Seòmar agus comataidhean

I lodged amendment 31 on the same basis as the previous one—that is, to enhance transparency. The minister, in speaking to his amendment 22, has clarified the situation. I understand the need for consistency with the 2014 act, so that is helpful.

I thank the minister for explaining amendment 18. As he will be aware, the concerns that have led me to lodge amendment 30 were raised by the Law Society of Scotland, which felt that, in the bill, the safeguards for taxpayers were not sufficient to address a situation in which there was a dispute between a taxpayer and Revenue Scotland about the amount of any tax that is outstanding. That is the reason for my lodging amendment 30. It is in line with the committee’s desire, over a wide range of taxation, to be as transparent as possible.

As the minister will know, the Law Society of Scotland considers that the bill should make it clear that the set-off powers that the minister referred to would not apply when there is a dispute over the relevant tax amounts. That is the reason for my amendments 30 and 31, which relate to sections 52 and 56. I have listened carefully to what the minister has said on amendment 18, but we would welcome a little clarity about exactly how that amendment will cover the points that the Law Society has raised.

That is an interesting point. As I think that you suggested in your opening remarks, there may have been a piecemeal approach to the existing commissioner landscape, which has evolved over time. On the other hand, the recommended new commissioners would largely be on the advocacy side, and we have heard complaints that that advocacy might be needed because public sector services are failing.

Do you think that the existing commissioner structure—never mind the proposals that we have now—has been effective in delivering what the commissioners are there for?

We as a committee felt that that was surprising and maybe a problem. The problem might be that the parliamentary oversight and the scrutiny of the work that commissioners are doing is not good enough. Will you reflect on that?

That is an interesting point about those commissioners who have regulatory, complaints handling or investigatory functions.

Take, for example, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. They are, generally speaking, well supported by parties across the Parliament. However, when it comes to the measurement of achievements, such as on child poverty, on attainment and on a whole lot of other issues in which we are trying to improve the lives of children, you could argue that that advocacy has not been desperately successful. What is the Scottish Government’s view on how you measure the effectiveness of commissioners who have an advocacy function and are trying to improve human rights and give a voice to those who are more disadvantaged?

Do you think that it is a problem that the evidence to support whether they have been efficient, well run and effective in delivering outcomes is very hard to find?

I will follow on from Michelle Thomson’s line of questioning. When we had Professor Alan Page and Dr Ian Elliott in front of us two weeks ago, they both recommended a root and branch review of the whole commissioner structure. If the committee recommended that and Parliament agreed, would the Scottish Government be supportive?

Could you also reflect on the fact that the level of accountability to the Parliament is perhaps not sufficient when it comes to ensuring that commissioners are doing their job properly?

That is an interesting and very important comment that you have just made.

It all comes down to the question of accountability. Two weeks ago, we took evidence from somebody who said that he had been required to put only one report before a committee. I was very surprised by that; in fact, I found it extraordinary that that was the level of accountability for that particular commissioner. In trying to restructure things and ensuring that we have greater efficiency, we must ensure, too, that there is greater accountability to the Parliament for any job that a commissioner has. It is my view—again, it is a personal one—that we are not doing that very well just now. Some commissioners are not having to go before committees too often to put forward their views and be questioned about them. I wonder whether that is something that the SPCB would agree with.

In your opening remarks, you made it very clear that proposals for new commissioners are largely for commissioners with an advocacy role. A big question is why that has come about. Not all the existing commissioners have a regulatory or a complaints role—or whatever it might be—but most do; they are not generally on the advocacy side of things, with one or two exceptions.

If we are trying to change the structure, we need to ask whether we should be concentrating on that advocacy perspective. Speaking personally, I think that that flags up failures in the delivery of public services. You have talked about people not feeling that their rights are being respected properly, so is that a line of thought that we should be looking at in more depth?