Chamber and committees

As we have come to appreciate the concerns around the growth in the number of office-holders, we have, among ourselves, questioned the ability of the corporate body to look at and properly scrutinise those matters. We did a piece of work on whether other structures were open to us, and we looked carefully at the legislative framework in which we operate. The corporate body cannot devolve its responsibility for scrutiny of office-bearers; it is a requirement under the legislation that the corporate body is responsible for those matters. We have therefore, within the time that we meet and in our agendas, sought to expand the scope that we have for proper scrutiny of office-holders.

We have been going through a sustained period of having each one of the office-holders attend a corporate body meeting to explain and justify their budget and to talk more generally about the work that we are doing, so we are increasing the interest and scrutiny that we bring to the task. However, I do not diminish the reality that this is a corporate body that, at one time, had to scrutinise two office-holders, is now having to scrutinise eight—if the patient safety commissioner is the eighth—and might be invited to scrutinise even more. Moreover, it has to scrutinise office-holders whose responsibilities, in some instances, are increasing, too. That becomes a challenge.

However, this is our responsibility from a governance point of view. The actual performance of office-holders is the responsibility of parliamentary committees. In some cases, one or two committees have responsibility for several office-holders. Accommodating that into their ability to do the work that they might wish to do, to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account is an equally significant challenge.

I will say something about a comment that I made earlier. In my own group, there is a general acceptance of the principle that we have a growing office-holder landscape. However, when it comes to saying, “Don’t stand in the way of the commissioner that I want to create,” individual conflict arises. That is one of the things that we have to wrestle with.

I think that we are slightly at sea here. We can take this away, look at it and come back to you, if that would be helpful.

Can you explain a little further what you imagine that might involve?

Literally six.

It is an interesting concept. The question is: how attractive are such things to the wider public? It was something of a surprise to me when looking at sales to see how little Scottish Parliament-branded material is purchased online.

We have not looked at what you have suggested. As with all suggestions, I will go back and allow officials to give it consideration. However, I am slightly mystified as to whether there is the sort of wider appeal for these products that one might hope.

No—although I think that we are looking into that. For as long as we were in a sustained period of very low inflation, which was the case until the most recent issues became prevalent, this point did not seem to be one that mattered. We may well return to the ASHE index; we did not move away from it lightly. When I came to you last year and discussed the ASHE index, with a recommended increase of 1.5 per cent, I said that we were not trying to be virtue signalling. We believed that there was a lagging factor in the ASHE index, which would be reflected this year. We were surprised to find that that did not happen; we do not know why it did not happen. That is obviously a matter that we want to investigate. It has an impact on the salary increase of MSPs and on staff cost provision. We think that the average weekly earnings index is a more reliable index for us to use, while we investigate the issue.

You are right: over a period of time, the situation is as you suggest. There was a year when we did not take the ASHE increase of 5.1 per cent but took nothing, because we were reflecting the stresses and strains of the pandemic in that particular year.

As someone who is IT-blind, I share your astonishment at those matters. The corporate body, which I might uncharitably say is much like me on those matters, expects to be given some comprehensive understanding and briefing.

I assure you, convener, that we had a presentation on that, which was extremely persuasive. I am sure that we can facilitate your engagement with that presentation, if that would be helpful.

As we are a couple of old-school stalwarts, I will add that the Official Report is now sent to all members at the start of each day. That was at my request, which I made because of an underlying prejudice of mine. When there was a physically produced Official Report in hard copy on paper, members would regularly be seen in the chamber picking up a copy and perusing the wider discourse of parliamentary debate. Now that the Official Report is available only digitally, I wonder about the extent to which members spend any time looking at it to see what has been discussed in Parliament beyond their involvement in a particular debate.

To come back to the original point, on whether the Official Report is an important document, I think that it is, but the corporate body continues to think of ways in which we can ensure that there is wider engagement with the Official Report by members, because it is a valuable way of updating members on the wider portfolio of issues that are being discussed in Parliament.

Inward migration into the UK was at a record level last year, but that was not the case for Scotland. Why?

Just before I take an intervention, I should say that it applies to politics, too. If members were to ask me, “What about Boris Johnson?” or, “What about the junior doctors and their leaders?” or if they want to talk about Sir Ed Davey or Sadiq Khan, I would say that the actions of all those figures in public life have led to a sense among people at the sharp end that it is they who are giving and showing moral leadership, which is not being reflected by those above them.