Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill: Stage 1
This could be interesting.
I am sorry that I missed the excitement of the debate. I want to say something that is tangential to what the minister is saying. In addressing the initials to signify a body, will he also consider the names that are given to what we used to call white papers and green papers in another place? Those papers said on their front—on the tin—what we were getting; they did not have imaginative literary names such as “A Curriculum for Excellence”.
Having listened to the speeches from members of the committee that investigated the matter, I find that their excitement and enthusiasm for the process make me regret that I did not volunteer for the role.
Hear, hear.
For once I am not devastated to discover that my time is tight and that I must keep to it. I will have done remarkably well if I manage to speak for four minutes.
On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to record our support for the general principles of the bill. If I came into the chamber with a spring in my step it was because of the opportunity for a reunion with my good friends on the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. We may divide on many things, but I think that our shared experience will go with me to the grave.
To be serious, I recognise the role of the clerks and the convener in supporting us and taking us through a difficult process. The process was difficult simply because the language that was used to deal with the important issues was not easy. The bringing together of those things made the process such a challenge.
It is true that most of the debate on the general principles of the bill has been rehearsed and that there has been agreement. I do not think that there will be a dispute about those general principles. The committee had to adjudicate and come to decisions on difficulties, challenges and conflicting views. Not everyone will be happy with those decisions, but they reflected the balance of concerns throughout the Parliament and beyond about what was suggested.
No one can disagree with the aim of increased efficiency, but as I said in the previous debate we must be careful that efficiencies are not made at the cost of the service we wish to deliver and that the service itself, as well as its accessibility and transparency are real, not theoretical. We must also ensure that commissions and commissioners are supported to do their job properly and that their role is understood beyond this debating chamber.
Reflecting again on these issues, I believe that we must remember that these bodies came into existence not out of malice or with some malevolent intent but for a purpose. As a result, it will never be easy to declutter the landscape by trying to get rid of them; people will always want to be reassured that the need for which they exist is still being met. That is particularly true of the commissioner for children and young people. We must also remember that commissioners play a variety of roles. Although they grew up in different ways, they were established for a particular purpose and we must ensure that, no matter what structure is put in place, that purpose remains.
There is no point in having the kind of one-stop shop that people have suggested and discussed if no one knows where it is, understands its purpose or realises that it exists to help them in their everyday lives. It would be a problem for the bodies that deal with complaints or rights if it turned out that those who understand how to complain or to fight for their rights are able to access support while those who need the confidence to do so are absent from the process. The challenge will always be to ensure that, instead of simply giving people a place to go at the end of the process after things have gone wrong, these bodies reach out into communities to those who deserve support and services that meet their needs.
I support the suggestion in the bill, as recommended by the committee, that the test for any further proposals for commissions or commissioners should be whether the particular function can be done by existing bodies and whether it is possible to do things together or in a different way. Finally, just because there are external champions fighting for children, older people or whatever, that does not mean we should not have champions inside Government—and, indeed, inside Parliament—doing the same. We need to structure the responsibilities of Government in such a way as to ensure that those champions exist.
I thank those who have helped us to get to this stage and am happy to lend our support to the bill’s general principles.
14:22
Presiding Officer, I hope that you will permit me to begin by saying that Trish Godman’s opening speech and the contribution from Labour’s front bench are without exception the finest that I have yet witnessed in my time in this Parliament—and I say that with all the sincerity that I know her very good friend Anne Moffat would be able to muster. Paying tribute to Mrs Godman, I believe that she has very helpfully and succinctly laid out the bill’s terms and the work of the committee that she convened.
I confirm at the outset that the Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill and support its general principles. It reflects in part the recommendations of the RSSB committee, of which I was pleased to be a member and whose report we debated last June. Other perhaps more controversial matters that we discussed and made recommendations on at the time are being addressed elsewhere, particularly in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, stage 3 of which will be concluded tomorrow.
The measures before us reflect in all but name the RSSB committee’s conclusions. With regard to the variation of the name of the new body—either the commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland, or CESPLS, or the public life and appointments commission Scotland, or PLACS—I make no complaint. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Essentially, the end result is the same and represents a sensible reform that benefits the public by reducing administration and complexity while improving accountability and governance. The SPCB has a responsibility and a duty to ensure that economies of scale, however modest, are realised and that the examination of the new annual report meets the Parliament’s requirements.
We also support the endeavour to harmonise the terms and conditions of members of the Standards Commission for Scotland with the office-holders and members of the other SPCB-supported bodies. The proposals might appear quite dry, minor, even technical but, like other members of the RSSB committee, I continue to believe that such changes will continue to be important to those who currently hold office and might well be influential in attracting talented successors.
