Chamber and committees

Thank you for coming to see us, minister. The committee has been tasked with looking at the SPCB-supported bodies, but the work that they do sits within both the wider landscape of Government scrutiny and the public body landscape. Given that the committee will need to make recommendations, some of which might be quite wide reaching and ambitious and may suggest primary legislation, I want to feel out what you think is the art of the possible in where we go next. I have a few questions to ask in that regard, if the convener will indulge me.

First, picking up on the point that the convener made earlier about independence, I note that both the Government-supported public bodies and the SPCB-supported bodies have emphasised the importance of independence and testified to their independence. From my point of view, there is no difference in how they feel about that independence or how practicable it is.

One thing that the committee could recommend, although I am not saying that we would, is that some SPCB-supported bodies should be reclassified out of the landscape. Our task is to look at that landscape, and punting some of those bodies out into the wider public body space would be a solution, although it would not necessarily be the right one. I want to test those points—on independence and reclassification—with you. Would that make a fundamental difference to the wider landscape?

One of the challenges that has been presented to us by both SPCB-supported public bodies and others is how they make their work relevant and feed it into both the Parliament and the Government. My colleagues will come on to some of the mechanisms around that.

At a higher level, however, how do you view the paradox between bodies being independent and getting to decide what they investigate, but that issue perhaps not being on the Government’s agenda, so that there is no focus on it and no legislation on it coming through? Commissioners are putting out excellent papers that they have done lots of work on, but that go nowhere—they are not read by any particular parliamentary committee and they are not picked up by the Government in any way. As such, a lot of resource goes into excellent work that is then not fed in to or picked up by parliamentary committees, because it is not timely, it is not related to legislation and it is not in line with Government priorities or concerns.

Do you have any thoughts on the relevance of the work being done by both SPCB-supported bodies and commissioners and others? What gets through to you? What lands on your desk? My question is sort of related to what Murdo Fraser asked about. I know that ministers are bombarded by so much information from MSPs, and from all the various commissioners, public bodies and third sector organisations. How do we ensure that our SPCB-supported bodies, and other public bodies, do work that actually lands on ministers’ desks and gets actioned?

I will go back to a point that Murdo Fraser touched on. Are commissioners any more effective in those spaces than MSPs or third sector organisations? Are people more likely to do something if a commissioner has said it than if they hear about it from the third sector or from MSPs? In your experience, do commissioners have a material impact?

I have a final question, for clarification. Would a bill be roughly in line with the Scottish Government’s intention for that sort of vision and potential consolidation, as part of its review of the public sector landscape? Am I right in thinking that we would not be at odds with the Government’s intention and direction?

I have two hypotheses as to why we have seen a proliferation in the number of commissioners. The first is that it is in reaction to problems that we have had in the public sector, such as specific scandals around patients or victims of crime. The second is that it is more politically glamorous to create a new thing and to say, “Look, I have made a new thing. I have solved your problem,” rather than tweaking or adjusting existing powers or resources. I think that that means that we have been reactionary and have put in place commissioners to try to bandage up problems, rather than looking at how problems may be prevented.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman told us that it has been asking for investigative powers for a while, which would allow it to potentially identify problems in the public sector before they become scandals. That would avoid commissioners being created after the fact because we were reacting to something negative that had happened.

What is your view on the role of public bodies in that prevention and investigative space? Do you have an appetite for moving our public sector to a more preventative space, which would require additional powers for groups such as the ombudsman and the Scottish Human Rights Commission and so on?

I have two more questions and will try to be quick.

Although the committee has not made any decisions yet, we may make recommendations that require primary legislation, such as a consolidation bill that would give the ombudsman the investigatory powers that it has been asking for and that would empower the Scottish Human Rights Commission, in a way that it is not currently empowered, to cover some advocacy issues. A bill might also consolidate the functions of some existing SPCB-supported bodies with those of some proposed ones. What is the Scottish Government’s appetite for that sort of primary legislation?

If we seem to be doing all right for time, convener.

I will dig a bit further into the minister’s comment about a commissioner being one voice among many. I am interested in how we can have effective advocacy, and whether that could happen by expanding the role of the Scottish Human Rights Commission to take on advocacy, so that we do not need a separate victims commissioner, a children’s commissioner, an older people’s commissioner and so on.

Another proposal that has come across our desks is having ministerial portfolios for each of those areas. There would be roles such as a minister for older people, a minister for disabled people and so on. I am curious about your thoughts on that proposal. There are two aspects to my question. First, do you think that that would make for an effective way of advocating, which would also allow the entire Parliament to hold the responsible person to account?

Secondly, one of the criticisms that has been levelled at us throughout the evidence is that, when the Scottish Government creates a new commissioner, it is dodging responsibility, because the Government is then able to say, “The commissioner is doing that—it is not us.” Would having ministers for X, who would be responsible for advocacy under that portfolio, bring that responsibility back on board and solve that problem? Are there any disadvantages to that?

How would you respond to the accusation that, by creating a commission, the Government is dodging responsibility, because the commission, rather than the ministers, is now to be accountable?

We have heard that—we heard last week that 34 per cent of university graduates do not use their degrees. Does it represent a national waste of resources if we are using educational resources to train people?