrs Craigie wants to go to Paris to find out more about it.
It is an extraordinarily difficult balance to strike. I am quite serious when I say that how a body maintains independence while the Government controls its funding is an almost philosophical question.
It comes down to what we mean by "suitable". If "suitable budgetary controls" means being able to deal with a case of mismanagement and put it right, it is possible to have that kind of control and maintain the Paris principles but, if having financial controls means a heavier, more detailed level of control, that would begin to threaten a body's independence.
Our best way out of this would be to put the ball back in the Finance Committee's court and to suggest that it considers investigating suitability and how it is defined so as to get the balance right.
It is a fair point. Suitability is a subjective concept.
Absolutely. Are members agreed on that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
The next bullet point states:
Members indicated agreement.
Forgive my lack of understanding of OSCR. All such bodies should have their own procedures for handling complaints about how the organisation operates or about it not doing certain things, particularly complaints from the public. I am not clear whether OSCR has one, but part of its reporting process should be an explanation of its complaints procedure, whether it has had any complaints and what it has done about them. That is good practice and it must have been considered somewhere in OSCR's remit. Perhaps we should make a general point about it. I do not know whether we can make that point solely on the basis of OSCR's experience, but I ask that some consideration be given to that.
My recollection is that OSCR has an appeals procedure. We could add at the end of our letter a general point that raises the issues that you raise.
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you for that.
Previous
Subordinate LegislationNext
Petition