We support the changes that are designed to improve the operation of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the intention to transfer to it the functions of the Scottish Prison Complaints Commission. We welcome the fact that that will place the SPCC on a statutory footing for the first time. In particular, we endorse the changes to the SPSO that will offer access to a wider range of outcomes and options for reporting, including the discretion to determine to discontinue an investigation and to decide whether in those circumstances to send a report to ministers or to lay any report before the Parliament.
Having read the Official Report of last June’s debate on the recommendations of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, I would like to return to one theme that recurred in many of the contributions to that debate: the future of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. During the working life of the committee, sustained representations were made that those functions should not be merged. They were almost always from those who wished to see the commissions remain separate as a matter of principle, not as a matter of practicality. In the event, a merger was not recommended by the committee and is not part of the bill, but it would be wrong to conclude that such an outcome was inevitable, far less that it was enthusiastically arrived at. In truth, there was considerable discussion as to whether such an amalgamation might not be appropriate as well as, undoubtedly, a collective lack of enthusiasm at the prospect of further future commissioners—for example a victims commissioner or an old people’s commissioner—for causes that are often championed as being ideal candidates. The establishment of a new rights commission had some appeal. However, essentially for practical reasons such as the relative age of the newly established Scottish Human Rights Commission, no recommendation was made at that time. It was not an issue of principle. It is important to make that point explicitly, as that may well be unfinished business.
For the moment, I join Trish Godman in thanking the clerks and committee colleagues and I thank her for steering us through our deliberations. I agree that the bill gives effect to sensible proposals that are supported on all sides and that can now be progressed. We will be content to support the bill today.
14:26
I am sorry, Mr Maxwell, but you should speak through the chair, rather than to the member directly.
I apologise, Presiding Officer. The member seems to be arguing that there is a difference between the Parliament and the corporate body. As far as I can see, the corporate body represents the interests of members of the Parliament. There is a distinction between the corporate body and the Government. I would have thought that the corporate body was the appropriate place for the decisions and actions that we are talking about to be taken.
The argument is not one that I am developing today but one that I have developed for some time, in the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee and during the debate on the committee report. The distinction that I am drawing is that the corporate body has an important role, which is laid out in statute, but it is not representative of the Parliament in all matters of policy and so on. It has the serious duty of discharging the management of the Parliament and dealing with other extremely important matters, but it does not have a policy role. The commissioners and their functions are matters of policy. I am certainly not aware of people being put on the corporate body to deal with those matters. We can have a separate debate on that. I understand the point that Stewart Maxwell makes, but I come at it from a different angle.
Members will be delighted to hear that I have additional time.
The main thrust of the committee’s review was not to achieve financial savings, but we should reflect on the fact that there will be savings. It is anticipated that the early transfer of prison complaints to the ombudsman will produce savings of around £37,000 in the financial year 2010-11, £163,000 in 2011-12 and £174,000 annually thereafter. In addition, it is anticipated that there will be on-going savings of approximately £10,000 per annum when administrative support for the public standards commissioner for Scotland is provided by the staff of the new commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland and the part-time posts of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and the chief investigating officer are merged into one full-time post. Those savings may seem small within the overall landscape of public spending in Scotland, but they are welcome nonetheless in an era when every penny counts.
There has been a good start to the bill process at stage 1. I look forward to the continuation of that process and to concluding the committee’s work, but I suggest that fresh faces will be required at the stage 3 debate. I hope that I will be listened to this time.
14:38
I might live to regret that enthusiasm.
In all seriousness, we are fortunate that the structure of our commissioners and commissions means that they are accountable to the Parliament and not to the Government, which is just as it should be. Like my Liberal Democrat colleague Ross Finnie, I am pleased that the independence of the roles will be retained, particularly in relation to standards, as we all know that there are serious questions about standards in the public sphere these days. The clear separation of functions should be welcomed.
Paul Martin commented on the understanding that constituents might have. I was elected in 2007, but I have been involved with the Parliament since its inception in 1999 and I have always been struck by the plethora of places to which members can direct constituents for expert advice. The situation is more than confusing and it can become a hurdle.
I hope that the bill will clarify the position, but it is incumbent on all elected members of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that we have a firm grasp of where to direct people when they have a complaint to make. I think that the proposed legislative framework will facilitate that. I think that it was Johann Lamont who said that the purpose of the commissions must remain the same. It is important that people understand their purpose and what they can and cannot do. We all have a duty to ensure that they do.
On the downside, I have expressed no more than a passing concern about the merging of the existing commissions from a human resources point of view. We do not want to lose the expertise that they have built up over the years. It is critical that, when the mergers and relocations take place—if that is what happens—we do not lose the extremely valuable expertise that the current commissions have in their fields.
I am not sure that I can say much more to make my speech as exciting as those that have already been made. Consequently, I reiterate the Liberal Democrats’ support for the general principles of the bill.
