Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 2 is to take evidence on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s annual report 2022-23. Rosemary Agnew is our ombudsman; Andrew Sheridan is the SPSO’s head of improvement, standards and engagement; and Niki Maclean is the SPSO’s director.

I invite Rosemary Agnew to make a short opening statement.

I have a couple of questions around the public petition relating to the SPSO, which the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is considering. Among other things, the petition calls for an independent review to

“establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.”

Given that you are also pushing for legislative change, I would be interested to hear whether you agree that, 20 years after the legislation to set up the SPSO, a review might be required. If so, who do you think should conduct that review?

That is certainly a good point: not everybody complains, but there are people who are sitting on something with which they could really do with some help and support. Thanks for unpacking that a bit. It was very helpful.

Is the issue the same across all 14 of the councils concerned, or is it nuanced? Is it really just about a lack of housing stock?

The bill says that the “matters to be considered” under the rural support plan include

“the proposals and policies contained in the climate change plan which relate to agriculture, forestry and rural land-use”.

Travel is a big issue for rural workers, and it is a big issue in terms of climate.

It says in our papers:

“Ministers may amend the plan if strategic priorities change or the plan becomes inaccurate or incomplete”.

We have already discussed the need for flexibility in the face of the climate and nature emergency, but I just wanted to hear how you have thought that need through. What kinds of things would trigger the review of a plan? I just want to understand your thinking in that respect.

I will follow on from Rhoda Grant’s questions on the public interest. Is that in writing anywhere? Is there a set of criteria for what is in the public interest?

It would not get there. Perhaps that was not the best example, but what I am trying to get at is that the direction of travel that we need to go in involves regenerative practices and supporting nature and climate mitigation and adaptation, so if somebody were to apply to a support scheme, I imagine that a criterion under the scheme would be to ensure that people were not continuing with practices in the opposite direction to what was sought to be achieved through the objectives.

It seems to me that we will need to get that sorted out, if it is the basis on which people will get payments. As you have said, practices have changed.

Will sufficient funding be provided for that?