Chamber and committees

We could certainly ask whether anybody has given any thought to whether that might be an option.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2004, which seeks to abolish the use of public-private partnerships in Scotland, was lodged by Line Kikkenborg Christensen on behalf of Jubilee Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the use of PPPs and to commit to a new model for financing and managing public infrastructure in Scotland that has safety, quality, value for money and accountability to the taxpayer at its heart. We last considered the petition on 3 May 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust.

The response from the Scottish Futures Trust states that the model proposed by the petition would require a renegotiation of the fiscal framework to enable the Scottish ministers to borrow finance capital expenditure. The response also offers information on the mutual investment model, which cropped up in our earlier evidence session. We know from our work in relation to the A9 that the mutual investment model is an option that is being actively pursued by the Scottish Government.

In its submission, the Scottish Government offers a response to the petitioner’s recommendations, stating that the use of private finance has allowed for the delivery of much-needed schools, hospitals and other key infrastructure. The Government also states that it is working with Audit Scotland to develop clear governance and decision-making processes on the use of the mutual investment model.

We have received a submission from the petitioner, which highlights cross-party support for seeking alternatives to public-private partnerships and expresses concern that the Scottish Government is not fully aware of the financial, social and environmental costs of PPPs.

Members will have noted from our papers that, in addition to the working group that the petitioner mentioned, the Public Audit Committee is due to take evidence from the director general of the Scottish exchequer on matters related to infrastructure investment.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that that is a very clear direction from the Scottish Government with regard to the aims of the petition. Given that, are colleagues minded to agree and to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Mr Sweeney.

No, that is not the petition that we are discussing. We are dealing with PE2057, on shared parenting.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue. It is an important matter, and work appears to be under way that directly addresses the issues that have been raised. However, as I said a moment ago, if the measures that have been outlined do not lead to a satisfactory outcome in respect of the issues that have been raised in the petition, the committee would be very happy to receive a petition again after the appropriate time has passed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can I ask you to confirm the temperature in the chamber and say whether it is regarded as sufficient?

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.