Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not want to speak for members or others who feel that they need to make those proposals. I know that a number of members are seeking to bring new commissioners before the committee.

In system design generally, if more layers and more bodies are added, it does not make the process simpler, it makes it more complex and I suggest that there is a relationship between the complexity of a system and its ability to deliver. By making a system more complex, you run the risk of making the problem worse, because it means that there are more people in the space to be engaged with and in the process, which makes the delivery process more complex. As a general rule, simplicity is probably the best design principle when it comes to looking for effective and efficient delivery. You clearly need checks and balances within that, and they are an important part of the landscape, but it is important to recognise that as a principle.

I suspect that you might be right that people feel that having a commissioner elevates the status of the group that they are advocating for. It gives them more people to talk to and more opportunity to get the issues that they want to be raised in front of the Government or the Parliament. That might well be the case, but, in terms of how effective specific groups or the system as a whole are, you are better looking at why the system is not performing.

I would argue that delivery can always be better. Of course, there are challenges out there, some of which will be fiscal challenges and other impacts on society and the economy. However, just because everything is not as good as people should expect it to be, it does not necessarily mean that a new commissioner is the answer.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Do you mean the level of accountability of the public bodies to the Scottish Government, or the level of accountability of the Scottish Government to the Parliament?

Others may have a different perspective based on their experience, but I would say that both have the ability to gain traction in the media, which is, at the end of the day, where that pressure would be felt. If either route was generating commentary on the Government’s performance, what we have done or anything else, it would have the ability to generate that pressure.

Clearly, if somebody is not doing what they are supposed to be doing, we would be concerned about that. However, I am not aware whether the Government more widely is aware of that situation.

You have probably answered the question. If a body can get through the 13 steps and survive that ordeal, there is probably a good case for it to be considered. However, the presumption is that we should not have to establish a new body. The framework codifies the process that you need to go through to make the case for why a new public body is needed. It is an effective approach, but I am very willing to hear other suggestions of how we can make the process even more robust.

No.

That takes us into an interesting space. Ministers are rightly held accountable, as we are every day in the Parliament and elsewhere, for delivery bodies in the public sector, but that does not reflect on the SPCB-supported bodies to the same extent.

Depending on the nature of the body, the relationship can be arm’s length. We do not tell the public bodies exactly what they should do daily. We appoint the body’s board, which then appoints the executives; we give it the budget; and we put in place the framework document that explains the relationship, as we have talked about in evidence. It then gets on with it.

That is the correct approach, because, for good reasons, we would not want ministers to be involved in every last detail of every single public body. It is always a challenge to manage, but it is important to recognise that there are various checks and balances in the system for how the bodies operate vis-à-vis ministers. Ministers are not the accountable officers for the finances and so on; by and large, that role sits with the chief executives of those bodies.

There are sponsor teams in the Government that have the responsibility for engaging with the public bodies, and they have an important role to play in scrutinising compliance. Performance issues can be raised, and performance is obviously the subject of regular discussion in Government. There are several areas where that is quite high profile and therefore talked about frequently in Government. However, the operational aspect is, by and large, still carried out by the delivery body.

We also have Audit Scotland, the Auditor General for Scotland and others that are engaged in the essential work that they do to keep track of how public bodies perform at various levels. There is also parliamentary scrutiny, whereby ministers are held to account in the chamber and, indeed, in committees, which also have the opportunity to bring in chief execs and chairs from public bodies.

There are various levels at which scrutiny operates, but it is important to understand the distinction from the day-to-day operation of those delivery bodies.

Yes, I think that they do. Of course, every case will be different. The reports will come to ministers who will, by and large, be very engaged with the public body and have a good understanding of what that body is working on. The report gives ministers and officials a sense check as to whether the public body is pointing in the right direction, with the right priorities and focus. The information will then be a matter of public record, which allows those in the wider ecosystem to see and understand what the body is doing.