Hansard

Yes, that is understood, and that is why I couched my comments in such a way as to refer to what would happen should that committee be established. However, even if it is not established and the responsibilities lie elsewhere, the corporate body will obviously work with the relevant committee to ensure that the process works as smoothly as it can.

I turn to specific recommendations in the committee’s report, starting with the new set of criteria that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee developed. The corporate body is very supportive of the set of criteria and the strong message that it sends on shared services. Should the Parliament endorse that recommendation and the recommendations relating to the inclusion of the criteria in parliamentary guidance on bills and a standing order determination, officials will be asked to bring forward proposals on how the recommendations can be implemented.

The corporate body notes the recommendations relating to existing SPCB-supported bodies. Again, should those recommendations be endorsed by the Parliament, we will work with relevant office-holders and the Scottish Government, as appropriate, to implement them. As the committee acknowledges, those proposals will require additional resources, which will be an important consideration, given the wider public finance context.

To ensure that we undertake our role properly, we have put a number of governance arrangements in place, but we note the deficiencies that have been identified by both the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee in the governance and accountability of corporate body-supported bodies. Additional work in that area would require the SPCB’s approach to all its work to be reviewed to ensure that we have fulfilled all our responsibilities, but we will, of course, always give effect to the will of the Parliament.

I want to speak directly to the recommendations at paragraphs 158 to 161, on giving a parliamentary committee

“the specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies”.

To be clear, I note that the establishment of committees and their remits is not a matter for the corporate body. Furthermore, the SPCB is aware of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, which includes consideration of the changes that can be made to strengthen the ability of committees to undertake scrutiny work across a range of policy areas. The corporate body is conscious that there are several pressures in the system and that a new committee structure for session 7 will need to balance those demands alongside capacity constraints, including in member and Scottish parliamentary service resources.

The corporate body is also mindful that its statutory functions, duties and responsibilities are set out within the broader constitutional landscape. Should the recommendation at paragraph 160 be endorsed by the Parliament, the SPCB will commit to collaborating on whether the delegation or transfer of SPCB functions would be desirable within the framework and, if so, how that can be achieved. As the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee acknowledges, that will require legislative change, given that various acts mention the corporate body specifically in relation to a range of functions. We will therefore ask officials to undertake a mapping exercise prior to session 7 to clearly set out functions for each body, the statutory basis for those functions and what the options for change would look like. If the recommendation at paragraph 161 is endorsed, we will commit to exploring how to improve operational oversight of office-holders in the context of the session 7 committee structure.

I will comment briefly on the amendment, but only to say that, as ever, the SPCB will seek to implement the will of Parliament. Parliament should be clear that, if the amendment is agreed to, there will not be a basis for the SPCB to take the steps that I have outlined above. I repeat that it is for Parliament to take the decision, but it is important that Parliament is clear on the implications of that decision.

Before I move on to the subject of shared services, I will briefly comment on the budget and audit recommendations. I highlight the on-going review of the public audit model by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, and I note that the corporate body will engage with that review. I also highlight the corporate body’s agreement with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s view that

“medium to long-term financial planning is not hindered by an annual budget and funding cycle”.

I move on to the recommendations that relate to shared services. The corporate body welcomes the acknowledgement of the improvements in that area. Five office-holders are now co-located at Bridgeside house, with the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland having taken up post on 1 September. That co-location has resulted in further accommodation savings. The corporate body welcomes the recommendation relating to a hub-and-spoke model and will work with office-holders to implement it as opportunities to do so arise. In related work, the corporate body recently established an accommodation audit in relation to office-holders and, through that process, is looking at the use of the wider public sector estate. As such, we welcome the recommendation in that area.

I conclude by thanking all the office-holders again for their dedicated work, and I thank the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, too, for its report.