Chamber and committees

In addition, there is perhaps a distinction between how we view our role in respect of the different types of commissioners. For instance, some of the complaints-handling commissioners report to us a significant increase in complaints, and a lack of resources to deal with those complaints in a timely way. We would then say, “What is it you need? How can we make this work within budget? Do you need to draw on the contingency budget?”—that is the budget that David McGill mentioned earlier.

With regard to outcomes, we have done numbers tracking in quite considerable detail, with the complaints-handling commissioners, but I think that that is of quite a different quality to the outcomes that we might expect to be delivered by the Scottish Human Rights Commission or the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, for example.

My overall assessment is that it is delivering on what it needs to do. It wants to do more, and we in this place might wish it to do more, but it cannot necessarily do more without additional support.

However, that question is not for the corporate body; it is probably better addressed to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which scrutinises the commission. As deputy convener of that committee, I know that it has regular conversations with the commission, but the matter itself is beyond the corporate body’s remit.

With the proposals that are going through now, one of the questions that we have discussed—again, it is not for us to dictate or mandate—is whether, if a commissioner is proposed to deal with a particular systemic failure, there should be a sunset clause that limits the lifetime of that office to deal with that specific issue and then that is the end of it.

As Jackson Carlaw said, where is the on-going accountability? Commissioners are accountable to Parliament and committees but, in terms of role expansion and role creation, if they are established to do a particular piece of work, how do they grow, expand and take on more responsibilities? Never mind the work that they do—where is the accountability for the overall role changes that happen over time?

I would reiterate those comments and thank you for taking up this issue. What exercises us in the corporate body is our ability to provide the resources and governance support required, not only through the corporate body itself but by the offices that provide the on-going, routine, sometimes daily but more often weekly or monthly support to the different office-holders. The question for us is how sustainable the current system is if we keep adding office-holders. Thank you, again.

That is right. There need to be differences in what “accountability” even means. It is not possible for 129 MSPs to have the technical expertise that is necessary for some functions, but it is possible for 129 MSPs to understand what rights realisation outcomes look like. There would be very different routes and requirements for accountability in that different architecture.

There are a couple of different points in that. Overall, £18.2 million is not a large proportion of the overall budget. It is the expectation of members of the public for such bodies to deliver for them that is of interest to us, however. The resources enable commissioners to carry out their role, but it is the task that should be of primary interest. When there are disparities in resource—with £640,000 as the expected budget for the patient safety commissioner, I think David McGill said—what would that office be able to do in comparison with some of the similar mechanisms that might already exist within the NHS, with all the financial and institutional backing that it has? There are legitimate questions around those issues.

When these discussions started a couple of years ago, the corporate body did discuss how best to start such conversations. Would it be through mechanisms such as you outline, Mr Marra—letters to party leaders, for example? Would it be through direct approaches to committees or to members who are proposing commissioners or backing proposals for commissioners? Given the way in which our responsibilities are currently outlined, they are post-event. That is the politics of it. I think that we at the corporate body do a pretty good job of not engaging in those kinds of discussions.

I would make two points on that. First, at the corporate body, we have had conversations with the Scottish Human Rights Commission about the level of resourcing and the expected additional resources that the commission considers might be necessary should proposed legislation go through the Parliament.

As for what that would mean, we have received requests for additional resources, we have knocked some of them back and we have granted some of them—or granted them in part—depending on what has been going on. If there were a change in the structure and responsibilities of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, with a rapporteur or similar model, there would be a fairer expectation of redesigning how the commission’s resources are allocated. If some of those additional people—the rapporteurs—came with powers and additional functions, it would be safe to assume—

The corporate body recognises that there are different models. You mentioned the police and the prisons inspectorates, which might fulfil part of the role that some of the commissioners fulfil.

You asked about the difference that it would make to us. We do not have any role or responsibility in relation to the inspectorates that you have mentioned or bodies such as the Scottish National Investment Bank. Our role kicks in once an office-holder is identified and created. There are clearly other models where the Government has responsibility for the establishment of the body and retains that responsibility, and committees engage and scrutinise as they see fit.

The corporate body has responsibilities for funding and governance, and it would be easier to deal with one contact than with several. That is a pretty clear line.

We have an interest in, if not a responsibility for, scrutinising the commissioners’ functions. Alongside any changes that the corporate body might have to make, there would be consequential changes to how committees function and how they deal with their scrutiny role. As Jackson Carlaw said, we are not convinced that that happens as robustly as it ought to now, so how would that change, what would be put at risk and what might be improved if there were a different model?

A reduction in the number of commissioners would make it easier to deal with funding lines and budget requests. We might ask slightly different questions to help us understand how the different rapporteurs would fit together within that structure, but any questions about commissioners’ functions would probably sit better with committees.