Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next item on our agenda is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. As this is a negative instrument, the committee is not required to make any recommendations on it.

If other members have no comments on the instrument, I would just like to make one comment on an issue that has previously come before the committee—that is, planning application fees. I welcome the fact that our planning authorities might be able to recoup some of their costs through fees that better reflect things.

Does the committee agree that we do not wish to make any recommendations on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

As previously agreed, we will take the next items in private, so I close the public part of the meeting.

Before I bring in Alexander Stewart, I want to ask about the statement in your submission that

“the complaints standards function is a net benefit for ombudsmen institutions”.

I am interested to understand if you have a sense of whether that has benefited the public and whether there is any way that you could assess that.

You suggested looking at the outreach strategy and how we broaden access. I would say that language is an issue. What does “Scottish Public Services Ombudsman” mean to the many people who have never started to go through the process? Someone might know it exists, or maybe they do not and that is one part of it, but then there is all the language, which is quite inaccessible for many people.

Thank you very much. We now move to—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Peter. I did not see you there.

Thanks very much for that. It is good to hear that that work is nascent and that it exists to go along with the parallel process that Scotland is undertaking around becoming trauma-informed. I am certainly interested in hearing more from you as that develops.

That concludes our questions for you this morning. I appreciate both of you coming in and engaging with us in your work. It has been very helpful.

I now suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

Before I introduce our second panel, I note that Emma Roddick MSP is unable to join us this morning and sends her apologies.

We are joined by our second panel this morning: Paul Blaker, member, and Peter Stewart-Blacker, chairman, Accountability Scotland; Fiona Collie, head of public affairs and communication, Carers Scotland; Jan Savage, executive director, Scottish Human Rights Commission; and Adam Stachura, associate director for policy, communications and external affairs, Age Scotland.

First of all, I should point out that there is no need for you to turn your microphones on and off—we will do that for you. We will direct questions to specific witnesses where appropriate, but you are all welcome to contribute. Please indicate to the clerks or to me that you wish to do so.

I will begin the questions, the first of which is on the SPSO’s achievements and what evidence there is to support your views. The intention behind setting up the SPSO in 2002 was to establish a public sector complaints system that was open, accountable and easily accessible to all and which had the trust of the Scottish public. Therefore, the question for all of you is this: has that been achieved from your perspective, and what evidence do you have to support that view?

I will start with Jan Savage and then go across the panel, just to make things easy.

My next question is connected to the previous one. Some of the submissions that we have received have raised the issue of the SPSO’s neutrality when it looks into complaints against public bodies, and I am interested to hear about the experiences of the people whom you represent and their dealings with the SPSO. Is that perception justified?

I will not go across the panel, because everyone might not have an answer to that question. If you do wish to respond, please indicate as much.

Thank you very much for that.

The next item on our agenda is to take evidence as part of our scrutiny of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The committee will hear from the ombudsman at its meeting on 10 December. To inform that session, the committee has issued a call for views. Drawing on the responses to that call for views, the committee will hear from two panels of witnesses today.

On the first panel, we are joined by Professor Chris Gill, professor of socio-legal studies, and Professor Tom Mullen, professor of law, both from the University of Glasgow. I welcome you to the meeting. There is no need for you to turn your microphones on and off—we will do that for you. I have some initial questions and then I will bring in members with other questions.

The SPSO was set up in 2002 to provide a public sector complaints system that is open, accountable and easily accessible to all, and which has the trust of the Scottish public. I am interested to hear whether you think that that has been achieved and what your evidence is to support that view. I will start with Chris Gill and then go to Tom Mullen.