Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 12 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 792 contributions

|

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Lorna Slater

That is very helpful. I have one last question. If we look at this from the perspective of someone who wants to make a complaint and from a the customer experience perspective, the landscape is quite complicated as to who to go to if someone wants to whistleblow, to complain about a parliamentarian and so on. We have discussed with previous witnesses the idea of having a one-stop shop for complaints as a hypothetical umbrella office of public trust. It does not matter what has gone wrong, people would have one place to go to. That organisation would combine all the supported bodies and the whistleblowing functions. All those things would be in one place. What is your view of a hypothetical one-stop shop as an office of public trust that combines some of those functions?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Lorna Slater

We are auditing audits.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Lorna Slater

Thank you very much.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Lorna Slater

You said that you do not get a lot of complaints about Parliament. We have taken evidence from the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Standards Commission for Scotland, and they told us that they get quite a lot of them. That interesting point is a large part of what we are discussing—that is, there are different places to go depending on who someone wants to complain about, but clearly there is overlap if someone can bring a complaint to more than one of those bodies.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Lorna Slater

It leads me on to my next question, which is exactly on that point. This inquiry has been prompted by a concern about proliferation of commissioners, in which there are overlaps and gaps. We need to understand the current landscape so that we can identify overlaps, gaps and inefficiencies—not to get rid of them just for the sake of efficiency but for the sake of effectiveness.

You have already made a suggestion as to how a gap in patient safety could have been filled. Are you aware of other overlaps and gaps that maybe we are not?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Lorna Slater

I would love things to get moving with Sheriffhall roundabout in whatever direction. I might write to you on that point and to ask whether facilitation could be undertaken to improve that collaboration.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Lorna Slater

It would be interesting to know whether you would be willing to come back in 18 months to 2 years, to give us an interim update.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Lorna Slater

We have heard a lot of positive evidence about the benefits of all three levels of government working together on long-term, multiyear projects. To my mind, the city region deal projects sit broadly in two categories: infrastructure or community and innovation. Both types of projects have quite different business models, impacts and delivery processes, and it might make sense to manage them in different ways, instead of lumping them together under the same scheme with the same governance. What are your thoughts are on what city region deals are for, particularly if another tranche of those deals were to be on the table? Are they best suited for infrastructure or for innovation?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Lorna Slater

Thank you. My second question is related to the ways in which the deals might not work so well, such as when projects get stuck. I am thinking specifically about the Sheriffhall roundabout project. When I speak to local councillors about the project, they say that they cannot do anything to change, fix or unstick it because it is part of the UK city region deal and the UK Government needs to do that. However, we had the Secretary for State for Scotland in to give evidence and he said that the power to make a decision to move forward or to change the project sits with the Scottish Government. There is a lot of finger pointing. That is where collaboration goes wrong—when it is always somebody else’s fault or responsibility.

The evidence that we have collected as a committee suggests that the relevant report and the decision on that project are sitting on the transport secretary’s desk. The DFM said earlier that there is no desire to hold up things, but that project has been in limbo for months and months. Does the Scottish Government have the power to make that project work or to redirect funds if it decides that it is not to go ahead? What is the hold up?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Lorna Slater

Minister, thank you for coming back to the committee. Last week, my questions were about the particular SSI on the registers. Thank you for the reassurance in your letter on the mechanisms for correction, accuracy and third-party data and for accepting that no system is perfect or free from error and that bad actors can abuse any system. I am content to support the progression of the instruments, but will the minister or his officials commit to coming back to the committee or its successor in 18 months to two years, to provide an update on how things have gone, whether the corrections procedure is working and how many people have required to use it?