14:46
As someone who heard the budget statement that was made elsewhere, I can reassure Paul Martin that this afternoon’s debate has been every bit as exciting and racy as anything that emerged in that.
I have just two points to make. I want to build on the point that I developed earlier about the possibility of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Scottish Human Rights Commission merging. Rereading the Official Report of the debate that we had when the ad hoc committee’s report was published, I was struck by what Des McNulty said about economies of scale. He argued that such a merger might prove to be sensible or even necessary in the light of the financial pressures that we would inevitably face in the immediate future. We cannot remain indifferent to those pressures.
In the view of Scottish Conservatives and of the committee, there are examples of good working practice by the existing commissions, certainly in the case of the Commissioner for Children and Young People but, in themselves, those are not prima facie justifications for the existence of separate commissions. Therefore, those who are pleased that no merged rights commission proposal has been made at this time should understand that, for some of us at least, that is not a matter of principle but one of practical politics, given that the Scottish Human Rights Commission is at an early stage of its life. It is my view that a combined rights commission is a possible option in the near to medium term and that, arguably, it could be desirable.
Beyond that, I feel that I ought to demand an explanation of the minister when he sums up. Ross Finnie was obviously slightly discomfited by the acronyms to which I drew members’ attention. The committee is entitled to know why the Government chose to spurn, to toss aside and to deride the committee’s recommendation to create a public life and appointments commission Scotland, or PLACS, in favour of the CESPLS option. Why was the minister attracted to CESPLS rather than PLACS? I leave that thought ringing in his mind. Given that I, together with the other speakers in the debate, to whom I pay tribute, have milked the subject dry, I will rest.
14:48
This interesting debate has highlighted areas of agreement as well as providing food for thought about future options and actions. I have to say that Jackson Carlaw got me good and proper when he asked whether the proposed body would be called CESPLS or PLACS. My nice and dutiful officials tried to help me, as they do on such occasions, by sending me a note that says, “Not a decision ministers took.” This is a committee bill, and the RSSB committee recommended the name of the body. By the time I had got through CESPLS, PLACS, CPSO, RSSB and the PSR bill, I was not sure whether I was talking about CESPLS and PLACS or cesspits and plooks.
I will not take that analogy any further, because I see Ross Finnie quavering.
Of course, I am talking not about the organisations themselves but about the language that we are using. Johann Lamont put the question very well: if we in the chamber find the language difficult, how can it possibly be clear for the people of Scotland?
That question was so tangential that I ask Bruce Crawford just to get on with the debate.
It gives me great pleasure to open this stage 1 debate on the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill. I do so from the front bench—I want to put that on the public record because I have never been on the front bench before and I do not think that I will ever be on it again.
Members might remember that, back in November 2008, an ad hoc committee of the Parliament was established to consider and report on the terms and conditions of the office-holders and the structure of the bodies that are supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. In addition, the committee was tasked with considering any proposals to include new functions or arrangements. The Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee—which I will refer to as the RSSB committee—published its report on 21 May 2009. The report contained a number of recommendations, some of which required legislation to give effect to them. Members may recall that the Parliament debated and agreed to the RSSB committee’s report on its inquiry in June of last year.
As members know, the committee bill process is slightly different from that for other bills: the Parliament scrutinises the committee’s report on a proposal and reaches agreement on its findings before moving to a stage 1 debate; unlike with other bills, there is no requirement for a committee to report on the general principles of a committee bill at stage 1.
The parliamentary debate on the committee’s report in June 2009 allowed the Parliament to scrutinise the committee’s work and recommendations. Today, we have the opportunity to debate the general principles, now that we have the full details of the bill before us. I am pleased that we are debating the general principles of a bill that has been introduced to provide the necessary legislative force to make changes to office-holders’ accountability and governance; to establish a new standards body; and to transfer the functions of the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. It is important to note that the bill is not about the functions of the SPCB-supported bodies; the bill fully respects their independence while delivering significant governance powers to the SPCB.
Members will note the level of detail in the bill. I would like to cover the main provisions in a little more detail. To enable the corporate body to undertake its scrutiny role effectively, and in light of the previous Finance Committee’s recommendations, the bill provides for the governance arrangements to be brought into line with those in the Scottish Commission for Human Rights Act 2006 and enhances the provisions in that act to provide that proposals covering expenditure, the appointment of staff and the location of offices shall be subject to the approval of the corporate body and requires strategic plans, with costings covering three to four business years, to be laid before Parliament.
The bill also provides for the functions of the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission to be transferred to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and put on a statutory footing and includes some ancillary amendments to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to assist with the interpretation of certain provisions.
