Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a question, convener, but only if there is time for it.

Several of the office-holders from whom we have received evidence have talked about audits. Indeed, the issue has come up frequently, and everyone has said that audits are important and that the scrutiny is both welcome and valuable. However, several office-holders have noted the issue of audit being proportionate, with some saying that they are audited twice a year and others saying that they also have an office or departmental audit, which in the process becomes part of a larger audit. It means that there are audits upon audits.

In previous evidence-taking sessions and written submissions, a discussion has arisen on whether there should be a single audit for all SPCB supported bodies. We understand that that would require legislative changes, but will you elaborate on the potential benefits and challenges of such an approach?

In that case, there might be room to look at how the process could work in a more streamlined way, so that it is still effective but does not feel quite so burdensome.

There is no specific overlap with the SPSO, although, presumably, they could do similar things for a group of people of any age.

We have just heard from the chair of the SHRC, who described their role—or, rather, I described it to them, and I think that they signed up to what I was saying—as being almost a mirror image of what the SPSO does. The SHRC looks at systemic, almost preventative-level advice, whereby it investigates and researches a system or a group and it creates a report and gives advice on that, whereas the ombudsman reacts to individual cases of complaints that come in.

As well as reactive work, do you do that kind of preventative research and advice for broad groups? That could be for children in care—I do not know what groups you have been looking at. Do you take on specific cases or the investigation of any particular breaches?

Independent of whom? I do not think that there is any disagreement that you need to be independent of Government and of Parliament, but who else do you need to be independent from?

That is really clear. You need the ability to set those priorities. I am not clear that that is dependent on any particular organisational structure, but it is a really clear requirement: to be led by the needs of children and young people.

Do you take on cases like the ombudsman does, whereby you can give individual redress when something has gone wrong?

I will do a bit of context setting to make sure that I have got my head round this. The committee is looking at the broader landscape of all the SPCB supported bodies. No one has said that you would end up with this landscape if you started with nothing. It has grown organically, so we are aware that there are overlaps and gaps.

Some of the bodies have been created as a result of scandals, failures in public services or failures in the conduct of public servants, in order to try to fix an urgent or immediate problem. I think that it was the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman—my colleagues can keep me right—who said that she is frustrated that she is only allowed to react to complaints that she had received, and that she was not allowed to do broader preventative work. She may have had complaints from several hundred people about specific councils, but she could only investigate those councils: she could not then broaden out her investigation to all councils in Scotland. There might have been a systemic issue, but she is not allowed to do that. She is frustrated by that limitation.

The Public Services Ombudsman deals with individual cases; however, if I understand it correctly, your situation is almost the mirror image of that. You deal with broad systemic investigation and reporting, but without doing advocacy or individual case support, because that is not your remit and it is not your job to do that.

I have a couple of questions about that. All those public bodies seem to have a structure that is in a preventative space—preventing harm from public services and proactively making sure that institutions get the right advice so that they handle data correctly and so that politicians behave themselves. Then there is the reactive work, which is about saying, “Okay, something has gone wrong”, when, for example, patients have been hurt or people who are in detention have had their rights disrespected. How do we fix that problem?

Some of the bodies do a mix of those things and some do one or the other, but the Scottish Human Rights Commission does specifically preventative work. As we reimagine the landscape because of the proliferation of commissioners, can we reimagine the SHRC as one large body that has both a preventative role and reactive role? Could the reporters of such a larger body be responsible for both the wider investigative systemic look and advocacy? Can we imagine a structure that would encompass all those things in order to look after human rights in Scotland, rather than having your rather narrow remit?

In response to Richard Leonard’s questions, you said that you cannot duplicate the functions of other commissioners. Does that mean that, as more commissioners are created, your powers will be diminished? I am thinking especially of the justice and the victims commissioner, for example. If its powers are so broad, does that mean you will have nothing left to do? Because it encroaches into your space, does that reduce your remit?