All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 309 contributions
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 February 2025
Ash Regan
The committee has a strong interest in accountability and scrutiny. Will you say a bit about how that is working? Do you think that it is effective? Are you being held to account in a robust manner?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 February 2025
Ash Regan
That is helpful. Thanks for putting that on the record.
We will need to be brief, because we are running out of time, but are there areas in which scrutiny could be improved or in which the Parliament or the SPCB needs to do better? Feel free to say whatever you like.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Ash Regan
Your organisation publishes a lot of data sets on performance, including key performance indicators against the functions that are set out in the enabling legislation. Not all the supported bodies are required to do that. Should all the supported bodies publish the same sets of information?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Ash Regan
I want to turn to accountability and scrutiny mechanisms. We are interested to know whether the scrutiny that you are receiving is robust and whether you feel that it is appropriate. Could you give us your view on how you are scrutinised, and whether you think that there are more effective ways in which that could be done?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Ash Regan
I, too, want to ask about the mechanisms around the accountability and scrutiny functions. In your written submission, you suggest—as you have done in your exchange with Richard Leonard—that your mechanisms are appropriate and robust. Annual reports feature as a main part of that scrutiny, certainly for the committees in the Parliament, and you suggest that there are ways in which that mechanism could be made more effective. Could you explain that?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Ash Regan
I will summarise what you have said. There should be increased frequency of your appearances in front of the corporate body and, possibly, in front of committees, although we all understand that there are capacity issues in relation to the Criminal Justice Committee, which is why, in the previous parliamentary session, there was the Justice Sub-committee on Policing, which provided extra capacity.
I want to pick up your point about the reports that you produce. Do you feel that you are not receiving any sort of scrutiny on a number of your reports?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Ash Regan
Different forms of accountability and scrutiny are interacting. We have the corporate body, the SPPA Committee and Audit Scotland. How do you think they are working together? Is there anything that could be done to improve that?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 February 2025
Ash Regan
Good morning. I want to cover issues around accountability and scrutiny mechanisms. In your submission to the committee, you set out the various different interactions between those scrutiny mechanisms. Can you explain those a little bit for us and say how they work together and whether they are effective and robust?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 February 2025
Ash Regan
You mentioned the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. It held additional scrutiny sessions, as I understand it, involving academics and additional organisations. Did that approach improve the scrutiny? What else could we be doing to improve the level of scrutiny and accountability?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Ash Regan
I thought that it might be useful to bring to the committee’s attention things that have been going on in the City of Edinburgh Council that are similar to what Edward Mountain has talked about.
I cannot go into details, but a very concerned constituent came to me to explain serious mishandling of whistleblowing and potential breaches of safeguarding of children that had been going on historically, which I believe are still unresolved. That is in Edinburgh, but I can see that the issue goes further across the country. There appears to be an unacceptably high level of safeguarding failure in the system.
We are talking about children, so I suggest to the committee that, as Edward Mountain set out, the cost should not be an issue. I do not think that the failure in the system is being adequately addressed by the current procedures and processes. I believe that certain public bodies are being defensive in the way that they interact with the Parliament and the Government.
Over the past week, we have seen that the Government, unfortunately, does not have a grip on what is going on across Scotland. As Edward Mountain did, I urge the committee to think seriously about the requests in the petition and take them forward.