Good morning. I welcome everybody to the 14th meeting in 2015 of the Education and Culture Committee. I remind all those present to ensure that all electronic devices are switched off, as they sometimes interfere with the sound system. I am sure that you are aware of that.
Our first item is to take evidence from Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. The commissioner has completed a mapping exercise that shows the scope of his new powers of investigation and he has submitted a detailed report to the committee for consideration. We will hear first from the Scottish Government about its expectation of the work that is involved for the commissioner’s office as a result of the new powers; we will then speak to the commissioner and his staff.
I was going to say that I welcome the first panel but I am not sure that one person is a panel. Philip Raines is the acting head of children’s rights and wellbeing in the Scottish Government. Good morning and thank you for attending the meeting. I will kick off the questions. How is the Government interpreting the scope or limits of the new powers that have been assigned to the commissioner under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014?
In a sense, our view has not changed since the bill was passed. The act is only a year old, and the thinking that went into it was set out in the key documents that were well rehearsed in front of you and many of your colleagues; it is there for all to see. The simplest way of putting it is that the result of all the debates about the best way of taking a rights-based approach to service delivery was a widespread recognition that embedding or hard-wiring it into the role of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People through a revision of the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003 would capture that aim, particularly in respect of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It has always been recognised that a rights-based landscape would be complex and that it would be challenging for the commissioner’s office—and, indeed, all the complaints bodies—to work out whose role would be most appropriate in this respect, particularly when it came to duplication. However, we have recognised that having the office as a way of ensuring a comprehensive approach to dealing with—if you will—challenges that might be made with regard to children’s rights is an approach that we and many stakeholders would value.
A theme that came up in the discussions during the passage of the 2014 act has emerged more strongly over the year and in the commissioner’s report—indeed, I think that the subject was highlighted in the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman’s submission to the committee on the bill—is that there appears to be a significant issue around children and young people being part of the complaints landscape. It has been recognised that challenges have arisen in that respect and, in addition to the value that we continue to see in part 2 of the 2014 act, we feel that there is a benefit in having the commissioner’s office help children and young people to make the best use of the existing complaints landscape. The other complaints bodies seem to have acknowledged that and, as I have said, I think that the point comes out strongly in the commissioner’s report.
In response, therefore, to your question about the scope of the powers and the direction in which we wish the legislative duties to be taken, there is an added benefit in the role that the commissioner’s office could play in what I would call enhanced signposting to support the existing complaints bodies.
I am interested in your comment about signposting a young person to perhaps more appropriate places to take their case. I was going to use the word “gatekeeper”, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate in this context. When we wrote to you at the time—I cannot remember whether it was you personally, Mr Raines; I do not think so—the Government wrote back, saying:
“We would therefore not foresee there being a role for the Commissioner to have extensive, ongoing involvement in a case prior to local processes being exhausted”.
How does what you have said about the role that the commissioner could play in the early stages of a case fit with what was said in the letter that you sent us either earlier in the year or last year?
The key thing is to get involved in the processes. Once they kick in, it is absolutely right that they be allowed to proceed. Any confusion in that respect would make the landscape even more complicated.
That said, there seems to be an issue about awareness of those processes, how they are worked through and how we enable children and young people and, presumably, their families to get full value from them. Over the course of the year, it has become even more apparent that the commissioner’s office can play a role in helping with that.
I do not necessarily think that that means getting involved in the processes themselves, and we would still hold to what was written to the committee at the time. It is a matter of appreciating and being more mindful of the work that goes on before that stage. It is in the nature of legislation and new duties that, as we get further into something, we begin to appreciate that some elements might require more consideration and thinking through. Indeed, additional value and benefits that were perhaps not wholly apparent at the time might come out of the duties. The ability to get into the complaints processes is worth acknowledging.
09:45
Forgive me—I am new to this. I have read the report, and I think that it is very good, but I am concerned about what you have just said about the legislation and the need to understand the changes. How much effort went into considering not just the processes but the organisation and how the whole thing would flow before the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was brought before the legislature? I am concerned when officials come here saying, “Here’s the legislation.” We accept that there will be fundamental changes, but I have to question what processes you and the various other bodies went through to ensure that the landscape was not complicated and that things were as easy as possible.
We went through a very thorough process.
So why is the landscape complicated?
The landscape was complicated coming into this process because of the nature of the different bodies and their existing roles. That was the case well before the 2014 act and it is one of the reasons for part 2 of the act. In part, it was a matter of considering whether there were ways of ensuring that, amid all the complexity, children’s rights were being addressed systematically across all the areas where you would want them to be picked up.
