Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 31 March 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 754 contributions

|

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

Thank you. I have a few more questions, but I see that Dr Gill wants to come in on that point before I move on.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

It might take us down a rabbit hole, convener. I think that I will leave it with you.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

That would be with respect to the integrity bodies, I suppose. Maybe the situation is slightly different with advocacy bodies.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

That is fair. We have struggled all along to try to find the right language around this. There is also substantial overlap where different offices are concerned.

I would have asked whether anyone has any issues or problems with the idea that SPCB-supported commissioners should share back-office services, human resources, and so on, but I assume that none of you does.

Dr Elliott mentioned something that is also on our minds, as the convener said. The remit of this committee is specifically to look at the SPCB-supported bodies commissioners, but we are aware that there exists a wider landscape of public bodies, third sector organisations and other commissioners of various flavours. Do you have a feel for how much time and resource it might take to map that out? We know that we do not have the time and resource to do that, but how big a job would it be, if someone were to take that on?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

As Dr Elliott suggested, creating more commissioners may also inadvertently undermine that intention. On a sort of similar theme, in our conversation, we have separated advocacy and integrity commissioners. With regard to the work of the commissioners, the committee has thought a lot about preventative and reactive work—research and so on that the ombudsman or the human rights commissioner does versus casework in relation to, for example, something that has gone wrong in a hospital, a prison or a school when someone will want to know who they can go to. One of my concerns about the proliferation of these bodies is about people knowing who they should go to.

The committee heard very effective pitches for various commissioners last week—a commissioner for older people, a commissioner for neurodivergent people and so on—but a person can be many of those things, and, therefore, which one would they go to? In defence of their remits, existing office-holders and advocates have said, “Oh, but we’re very good at handing people between us and we’re very good at signposting.” Do you have a view on a one-stop shop? Dr Elliott, you suggested fewer but larger bodies with wider remits, so that, for example, if something has gone wrong in a school, a prison or a hospital, you would go to one place and you would be looked after. Do witnesses have a view on that?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

No, that is all right.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

No, I do not want to drag us down a rabbit hole.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

I have a follow-up question on trust. It is my impression from the media and so on that trust in Governments and institutions is at an all-time low. We have heard from other witnesses that independence is the key thing for trust—everybody says, “It has to be independent.” I have two questions on that. Being SPCB supported is one way in which bodies can be independent, but is it the best way? Are there other ways to be independent?

Also, is it true that independence is the route to trust? Dr Lamont seemed to suggest that effectiveness is a better route to trust. I am interested in people’s thoughts on that.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

I am talking about gaining a proper understanding of the landscape here, because we are all worried about gaps and a system that is not working well. What kind of resource would that take?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Lorna Slater

I have a supplementary question, although I am interested in the points about the separation by advocacy and integrity, so I will come back to that later.

I want to follow up on something that Dr Lamont said, although everyone alluded to this. One challenge that we have in the advocacy space is that a new advocacy body represents a failure of existing bodies, and it is not clear that a new body will succeed where all the others have not.

Really, the success or otherwise of an advocacy body, whether it is a commissioner or something else, is to do with its level of influence and how well the Government listens to it. Another challenge that I would raise with, for example, the proposal for a future generations commissioner—whose purpose I of course support—is about what would make the Government listen to such a commissioner when it does not listen to any of the environmental non-governmental organisations or politicians who speak on those topics.

Would creating a commissioner solve either of those problems? Is there evidence that a commissioner would have more influence?

09:45