The bill provides for the establishment of a new standards body, which is to be known as the commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. As a result, the posts of Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and chief investigating officer—which are both part time —will be combined into a single, full-time post and renamed the public standards commissioner for Scotland. The post of Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland will be renamed the public appointments commissioner for Scotland. The two new commissioners will be appointed by the corporate body, subject to the agreement of the Parliament, and provided with the property, staff and services that they need to fulfil their functions by the new commission. Their existing functions, staff and liabilities will transfer when that body is established.
No changes to the reporting arrangements for the new commissioners of the standards body are proposed. Investigative reports relating to MSPs will continue to be sent to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and reports relating to councillors and other elected members will be sent to the Standards Commission for Scotland; the public appointments commissioner will continue to report to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee about matters relating to public appointments in Scotland.
The bill will not, initially, result in a startling reduction in overall running costs, largely because of the start-up costs for the new commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland, but there will be savings in future years compared with the cost of running three separate bodies. The early estimate is of a reduction of between £18,000 and £25,000 in accommodation costs and a further £10,000 saving as a result of the merging of the posts of chief investigating officer and Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, both of which are part time. Significant savings will arise from the SPSO taking over the prison complaints function—£163,000 in the first full year. In addition, there is potential for future savings once the corporate body receives its new powers, particularly in relation to the sharing of services and premises.
The Finance Committee has considered and reported on the financial memorandum to the bill and is content that the information in it is an accurate reflection of the costs that will arise from the bill. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the delegated powers under schedules 2 and 5 and is content. I thank the members of those committees for their consideration of those matters.
I thanked my fellow members of the RSSB committee during the debate in June last year, but I repeat those thanks at this culmination of a considerable piece of work. My thanks also extend to the clerks and legal advisers who supported the committee and enabled the introduction of the bill.
The package of measures in the bill will not only improve the accountability and governance of corporate body-supported bodies and deliver benefits to the public through better performance and easier access to the services they provide, but, over time, produce savings and thereby reduce public expenditure.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc. Bill.
14:12
Hugh O’Donnell now has that role.
I call Johann Lamont, to open on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. She has four minutes.
14:18
You should conclude now.
It is with considerable delight that I rise to speak in this debate. Unlike every other speaker thus far, I do so from the back benches, to which I am well accustomed. In the debate on the committee report on 18 June 2009, I, and other members, said that the matters that we were discussing would have to be considered further at a later date—and here we are doing so today. I suggested at the time that fresh faces would be required, but it is clear that the various party whips disagreed, because many of the members who spoke in that debate, including me, find themselves doing so again today.
I served as the deputy convener of the committee and, like other members, I thank colleagues on the committee, the clerks and the witnesses for making the inquiry process good, thorough and rigorous. The work continues; it is in the good hands of the committee convener, who is gracing the front bench today, instead of sitting in her usual spot in front of us. We are now considering the bill. It is clear that the bill and the committee process build on work that went before. The committee considered a number of previous inquiries and reports, such as the Audit Scotland report “Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Ombudsman/Commissioners Shared Services”, the previous Finance Committee’s inquiry into accountability and governance, the Crerar report, the Sinclair report and the Scottish Commission for Public Audit’s “Review of the corporate governance of Audit Scotland”—all very catchy titles. It is clear that the process has not taken place in isolation and that it continues work that has been done before.
It is important to make it clear that, although the committee and the bill propose some structural changes, there will be no significant changes to the service that the proposed new bodies will offer, notwithstanding the merger of the Scottish Prison Complaints Commission into the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s role. It is clear that, under the proposals, there will be no dilution or diminution of the service that the bodies offer.
However, some sensible changes are proposed. They include harmonisation of the terms and conditions of the various office-holders. It was clear to the committee that, because the commissioners were created in legislation one by one, there were significant differences in their terms and conditions. The committee did not think that that made sense, so terms and conditions will be harmonised. That is a sensible position.
Office-holders’ work should also be subject to greater and more rigorous scrutiny—without interference—by committees of the Parliament. The Parliament pays for that work, so it is right that the Parliament should scrutinise it. It is worth reflecting on the circumstances in which we are debating the bill. Tomorrow we will debate the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, so there is a wider context to the provisions of this committee bill; other work is being done on the landscape of public bodies. We welcome the fact that, as Bruce Crawford indicated, the Government will co-operate with the committee on the bill.
I intended to say a little about cost savings, but I am swiftly running out of time.
You may continue.
I extend to Bruce Crawford best wishes for the rest of his big day. May there be many more, at least until 2011; I hope that there will not be many more after that.
It is clear to me, having read the many reports that have been part of the process, that we are developing this legislation for the right reasons and in the best interests of our constituents who use the commissioner services that we are debating today. The bill is an example of the Parliament revisiting legislation that has been passed previously; perhaps we do not do that enough. Today I am taking the opportunity to interrogate such legislation.
