Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I will be interested to see what you say. The report could be an effective and helpful piece of evidence that will support our broader work and set the tone for the public sector landscape.

Its role is to manage the Parliament and to ensure the smooth and effective functioning of the Parliament and the tasks that the Parliament as a whole is asked to carry out, be that through commissioners or other roles.

No, absolutely not, because all the areas where we spend money need to be addressed to ensure that that money is spent most effectively. We can argue about the fact that you would want to focus more on understanding and addressing the challenges where you have more potential to save more money. Of course you would want to do that. The tone is important. I hope that what I said about the broader landscape and the commissioners has helped to set that tone. To be frank, the ministerial control framework being in place has helped to set a tone more broadly around people not proposing public bodies or commissioners that they might otherwise have done.

Not at all.

My focus, as the committee would expect, is on where we can save hundreds of millions. Frankly, we could shut down all the commissioners tomorrow and it would save us only £18 million. It is a drop in the ocean in terms of the task ahead of us with regard to assessing efficiency across the wider public sector landscape.

However, that does not mean that I do not think that it is an important issue and that it is important that robust controls are in place to review new proposals. I will be taking that very seriously in order to address and challenge whether there is a need for new commissioners through the ministerial control framework.

Are you asking about my perspective?

As I say, it is not a limited body. We have already talked about the budget process. In the case of the commissioners, there is an additional cost of £500,000. That will be part of the conversation around how much of an increase in its £140 million budget the Parliament needs to support and carry out that function. There are seven commissioners—