The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 443 contributions
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
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
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
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
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.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Ash Regan
Good morning. I want to move on and ask you for your thoughts on scrutiny and accountability with regard to your office. As you will be aware, that was quite a strong theme that came through in the finance committee’s inquiry, and that committee definitely had concerns about the level of scrutiny and whether it was appropriate. In your response, you have laid out the scrutiny and accountability measures that your office is subject to, but can you explain whether you consider them to be adequate? Can you suggest anything that would enhance that scrutiny and accountability?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Ash Regan
I know.
I will move on. You mentioned the Auditor General’s section 22 report and said that it rightly shone a light on the levels of scrutiny. Have all the changes that were suggested now been implemented in full?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Ash Regan
Thank you.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Ash Regan
Good morning. I want to ask about the scrutiny and accountability functions. You will know that in its report the Finance and Public Administration Committee expressed what it is fair to say were quite serious concerns about levels of scrutiny and accountability across the whole piece—not specifically in relation to the Standards Commission, but everywhere.
In your response to the committee’s call for views you said that levels are “adequate”. I put a question about that to Mr Bruce, earlier. I have reflected that “adequate” is probably quite a low bar in that regard. Could more be done? Can you suggest additional ways in which scrutiny could be enhanced to benefit both the service and the impact on the public?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Ash Regan
Can you give an example of positive benefits that have come from that implementation?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Ash Regan
So, in summary, that is about better questions from the committee, then?