In a recent debate on the subject, my colleague Johann Lamont stated:
“I am entirely sceptical towards most things about life, I was equally sceptical about the role of commissioners, and I was open minded about the options that were identified by the corporate body”.
I reassure Johann Lamont that she is in good company, as being sceptical is the norm in the Parliament.
On a serious note, there is no room for complacency. We should make no apologies for seeking to improve the role of our commissioners in our local communities. Given the current economic climate, it is important that we recognise that the SPCB-supported bodies are responsible for expending £7.5 million a year, so we should take every step possible to improve the governance arrangements. The bill provides the foundations for us to improve the arrangements and is a step in the right direction.
The bill will allow the SPCB to direct the public bodies or office-holders to share premises, staff, services or other resources. That will allow the SPCB to rationalise the number of premises that the bodies use. There are opportunities to identify ways in which services such as human resources, payroll and finance can be shared. The approach will provide many opportunities to make best use of resources and to consider ways in which we can improve service delivery to members of the public.
During the debate and other recent debates on the issue, many colleagues have recognised the need for commissioners to be operationally independent. However, several colleagues have made the fair point that that should be balanced by ensuring that the Parliament’s interests are considered. As members have said, we cannot be seen to be writing a blank cheque. The bill will provide the opportunity for scrutiny. As many members have alluded to, the process of holding commissions and commissioners to account will not dilute their independence. The opportunity for parliamentary committees to play a more prominent role in that is an important step. The process will provide a public record of the commissioners’ role in our communities. There will be opportunities for commissioners to be held to account in a useful and constructive way that will allow them to provide more information.
This stage 1 debate is not a headline-grabbing debate such as the budget debate that is taking place in another place. However, it is a useful contribution to the discussion that has taken place for several years on the role of commissioners. The bill provides a useful foundation to allow us to make our commissioners more effective and accountable.
14:43
It may say something about my very sad life that I have enjoyed this afternoon’s debate. In relation to what Jamie Hepburn said about fresh faces, I am always reluctant to admit my age but, sadly, my face confesses it for me. I can attribute this particularly unfresh face to the work of the committee only in small part; it is probably mostly the result of a life too much of which has been spent having arguments about politics.
The issue of acronyms and what we call things is important. For the life of me, I found it extremely difficult to keep in my head what the proposals were and to understand them. It was like reading Tolstoy and always having to go to the back of the book to find out who everyone was. There is a serious point at stake. If we do not understand the system and do not get it, how on earth do we imagine that anyone who wants to use the services in question will have any confidence that they know where to go? There is a general point about setting up bodies and then not willing the means to ensure that they make sense to those for whom they are supposed to address problems.
The proposal for an annual report is important and, in that respect, I urge committees to have a proactive relationship with commissioners and commissions. Although the debate over independence and accountability is difficult—after all, people sometimes claim independence when they are asked to justify what they are doing—the balance can be managed if the committees themselves play an active role.
I repeat that these bodies must not only serve the individuals who go to them but teach general lessons about our standards in public life and the quality of services that are delivered. If that does not happen and we continue only to address individual complaints without recognising patterns of disadvantage or inequality where people are unable to be proactive on their own account, we will be serving those people badly.
On whether Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Scottish Human Rights Commission should be brought together in future, Jackson Carlaw was entirely right to point out that the current situation might not be for ever. The members of the committee came to the same conclusion for different reasons, with some saying, “Maybe, but not yet,” and others highlighting the reason why they were separate. However, the people in those roles will have to make the case either for staying as they are now or for change. If they are doing their jobs as they are at the moment and if they are not duplicating each other’s work, they will survive. After all, the test will be whether they are working, which brings us back to the issue of accountability.
In response to Ross Finnie’s concerns about the future and Stewart Maxwell’s comments, I have to say that I find it interesting that the SPCB gave committee members the task of testing their thoughts against the SPCB’s own plan. In the end, we did not agree with it and the concern is that, in future, such scrutiny might not happen. Although the SPCB served a very important role, the Parliament did not entirely agree with it, and that should be reflected in tomorrow’s stage 3 proceedings on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Given that we need to put in place a process that reflects on what we have already done, we would be well advised not to paint ourselves into any corners or to entrench our positions simply because we said something in the past, even though, in the real world, it no longer makes any sense. Instead of recognising that it was appropriate for the Parliament to reflect on what it had done, on the fact that the commissioners and commissions had grown up in a higgledy-piggledy way and on how we might rationalise things, some people characterised the committee’s work as a way of getting rid of troublesome bodies We were not threatening functions, particularly those of the children’s commissioner, that we had agreed were important. In public life in general, people must have more confidence in the fact that, when we say we want to revisit past decisions, we are not trying to silence anyone but are thinking about how we can do things better.
