Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was quite an illuminating set of answers. It is about bridging a gap. If a service can be carried out specifically for certain people, but those people are singularly unaware that it is available, there is an issue to solve.

As we understand it, the regulator works with a panel of 400-odd tenants and service users. I wonder whether any homeless or formerly homeless people, or even Travellers, are part of such a panel, to push into that panel their views and experiences. Are our witnesses aware of such a thing, and are there any examples of the benefits that the convening of a tenants panel brings?

In relation to the point that Shona Gorman and James Calder made, are you aware of any former homeless people or Gypsy Travellers who contribute to the work of the panel? Have former homeless people or Gypsy Travellers ever been able to have their views put forward and acted on as part of the panel? That seems to be a huge omission from the process that we are supposed to be delivering for people.

Thank you for that, Patrick.

Convener, I know that other members want to come in, so I will hand back to you.

Good morning—I apologise for not being at the meeting in person. Can you share some examples of positive engagements that have taken place between social landlords and the regulator and that have benefited tenants and other social partners? I would be obliged if you can offer us some examples of positive engagements that you are aware of, to balance with the discussion that we have had so far.

Thank you very much again, witnesses, for your answers.

My final question is about the regulator having statutory powers of intervention. David Bookbinder and Patrick Gilbride opened a little bit of a line on that when the convener opened her questioning, but will you share with us your views on how those powers are being used? Are they being used adequately, properly and so on? Does anything need to be reviewed or changed? This is an opportunity for you to expand a little on the use of the statutory powers of intervention.

Good morning, everybody. I will stick to the really quite interesting discussion that we have been having about scrutiny and accountability. My questions are for Cornilius Chikwama and Catherine Young, whom I recall from my time on the Public Audit committee and their many reports on this matter. Indeed, you might recall that I mentioned this issue at the time, too.

What is the scrutiny and accountability role for members of the Scottish Parliament with regard to the money that the Scottish Government has given to the various growth deals? As I have said previously, I do not recall having any involvement in this whatsoever, other than when Audit Scotland would present an update report on the generality of the growth deal. Is it not a little bit curious that we as MSPs had no formal role in scrutinising that? Is it an opportunity that we have missed?

Thank you for that. Back to you, convener.

That is interesting. Democratic oversight, which Neil McInroy has mentioned several times now, is a different thing altogether. Having a reporting line back to a Scottish Government department, for example, is one thing, but having open scrutiny that is conducted by members of the Scottish Parliament is quite another and, in my experience, there has been none of that from the start of the growth deals until now.

You could call this session exactly that, but that is not quite what I am getting at. There has been no regular involvement by MSPs—certainly not the MSPs whom I know and to whom I have spoken about whether they have had any direct role or participation in scrutinising any of the spend on behalf of the Scottish public. It is more of a comment, convener, but I just think that we missed a trick by not being involved and not widening that scrutiny role. I would probably ask the same question of the UK Government, if we were to have a session with it: where is the scrutiny—the democratic scrutiny—of its investment locally in, say, a county such as Ayrshire?

That aspect of the growth deal has been missing from the jigsaw for a while now, and I just wanted to share that with colleagues and get your response to that. I would be interested to hear Neil McInroy’s view of that democratic oversight aspect, too.

That is fair enough, but let me give you an example. I know that a couple of projects have been—let us say—dropped from the whole Ayrshire growth deal programme, but I only found out about that through the press. If the Scottish Government is funding these projects, is it not appropriate for some aspect of the Scottish Parliament democratic process to be involved? It is one thing to say, “Let’s have democratic oversight that’s as local as we can make it”, but it is another when substantial amounts of money are being put into these projects at Scottish and UK Government levels without any real participation from the members of this Parliament—or perhaps even the other one—in that decision-making process.

I want to go back to Fiona Collie, who talked about unpaid carers in answer to my first question. In your submission, you tell us that unpaid carers do not really have any meaningful access to resolution or redress through the ombudsman. Have I understood that correctly? For the benefit of the committee and the public, what is the position? If people feel that they need to raise an issue and take it to the ombudsman, do they have access?