Chamber and committees

I do not think so, but I will come back to that.

I will certainly reflect on that. I will say a number of things. First, every commissioner and every committee will take a different perspective on or approach to that. Certainly, when I have sat on committees and had evidence sessions with relevant commissioners, I felt that those were robust, to the point, effective and got to the nub of the issues. If other commissioners feel that that is not the case, that is a matter for the relevant committee and the parliamentary bodies as a whole to perhaps address.

Looking at that from the outside, because it is absolutely not Government’s role to tell committees who they should ask what questions of, I would hope that—this is in everybody’s interests—committees are thorough in their evaluation and in relation to any other commitments that they have.

In terms of new commissioners?

The proposals for those commissioners have still to go through the ministerial control framework.

As I have said, it is not up to the Government to scrutinise and hold commissioners to account. That is for very good reason, because, in many cases, their role is to monitor the work of the Government. That distinction is very important.

How the Parliament chooses to scrutinise commissioners is obviously a job for the Parliament and its committees. I heard the evidence on that, and it is clear that there are different perspectives on it. I would expect the Parliament and its committees to do their job and to robustly hold commissioners to account.

This is going to get very boring, but I again preface my answer by saying that it is not the Government’s job to tell parliamentary bodies how to organise themselves. However, what you have suggested is an interesting model that has probably proved effective elsewhere. Certainly, if you were to look at this in the abstract—that is, from organisational design principles—in this ecosystem or anywhere else, what you would look at as a first step would be whether existing bodies that function effectively could be leveraged to take responsibility for other pieces of work. Indeed, the principles around the ministerial control framework speak very much to that—that is, to whether an existing body could carry out the functions that a new body would be asked to carry out.

Who would you want to carry out a review of those parliamentary procedures, Mr Marra?

You need to look at the situation in the broader public sector body landscape. As I said, there are 130-odd public bodies in the public sector. Their budgets, the staff that they employ and their responsibilities are far in excess of those of the commissioners, so the idea that everything is being dumped on the commissioners is very far from the truth—

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee.

I am delighted to be here to give evidence in this session on commissioners who are supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Members will have seen the letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government that outlines the Government’s position on a number of these matters. I very much look forward to giving more detail and answering your questions on that.

We share a common interest in the issue that the committee is considering. The Government is keen to ensure that the public sector landscape is as efficient and effective as possible, and the work that you are undertaking very much falls within the broader work that I am leading on and taking forward in my new role in reviewing the broader public sector landscape. We want to ensure that delivery is as efficient as possible for the people of Scotland within the budget constraints that we have.

I want to make a very important point, which you understand very well, on the independence from Government of the commissioners who are sponsored by the SPCB and the Parliament. The Government is very careful not to stray into that territory and to be clear about where we are able to support and to give our opinion on things. Any work that is undertaken to review the structures of the parliamentary commissioners is, of course, absolutely up to the Parliament, and decisions should be taken in that context.

It is worth highlighting the work that the Government has done on understanding the need for new public sector bodies. The ministerial control framework that we put in place last year does precisely that. It is a robust structure that takes into account whether a new public sector body is required and assesses the financial implications of that to ensure that the new body will fulfil its objectives and will not duplicate something that already exists. That framework is in place for bodies that are created by the Government. Where a proposal relates to a commissioner who would be supported and sponsored by the SPCB, the Government seeks to engage with the SPCB at an early stage in the process. Clearly, proposals that come from outwith the Government are not included in that framework. It is very important that Government-supported bodies that are created through that mechanism are distinct from those that rightly lie within the guise of the Parliament.

I hope that that gives an outline. As I have said, I am keen to support the work that the committee is undertaking, and the Government is keen to support the SPCB in the work that it is taking forward, or may take forward, in reviewing the commissioner landscape.

Depending on the portfolio, I think that the Government would, of course, always seek to take views from organisations that can reflect the views of various stakeholders. In my experience in the economy space, we talk to a lot of different organisations all the time.