Again, I thank the clerks, who will certainly play an important role going forward. Jamie Hepburn talked about fresh faces; some of us thought we would get off for good behaviour after serving on the RSSB committee, but we were obviously misguided. We should all thank Trish Godman for taking on the role of taking the bill to its conclusion in the Parliament.
14:53
Will the minister give way?
I can probably achieve that.
It is clear that the bill provides the SPCB with a set of tools that can be used to ensure continuous improvement across all the bodies that it supports and is responsible for on our behalf. That distinction recognises that it is the Parliament that assigns resources and monitors the performance of parliamentary commissioners, and that is how things should be.
I said that I would like to touch on the issue of user focus if I got the chance to do so. As I said earlier, the Government welcomes the changes that are proposed in the bill to take forward Professor Crerar’s recommendations. Making those changes will deliver on our shared commitment to improve accountability and transparency. Indeed, the only Crerar scrutiny principle that we could do more to promote in general is public focus. Members will be aware that stage 3 of the Government’s Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill is tomorrow. That bill contains provisions for duties of co-operation and user focus for the Government’s scrutiny bodies. There may also be areas in which the Parliament might consider further improvements for commissioners and commissions at some point.
Today is not the only time that we will discuss the relationship between the Parliament and the work of the parliamentary commissioners. We should discuss their work regularly and that process will clearly be enhanced by the provisions in the bill. I repeat what I said in my opening speech: the Government agrees with and supports the principles of the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill. That was two minutes exactly.
15:00
We have had a relatively short but consensual debate. Having sat in the Presiding Officer’s chair for more than six years, I can say that we have had more laughs than usual today, even though we would not have thought that that would happen in this debate.
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and has shown interest in the bill, which is important not just for the SPCB and the office-holders affected but for the wider Parliament and, dare I say it, Scotland as a whole.
Today we have heard a little about the Crerar report, the Sinclair report and the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. We have also heard about the input of the Finance Committee in the previous session and the input of Audit Scotland. There have been so many reports but all with one purpose: to improve our public services for the benefit of the public who engage with them.
However, improving services does not always mean reducing, diluting or streamlining them. In producing its report, the committee had to sift through a lot of evidence that contained competing and, in some cases, diametrically opposed suggestions about what to do, as well as constantly having to guard against any drift into independence—with a small “i”.
I believe that the committee has met the many challenges and tests posed in the reports that I mentioned, which is reflected in the bill before us today. Nobody has suggested that the bill interferes in any way with the independence of the bodies—not even the office-holders themselves, who would not be shy in telling us if they had thought so. We pass that test.
We also pass the Finance Committee and Audit Scotland tests as we provide the corporate body with all the governance powers suggested, and a few more. We pass the Government test as we contribute to the reduction in public bodies by reducing their number by two or perhaps three: the SPSO has absorbed what was the Scottish Prison Complaints Commission, and the new commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland will combine three existing posts into a single body, albeit with two commissioners.
The bill does not produce major cost savings—at least not initially. Creating the commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland from three existing bodies comes at a cost, although everybody concerned is working hard to keep the transitional and set-up costs modest. However, as the Government has said, we need to invest to save. Even on a monetary assessment, the bill passes the test from the outset. That is particularly helped by the ombudsman’s agreement to absorb the work of the prisons commission within existing resources. That work should be bedded in quickly and will produce initial savings, with more significant ones of £163,000 in 2011-12 and in future financial years.
Other savings may well emerge in future years, given that the corporate body’s greater powers over governance should enable consideration of greater sharing of, in particular, some back-office services and perhaps accommodation. The key is to make changes without affecting functions and, in particular, to allow the office-holders to continue to deliver value for the public. After all, that is one of the reasons why each and every one of them was created in the first place, as others have said. The bill passes the financial test and it should also meet the Crerar value test.
The functions of the office-holders affected by the bill are important. They were each created to undertake important functions, whether to investigate complaints, to promote and safeguard rights or to ensure that the Government, public bodies and elected representatives abide by the rules. They are a barometer for us in the Parliament to show how well our public services are operating. They report to us annually and many appear frequently before committees of the Parliament. They all work with us closely. We can best ensure in partnership that the respective visions of each body are realised.
The bill will give the corporate body enhanced governance powers and will place responsibilities on each of the bodies to ensure that resources are used economically, efficiently and effectively. I hope and expect that only a light touch will be necessary, as each body should be clear about what is expected of it and that value for money must form part of its criteria. It is right that, as a Parliament—as committees and as individual MSPs—we monitor the performance of such bodies. Our job is to support them in their endeavours, so they should have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the bill.
In summary, the bill will increase the governance powers available to the corporate body; make those governance powers consistent across all the corporate body-sponsored bodies; merge the posts of Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and chief investigating officer; create a new commission that will include that new merged post as well as the post of public appointments commissioner; transfer responsibility for prison complaints to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman; and transfer sponsorship of the Standards Commission for Scotland to the corporate body.
