Seòmar agus comataidhean

Perhaps I can make a point about what I think was a missed opportunity. I was invited to serve on the previous Presiding Officer’s commission on parliamentary reform; this issue could have been part of that commission’s remit, but it was not. With hindsight, especially given the potential proliferation of commissioners, which is becoming a bigger issue for the Parliament, that is perhaps something that that commission should have looked at.

I think that we would agree with him. It is interesting, because the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner is one such commissioner, and I put to him the following question: should the public know that he exists, or is his function to ensure that his responsibilities are properly executed? In many respects, it is the latter.

His is not a responsibility that needs to be advertised in the press: “You’ve got the Biometrics Commissioner—rush off to speak to him.” His function is to analyse what is going on and ensure that it is being implemented correctly, and that people’s rights are being properly respected.

That draws me to make this point: we have been pretty fortunate in that the individuals whom we have managed to appoint as commissioners have, by and large, in my experience, all been deeply impressive and committed. In the absence of proper scrutiny, we have been fortunate that that has been the case.

On the one occasion when that proved not to be the case, the lack of scrutiny exposed the weaknesses of our arrangements, and the corporate body and others in the Parliament have been considering the ramifications of all that for our overall operation. We cannot just rely upon the good will and good management of individuals. Parliament, having created the operational structures, has a duty to put in place a much more robust form of scrutiny.

I am possibly less sanguine about this, in as much as it is important to remember that most, if not all, of these commissioners are part time, not full time. It has been quite a challenging period for human rights, and the common feature over the past few years is that, when additional responsibilities have been allocated, it has been quite a milestone for the organisation. In the event that such an architecture was deliberately put in place, with a proper design for how things might operate, it would have to be introduced on a phased basis over a particular timeline. I do not think that we could say, “From January 2025, you are going to do this”—I do not think that that would work. Indeed, if we are talking about having rapporteurs and a more expanded human rights commission, some of the part-time nature of its activity might have to be reviewed, because it would have a much larger and more important function.

Therefore, I do not think that it would be safe to say that we can move from where we are to where we might be, simply by allocating immediate responsibility to the existing infrastructure. I am just not sure that it would cope.

Do not get me wrong—some of those things are required, and we have distinguished between the different operations that we have. It is important to say that we talk about commissioners, but in some cases we are talking about a commission full of commissioners. Even the language that is used for the office that people occupy is not equal.

Yes, I think that that would be the case. Those budget requests are largely about requirements for additional staff to exercise functions. In some cases, it can be that the work of the commissioner has become better known, which has prompted many more public inquiries of that commissioner, and those inquiries have to be tackled. It could be that a commissioner has been given additional responsibilities by the Government and they have to have the resource in place to tackle those responsibilities.

With regard to scrutiny of the outcomes for public benefit, the corporate body takes the view that it is very much the responsibility of the subject committees to take that forward. Our responsibility is to ensure that the housekeeping within the actual commission is effective, that it represents a good use of public money, and that public money is being carefully managed.

That is a fair point, and that is why I think that Parliament has to decide on and design the architecture of all this and, by a deliberate act of policy, identify the very point that you make and thereby decide, if that type of commissioner is created, what the accountability route should be. At the moment, everything is simply consequential on a commissioner being appointed without proper thought having been given before the post is created to what the commission would do or how it would be properly held to account.

I would very much welcome this committee taking a lead in that regard, which I am sure the corporate body would be happy to endorse.

The figure could easily become 15 per cent. It is 12 per cent of our budget. We are spending £18 million on the current raft of commissioners and the amount is only going to get greater. You have to ask yourself whether those people—who are not elected—are being properly held to account. Was there a proper structured architecture by which they were appointed in the first place? That is what we should be considering putting in place.

You will notice that the percentage allocated for commissions in next year’s budget increases by considerably more than any other headlined increase, because we will have to fund an additional commissioner.

I sound a note of caution on the point about a sunset clause. I had thought that that would have been achieved through the inquiry conducted by the committee that was set up in 2008, but the problem that we found was that, when there is any suggestion that a commissioner might not be renewed or that it could fall, MSPs find themselves lobbied considerably about not allowing such a heinous act of violence to be visited on the very valuable individual’s work. That is the obstacle that I think that colleagues would face.

You have probably exhausted the potential to draw the corporate body’s experience and views out any further. However, I am grateful to you for this opportunity to give evidence to the inquiry, particularly given that it arose from an initial approach to you, through the budget process. We very much welcome the fact that it is taking place. I do not know how else it would have happened, and it is taking place in time for a proper conclusion to be reached that could have implications for the next session of Parliament. I very much hope that that is the case.