Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does that happen at the moment?

You have answered my next question—I was going to ask when that review would come forward and what you would do when it did—so thank you for that. Obviously, this committee will take a close interest in that. Of course, we only see the bad side—we only see the section 22 reports and so on, and we do not see the good cases, where it is working well. Nevertheless, there has been sufficient evidence that sponsorship in some cases has not been as effective as it should be. Obviously, we have a concern about that, and I am sure that the committee will come back to that in the future.

I have a question that comes back to the risk management process. Do you consider that, overall, the risk management process is adequate?

Governance has always been a big issue in connection with the component parts of the Scottish Government. I am concerned about three statements in your report. First, in paragraph 70, you state that

“There remains scope for greater clarity on the impact of planned actions on reducing risk levels”,

and so on. Secondly, in paragraph 74, you talk about limiting

“the use of interim appointments to ensure greater stability and certainty within its leadership group”,

and you seem to be encouraging the Scottish Government to improve its arrangements, in order to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Thirdly, in paragraph 75, you say:

“The Scottish Government’s arrangements for sponsoring public bodies remains an area of concern.”

The committee has looked at sponsorship on a number of occasions, and there have been question marks.

You have talked about improvements to risk management processes within the Scottish Government. Will you give more detail on the measures that are being provided, and whether they are considered to be adequate? Is it just a matter of quality? Are they in place but maybe not as sharp as they should be, or is there a serious gap?

You have said that the commissioner’s office cannot do all this alone and will have to engage with outside partners. Does it have the skills internally to do so? Given the situation that the organisation got itself into, perhaps it did not have the skills in the first place. Does it have the skills now?

It is perhaps early days, but has any commitment been made by the Scottish Government with regard to the financial support that the office needs or providing it with additional skills and support to get through this?

So the organisation did not have internal audit oversight.

I have to say that the report came as a bit of a surprise, and I am reminded of Juvenal’s famous phrase, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” It seems to fit very well in this particular situation.

That is something that this committee might want to keep an eye on.

The commissioner’s office is a small organisation. Pat Kenny said that there were only 10 employees. Who would have provided its internal audit function?

It means, “Who watches the watchmen?”