On the discussion about initials, let me say that CESPLS will do exactly what it says on the tin, which is what Margo MacDonald wanted. Indeed, given that Jackson Carlaw has used the word “racy” twice, both in last June’s debate and in today’s debate, I advise him of my colleague Johann Lamont’s comment that he should get a life.
I ask all members to support the motion agreeing to the general principles of the bill at decision time later today. I commend the motion in my name.
That is a pity. I thought that I had quite a good answer to that question.
I will return to important aspects of the bill. As I said last June when we debated the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee’s report, the Scottish Government welcomes the moves in respect of parliamentary commissioners. They not only mirror the work of the Scottish Government in respect of its public bodies but demonstrate that the Parliament is adopting the five Crerar principles of transparency, accountability, independence, proportionality and user focus in connection with its bodies. If I have time, I might talk about user focus later.
It is, of course, ultimately for the Parliament to take a view on the distinctiveness of commissioners’ roles and performances. However, the work to date and today’s debate quite properly reflect the fact that it is not just down to either the Government or the Parliament to act unilaterally to consider that topic. We all have a role to play, including the commissioners.
Johann Lamont and Hugh O’Donnell spoke about efficiency not always being at the cost of a service and about not wanting the commissioners’ experience to be lost. Those are important points. The commissioners undertake various roles, and they are there for a reason. I think that Johann Lamont also suggested that the work of future commissioners could be examined within the context of the structure at the time.
Jackson Carlaw rightly said that, in the committee’s discussion, there was a finely balanced argument about Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. He also discussed where the challenges lie in deciding whether the two offices should be merged in future. Ross Finnie agreed that the arguments were fine and that the matter is not simple. I think that we all agree with that.
I must disagree with Ross Finnie on one point. I do not want to rehearse the debate before tomorrow, but he made a point about what the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill does and does not do. Of course, that is a matter for tomorrow’s debate, but I assure members that the Government is aware of the sensitivity about the Parliament’s role in making final decisions on the future of commissions and commissioners. That is why we lodged an amendment to ensure that there are specific protections to ensure that the Parliament will have the final say on proposals for change. The Parliament—not just the corporate body—will always have the final say. That was the intent of the amendment that we lodged.
Presiding Officer, I cannot remember how much time you said I have.
You can go on for a couple of minutes.
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5681, in the name of Trish Godman, on the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill. We have no flexibility in the debate. We can take a little time, but not a lot, out of the next debate, so I ask members to stick pretty closely to the times that they are given.
14:04
Like Trish Godman, I am speaking from the front bench. As I took my place, Ross Finnie quipped that it must be my big day because, usually, I just formally move motions. If this is my big day I wish that a lot more of our colleagues were here to share the excitement with us and have the pleasure of speaking in the debate.
I make light, but we are talking about an important bill. It was interesting to hear Trish Godman’s summary. She highlighted the strong links between the bill and what the Government is working hard to achieve for Scotland. We have already acted to simplify the public sector landscape and improve approaches to public services in Scotland. Not least of those actions is the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, which, I hope, the Parliament will conclude tomorrow. We are therefore pleased that the RSSB committee has considered improving the landscape and the relationship with parliamentary bodies.
We can be assured that, as Trish Godman said, the bill comes after a great deal of hard work and thorough thought. In 2006, the Finance Committee considered in detail the accountability and governance arrangements for the parliamentary commissioners. The Finance Committee’s work informed the independent review that was carried out by Professor Lorne Crerar. When the Parliament debated the Crerar report in 2007—another exciting debate that I took part in—we all endorsed the vision of a risk-based and proportionate approach to scrutiny with the user placed at the centre.
The bill is aligned with Lorne Crerar’s direction and the Government’s aims. The Government therefore welcomes the bill and will support it as it goes through the Parliament. I am sure that there is a great sigh of relief at that. The bill is to be welcomed as it will contribute to the simplification of the public bodies landscape and make things easier for the public. That is what the process must always be about. The independence and effectiveness of the roles of the parliamentary commissioners will be enhanced significantly. Crucially, the operational independence of all parliamentary commissioners will remain unchanged, although the bill will introduce a more consistent approach to accountability for all the commissions. That will make the relationship more akin to the one that the Government has with our public bodies.
Trish Godman rightly mentioned the changes to the complaints-handling system with regard to prisoners. The provisions on that are part of a wider set of changes to the system of complaints handling for all Scottish public services. That delivers on commitments to take forward recommendations that arose from the post-Crerar report by Douglas Sinclair, which considered complaints handling across public services.
