³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is very helpful. I have one last question. If we look at this from the perspective of someone who wants to make a complaint and from a the customer experience perspective, the landscape is quite complicated as to who to go to if someone wants to whistleblow, to complain about a parliamentarian and so on. We have discussed with previous witnesses the idea of having a one-stop shop for complaints as a hypothetical umbrella office of public trust. It does not matter what has gone wrong, people would have one place to go to. That organisation would combine all the supported bodies and the whistleblowing functions. All those things would be in one place. What is your view of a hypothetical one-stop shop as an office of public trust that combines some of those functions?

It would be interesting to know whether you would be willing to come back in 18 months to 2 years, to give us an interim update.

We have heard a lot of positive evidence about the benefits of all three levels of government working together on long-term, multiyear projects. To my mind, the city region deal projects sit broadly in two categories: infrastructure or community and innovation. Both types of projects have quite different business models, impacts and delivery processes, and it might make sense to manage them in different ways, instead of lumping them together under the same scheme with the same governance. What are your thoughts are on what city region deals are for, particularly if another tranche of those deals were to be on the table? Are they best suited for infrastructure or for innovation?

Thank you. My second question is related to the ways in which the deals might not work so well, such as when projects get stuck. I am thinking specifically about the Sheriffhall roundabout project. When I speak to local councillors about the project, they say that they cannot do anything to change, fix or unstick it because it is part of the UK city region deal and the UK Government needs to do that. However, we had the Secretary for State for Scotland in to give evidence and he said that the power to make a decision to move forward or to change the project sits with the Scottish Government. There is a lot of finger pointing. That is where collaboration goes wrong—when it is always somebody else’s fault or responsibility.

The evidence that we have collected as a committee suggests that the relevant report and the decision on that project are sitting on the transport secretary’s desk. The DFM said earlier that there is no desire to hold up things, but that project has been in limbo for months and months. Does the Scottish Government have the power to make that project work or to redirect funds if it decides that it is not to go ahead? What is the hold up?

I would love things to get moving with Sheriffhall roundabout in whatever direction. I might write to you on that point and to ask whether facilitation could be undertaken to improve that collaboration.

Minister, thank you for coming back to the committee. Last week, my questions were about the particular SSI on the registers. Thank you for the reassurance in your letter on the mechanisms for correction, accuracy and third-party data and for accepting that no system is perfect or free from error and that bad actors can abuse any system. I am content to support the progression of the instruments, but will the minister or his officials commit to coming back to the committee or its successor in 18 months to two years, to provide an update on how things have gone, whether the corrections procedure is working and how many people have required to use it?

I will follow on from Ash Regan’s line of questioning. One thing that we are looking at is scrutiny and how all the commissioners fit in the landscape. Parliament watches Government, you watch the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and it sounds as if the Parliament and the Standards Commission watch you. We assume that the voters are watching the Parliament.

On the place where you sit in the landscape, I think that Dr Ian Elliott said that you guys are a sort of a fourth branch of government—you are the ones who watch the watcher. Do you see the other SPCB-supported bodies as sitting within that same space of watching us in public life or, from your perspective, is what they do quite different from what you do?

That is fine. I probably misunderstood. Thank you for clearing that up.

You adjudicate only on councillors and one other group.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee covers ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and lobbyists.

If we are looking at consolidating or restructuring the framework, the adjudication function needs to be separate. That does not necessarily need to be done by a commissioner, though. Maybe the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities could do it. What are your thoughts on that?

I will follow up on that a little, because the committee wants to look at the overall framework. Clearly, we do not have a blank slate, but I think that we need to look at the landscape with fresh eyes, as if we were designing something new, so your suggestion that we would not necessarily end up where we are now if we were starting with a blank slate is interesting. I will take that on board, and we can all think about whether there is a gap in relation to the independence of the process of how our Parliament scrutinises itself. As I said earlier, part of the reason for examining the framework is to find out where there are gaps, so that we can improve the system. It is certainly not solely about affordability, cost and so on: it has also got to be about making sure that it works and that it builds trust in public life.

I hypothesised with Mr Bruce about the formation of a larger body that might be called the office of trust in public life, or something, which might encompass the work of the Standards Commission, the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Scottish Information Commissioner as well as, possibly, ombudsmen and so on. Can you imagine such a thing? Are those bodies all positioned in the same space in terms of public scrutiny, or are they very disparate?