Our powers to audit an organisation under our codes and the legislation relate mainly to how disclosure law is complied with. As Lorna Gibbs said, we have very few powers around the softer and more qualitative aspects of performance, but we would not abdicate responsibility in that situation. As we did with the SYFA, we would use our customer engagement team to lean in to that organisation and try to get as much intelligence as possible about what is going on.
We have really good relationships with the umbrella bodies. Volunteer Scotland is one of them, but there are many other bodies that represent smaller entities that use those bodies to countersign on disclosures. The umbrella bodies have a power relationship with those organisations; we can use those levers to try to influence what is going on.
There are also parallel parts of the Government that have an interest in that activity. For example, Active Scotland and sportscotland have an interest in respect of the SYFA. Because we are part of the Government, we can link up with them. We linked up with sportscotland and Active Scotland about the SYFA.
It is about being switched on and keeping our heads up to see the bigger picture, as well as being about the powers that we might, or might not, have. We would certainly always be assertive about leaning in to organisations in such situations, and we would never knowingly allow a situation in which a safeguard risk could build up to persist without our continually escalating it until we were satisfied that it was being dealt with.