In the debate on the RSSB committee report in June last year, the Government welcomed the proposal that the SPSO should take on the new role of designing and implementing a single set of principles for complaints procedures. It is clear that no other single organisation is as well placed or as well established as the SPSO to take on that role. That is being achieved through the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, as recommended in the RSSB committee report, and it will lead to a more streamlined and accessible approach to complaints handling across public services.
Trish Godman touched on the financial implications. It is clear that, as with all the actions that we undertake that will impact on public services, we must continue to look for savings and efficiencies to be achieved through the changes that we make. It is clear that the real savings to be achieved through the bill will come from organisations that undertake activities more effectively and efficiently through working together and sharing best practice.
The proposals in the bill will involve some realignment of how resources are split between the Government and the Parliament. The Parliament will need to reassess the level of resource that it requires from the Scottish block each year to resource the functions that its commissions take on from bodies that were previously funded by the Government. That means that there will probably be no overall saving to the Government from the proposals, but we all know that making savings is essential in order to balance the public finances. The reduction in bodies and the potential for the greater streamlining of accommodation and greater opportunities for parliamentary commissioners to share support services and resources provide scope for future efficiencies by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
The real benefit of the bill will come from the Parliament’s ability to set, for the first time, consistent standards across all our parliamentary bodies. Every part of the public sector must manage its resources responsibly and deliver maximum value for the public purse, and all our public services must, without exception, provide good-quality public services that are valued by their customers. They must also ensure that efficiencies are applied consistently and proactively across the whole public sector and across all corporate or common services.
In conclusion, I repeat the Government’s support for the bill, which is a key milestone in a shared journey that started in 2006. Four years on from the original Finance Committee report and nearly three years after the external scrutiny steps that were undertaken by Professor Crerar, the bill is a positive step that I am glad to support.
Yes, I am aware of that, Presiding Officer. The Liberal Democrats wholly support the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill and we certainly hope that it will pass with the Government’s blessing, which it has just given, with due speed and in its present form.
14:33
I am pleased to take part in today’s debate. That pleasure is only increased by knowing that we are taking part in a debate that is also Bruce Crawford’s big day. This is also an important debate, so the bill should not be dismissed simply because its contents include some highly technical matters.
I want, first, to reflect on the structure and history of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, which made the recommendations on which the bill is based. It is important to remember that the commissions and commissioners that the bill deals with are bodies that are responsible to the Parliament rather than to the Government. Therefore—if I may add to the historical note that the committee convener, Trish Godman, outlined in her opening remarks—one of the reasons the RSSB committee was established was to reflect the fact that it was not appropriate for the Government to make recommendations on bodies that were instituted to be responsible to the Parliament. It is for the Parliament to give due and careful consideration to the future of such bodies. That is an important point, to which I will return in a moment.
The outcome of the bill, as Jackson Carlaw and others have described, will be to give effect to the principal recommendations of the committee. However, rather than use the two acronyms that Jackson Carlaw helpfully provided—indeed, I shall avoid them for reasons that he might wish to reflect upon when he reads the Official Report of today’s debate in the morning—I shall continue to refer to the new body as the commission for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. That was an important recommendation from the committee. Equally important, as the committee convener pointed out in her opening speech, is the issue of the accountability and governance arrangements, which the bill will harmonise and simplify across the piece. An even more important point is that the financial accountability of such bodies will be very seriously underpinned.
As Jackson Carlaw said, final decisions on these at times highly complex matters, especially whether further bodies could be merged, rested on arguments that were very finely balanced. I concede that point. The bill does not rule out the possibility that such matters might be returned to. An interesting feature—I also made this point in my speech in last June’s debate on the committee’s report—is that although our committee was not charged with looking at the functions of the bodies, it was nevertheless impossible for us to consider how to improve the day-to-day running and management of the bodies, or indeed their possible merger, without having regard to whether our proposals would affect the discharge of the functions that had been given to those bodies. That was not a simple matter and, as the committee report shows, the committee was divided on a number of occasions.
My sadness is that this might be the last occasion on which the Parliament will address these issues in the way that it has done hitherto. I have not found any fault with the process. The argument was finely divided, but the committee gave the matter due diligence and produced its report. Unfortunately, the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, if passed, will mean that matters will be dealt with in a very different way—they will be instigated either by the Government or by the Government giving a nudge to the corporate body. That seems to me to interfere with the essential distinction between the rights of the Parliament to consider its own affairs and the actions of the Government. I know that we do not agree with the Government on that matter—I appreciate that there is a fundamental disagreement on it—but I am strongly of the view that part 2 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill is not consonant with the independent approach of the Parliament. The process did not show that there cannot be due rigour and performance or that the Parliament cannot instigate ideas. There are important distinctions, which ought not to be lost.
I am interested in the line of argument that you are developing—or appear to be developing—about the difference between the Parliament and the corporate body. It seems to me—you might want to correct me if I am wrong—
No, no. Draw a line, please, minister.