Seòmar agus comataidhean

We questioned the previous witnesses, Professor Gill and Professor Mullen, about some of the aspects of responsiveness. They talked about a lack of data, a mismatch of the data supplied and the need for more investigation into some aspects of that data. They saw a gap in some of that. I get the sense from you that you also believe that to be the case.

As a committee trying to understand how to respond to customer concerns about the SPSO, if we do not get the data and you as individuals or organisations do not get the data, it is difficult to make an assessment. Through data, we can understand the process. It may be the case, however, that data is limited or somehow manipulated. You have given evidence of seeing that, Paul. Age Scotland understands that people sometimes get run out of the process because of the length of time that a complaint takes. People’s cases are being run down and, because of their age, they may expire by the time that the case progresses. That may happen in some people’s processes. The data that we collect and the data that is provided is vitally important for trying to analyse where we take the whole process and how we, as a committee, can then manage to see how effective the SPSO is. Peter Stewart-Blacker, you want to come in.

In some ways, individual rights seem to be diminished. I put that to Jan Savage, given her role

Absolutely. You have indicated in your submission that there are no real concerns about the quality of the complaints handling service or the process. Assessing whether that is the case requires data, and you have also indicated that there is a lack of data when you are trying to analyse that. What data should be available to enable you to make a more informed assessment? That is where we want to try to get to. By having more data, you might then be able to assess how successful the service is or how the process is working. If there is a lack of data, you cannot really see whether the SPSO is fulfilling its role.

You identify the opportunities that might arise; it is undoubtedly the case that a number of opportunities might arise. Whether there will be conflict in the future depends on where the risks are and where there is potential for divergence. In the past, we have heard about power grabs and things being done in a confrontational way. A problem could still potentially arise if there was such a difficulty, given the amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved, to which you referred.

As we look to improve the situation—you have identified that you believe that the new UK Government might want to be more aligned with the EU than the previous one—what progress do you think that we will see in the next 12 months or whatever?

Good morning. You have all touched on the challenges that we have faced and that we continue to face in managing the processes for our sectors. Professor Portes, you touched on potential successes in how things have progressed. Are there specific areas and sectors in which there has been real change, with activity going from vibrant to non-existent, and are there others in which there was an acceptable level of activity and there are now further opportunities? We have heard that some organisations have relocated their offices to other locations to try to develop and expand some of their processes to ensure that they can tap into opportunities, whereas other organisations have not done that but have been reasonably successful. Do you believe that there is an opportunity to try to do that as we move forward? I ask Professor Portes to answer first.

In your letter and your opening statement, you mentioned the “proportionate approach” that you are taking to EU alignment and the fact that you are not being complacent in guarding against any future risks. In that respect, it is vital that records are kept and information is shared, and our tracker report has identified some of that. What do you see those risks as being? Will you expand on some of the risks that we now face, in comparison with those that we thought that we might face when we started the process?

Good morning, sir. It is good to see you again.

I am delighted to see strong financial management being talked about in relation to the organisation, but within that, there are cost implications and increases. We are now looking at £1.5 million of expenditure in 2023-24, compared with £1.04 million in the past. That is quite a significant increase of more than 50 per cent over the year. We know that your workload has increased and that you are required to get rid of the backlog, as we have discussed at other committees that I have sat on, but can you explain the reasons behind the rise in costs and provide assurances that the increase, once again, represents value for money to the taxpayer?

Minister, we are well aware of the organisations and structures that have issues with the scheme. One of the biggest is the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association, which said that the scheme was

“by far the worst example of policy implementation”

that it has ever encountered. It saw it as “fragmented”, “inconsistent”, “arbitrary”, “onerous” and “costly”. Those are some of the areas that it has concerns about.

You talked about health and safety. Organisations such as the SBBA are compliant with health and safety rules already, with reference to inspection and enforcement. How do you respond to the SBBA’s analysis, which is relatively scathing about how the scheme has impacted its sector?

We have touched on councillor-on-councillor complaints, and we know that they represent about 17 per cent of the total. The committee has been looking at barriers to elected office and we have heard that female councillors face much more hostility and toxicity in the council environment. It would be good to get a flavour of whether female councillors are submitting more complaints than male councillors. Have you seen such a trend? Do you want to express your views on that?

New things.