Seòmar agus comataidhean

Therefore, you do not recognise the process as a layering of external audits. Do you think that the issue is about the relationship between internal and external audits?

That is fine. I wonder whether Colin Smyth wants to come in briefly on that point before I go to my next question.

I want to clarify something. I understood from one of the committee’s evidence sessions that one of the offices gets audited twice a year, but you are saying that that is not accurate and that it is audited only once a year.

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.

That is interesting, and you can see how that happens. You can see why, politically, instead of redefining your remit in order to bring in an advocacy role to fill gaps, politicians say, “We’ll make a commissioner for X”—because it sounds great to say that they are standing up for a particular group. That is a lot more glamorous—more showy or headliney—than saying that we will rewrite the standing orders or the legislation that covers the Human Rights Commission, because that does not sound like such a big deal.

We have ended up with a kind of pockmarked landscape with all those bodies. That has been done with absolutely the best of intentions, but bodies have not been brought together and their powers have not been standardised, so some are really different and some overlap. That was really useful to hear.

I would be interested to learn more—maybe this is for the clerks—about the models in countries where the ombudsmen and human rights bodies have different relationships or are combined. With regard to both improving public services and ensuring that people get access to justice, there is some overlap, which it would be interesting to hear about.

I am also interested to hear more about the proposal in relation to rapporteurs and the gap that you feel they are filling.

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?

You would not be able to do that. That is really interesting.

On resourcing and what you have just said about your powers, it seems that you have more powers than the SHRC in relation to the group of humans who are children, who are your responsibility, because the SHRC has only a limited researching power. You have a lot more powers in that respect. One of the concerns that I heard in Gina Wilson’s tone, in relation to Murdo Fraser’s questions, was around the idea that you would get sucked into the SHRC, because it has much less power than you do.

There is something around envisioning what you do, but for everybody, if you like. We have this perceived, or real, gap, because we do not have these powers for disabled people or older people. Could we imagine a situation in which you guys are the exemplar? You do this for children, but, in fact, everybody deserves it. Is there any reason why, with dedicated resource, expertise and the right responsibility for leadership, that could not be duplicated?

Another witness talked about a hub-and-spokes model, with common resources for HR, offices and so on, and with you having responsibility for children, for example, under some sort of broader human rights structure. I am imagining a complete restructure in relation to human rights, whereby we give to other underrepresented groups of people the same excellent service that you give to children. Is there any particular reason why that would not work, if we copied your remit elsewhere?