Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Official Report
918KB pdf
“Scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8081, in the name of Gil Paterson, on “Scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies”. I call Gil Paterson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
16:53
The change that is recommended in the committee’s second report of 2011 stems from the work that was undertaken by the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. In its 2009 report, that committee recommended that there should be more regular scrutiny of the various bodies that are supported by the corporate body. The convener of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee asked the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to consider introducing a scrutiny requirement into the standing orders. The bodies concerned are important ones: the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, the Scottish Information Commissioner, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the new commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland, which will include the Standards Commission for Scotland and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland. Although the SPCB has a role in scrutinising the efficiency of those bodies—for example, in setting budgets—the SPCB is not the right body to examine the way in which those bodies carry out their functions.
The proposal for specific rules does not indicate that there has been no scrutiny of those bodies. We are aware that the Local Government and Communities Committee has regularly taken evidence from the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee has scrutinised Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.
My committee has regular evidence sessions with the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland on their annual reports. The commissioners in question have welcomed the opportunity to develop a closer relationship with the Parliament’s committees. However, the committee considered that it would be useful to ensure that scrutiny of SPCB-supported bodies takes place in a regular and systematic way.
The focus of the scrutiny is on the functions of the supported bodies. The committee therefore concluded that scrutiny should be based on the documents that those bodies are required to lay before the Parliament—specifically, annual reports and strategic plans. The proposed changes to standing orders seek to balance the importance of such scrutiny against the other demands and priorities that committees have.
We concluded that the most appropriate way in which to achieve that balance was to refer the relevant documents to committees for consideration. That will enable systematic scrutiny to take place but will also allow a committee the flexibility to decide on the right level of scrutiny within the broader context of its current work programme. That might range from a short discussion at a meeting to an evidence session with the body concerned, or a brief inquiry or report to Parliament if more significant issues arose.
Referral of documents would be done by the clerk. We felt that that was the simplest solution, similar to the mechanism for referring subordinate legislation. If there were any doubt about where a particular report should be referred, standing orders provide for that to be resolved by the Parliamentary Bureau, which would designate a lead committee. That mechanism would be able to accommodate any future changes to the titles and remits of the Parliament's committees.
The bodies carry out significant functions for the Parliament and the people of Scotland. Their operational independence is important and continues to be protected. However, it is also important that Parliament is satisfied that they are carrying out their functions as effectively as possible. We believe that the proposed changes to standing orders will allow committees to undertake appropriate and regular scrutiny of the SPCB-supported bodies.
Finally, I would like to refer to another motion that is before the Parliament today, motion S3M-8088, which seeks the Parliament’s agreement to a minor adjustment to the changes that are being made to chapter 3A. That adjustment is to remove the words “the 2010 Act” from that chapter. Of the recent changes to standing orders, a number arise from two acts that were passed in 2010. Removing those words from chapter 3A and replacing them with the full title of the relevant act will ensure that the standing orders are interpreted clearly with regard to people’s ability to know which act applies to which rules.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 2nd Report 2011 (Session 3), Scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies (SP Paper 566), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 1 April 2011.