Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I bring in Alexander Stewart, I want to ask about the statement in your submission that

“the complaints standards function is a net benefit for ombudsmen institutions”.

I am interested to understand if you have a sense of whether that has benefited the public and whether there is any way that you could assess that.

You suggested looking at the outreach strategy and how we broaden access. I would say that language is an issue. What does “Scottish Public Services Ombudsman” mean to the many people who have never started to go through the process? Someone might know it exists, or maybe they do not and that is one part of it, but then there is all the language, which is quite inaccessible for many people.

Thank you. That was good advocacy for the ombudsman having more powers. The same issue came up earlier.

Thanks very much.

Meghan Gallacher mentioned that she had another question that she wanted to ask, but Jan Savage answered it well when she talked about having a root-and-branch review. I, too, am interested in hearing your thoughts on the recommendation from Professors Gill and Mullen on our previous panel that England’s parliamentary ombudsmen and officers be subject to five-yearly independent peer reviews. In light of the parliamentary root-and-branch review of all commissioner offices that is going to take place in the next six months, what would you—briefly—like to see it achieve with the SPSO? Perhaps we can keep it within that framework. Does anybody have any thoughts on that in addition to what Jan Savage said? That does not mean, Jan, that you cannot come back in again.

Please do so. I understand that this experience can be quite intense.

You are suggesting that maybe we need to look for opportunities to do more of that kind of research. To clarify, when you say “grudging”, am I right that you mean that a recommendation to a health board from the SPSO for a remedy is not welcomed with open arms?

We have some more questions on that. Tom Mullen, do you have anything to add?

That is a good question to consider.

Now that we have come to the end of our questions, I just want to say that I appreciate your coming in and sharing your perspectives. This year’s process has been interesting, as we have taken a somewhat deeper approach instead of just hearing from the ombudsman on the basis on her reports. It has been a helpful and enriching process, certainly from the point of view of our hearing that the office needs more powers in order to do its work.

Before we go on to our next item, I briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave the room. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We now move to—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Peter. I did not see you there.

Thanks very much for that. It is good to hear that that work is nascent and that it exists to go along with the parallel process that Scotland is undertaking around becoming trauma-informed. I am certainly interested in hearing more from you as that develops.

That concludes our questions for you this morning. I appreciate both of you coming in and engaging with us in your work. It has been very helpful.

I now suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.