As part of that, we had to do some very thorough work on the financial memorandum to work out what the commissioner’s office might have to do and what resources it might require. That required some extensive liaison with the other complaints bodies, not least the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. It was also a question of seeing how it was done in the other nations of the United Kingdom, particularly Wales and Northern Ireland.
How many other complaints bodies did you consider that made you feel that there might have been a better way of doing things?
I would have to go back and check with colleagues about the specific discussions because I was not at them. I had overall responsibility for the bill team that worked on the legislation that was going through Parliament and all the reports that I heard at the time gave no sense that there might be other ways of doing things. There was a recognition that every nation in the UK would have its own distinctive legal and complaints landscape and that what works in England, Wales or Northern Ireland should not be replicated wholesale in the other nations. It was recognised that the children’s commissioners could have a powerful role in other nations.
We have a different landscape here, and we thought long and hard about how the Scottish commissioner’s role would translate in relation to the proposals. Indeed, the drafting was well discussed, not least as we went through stage 2. We recognised that there was a very powerful role to be had, but that it would need some careful thinking, which was done.
I agree with that. The question has not been answered, however. We are still maintaining all the other complaints bodies. When the overall process was being examined, were all the other bodies deemed to be necessary? Given the children’s commissioner’s powerful position—which he should have—why did we not consider embracing some of the other complaints bodies within fewer organisations?
That would have swept up a much wider revision or reform of the complaints landscape, which would have gone well beyond what the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was envisaged to do.
As part of the work that was done in assembling material for the report, I was involved in a conference call with colleagues in the Children’s Commissioner for Wales’s office and a number of other colleagues elsewhere about how complaints procedures are handled in other parts of the UK. What struck me about what happens in Wales is that although there are formal roles that must be respected and it is necessary to have a clear memorandum of understanding in order to proceed, there is a spirit of co-operation—a feeling that because everyone shares the same goals, relationship building is key.
I found that fascinating, and I hope that that sort of attitude lies at the heart of our work on how the complaints procedure should apply to children and young people and to children’s rights. We should not rely wholly on clear legal definitions and memoranda of understanding because, although they are essential, it is the relationship that is important. The feeling that is embodied in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 is that relationship building remains very important.
We will come back to that.
In reading the 90-page report, the 18-page summary and all the other documents that it has taken the children’s commissioner seven months to complete, I was surprised to learn that the commissioner had hired the services of senior counsel—which do not come cheap—to interpret words and clauses in the bill. The committee has no access to senior counsel but, as an economist, I know that another economist could totally disagree with my interpretation. Our justice system thrives on senior counsel, lawyers and judges interpreting legislation in quite different ways. With the best will in the world, there is always a degree of ambiguity, despite everyone’s best efforts.
Having read the senior counsel’s interpretation, are you of the view that that single interpretation—we have nothing to compare it with—is accurate?
You will not be surprised to hear me say that I will not be commenting on the legal opinion that has been taken by the commissioner’s office. The Scottish Government has its own legal opinion, which deeply informed the way in which part 2 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was cast, the way in which we shepherded it through Parliament and our expectations around it. That is the view that we hold.
To be honest, I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me to comment on another legal view. Like you, I have an economic background and, as an economist, I would be wary of wandering into other professionals’ territory.
Indeed. I am glad that you said that. That is my issue. I respect the fact that you cannot comment. As an economist rather than a lawyer, I find it difficult to comment on what the report says in that regard, and I am sure that you understand that.
I am at a disadvantage, because I was not a member of the committee during the consultation stage or stages 1, 2 and 3 of the consideration of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill—my colleague Liz Smith followed that process through. I want to ask about the named person, mention of which is buried away on page 46 of the commissioner’s 90-page report. It says:
“It is also worth highlighting that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 gives Ministers powers to introduce new complaints procedures by regulations relating to the Named Person (Part 4, s. 30) and the Child’s Plan (Part 5, s. 43). This will be consulted upon in summer 2015.”
I respect and welcome the fact that that will be consulted on. From what you said in your response to Chic Brodie and from the report—every page of which I have read—it is clear that the complaints procedure landscape is undoubtedly complex and cluttered, and that it involves various organisations.
The named person has hardly been mentioned. You are about to consult on the complaints procedure for the named person. During that consultation, would it not be wise for you to look at the investigatory powers for complaints for the children’s commissioner? Given that the Government is carrying out a consultation exercise—which I welcome—I cannot understand why we have to make a decision today about one part of the 2014 act when you are about to consult on the complaints procedure for a different part of the same act. Would it not be wise to carry out one consultation exercise to see where the children’s commissioner fits in and where the named person fits in? In all the documents, there is no mention of the named person.
There was quite a lot there, so let me see whether I can unpack it succinctly.
I am trying to understand it as well; I hope that you appreciate that.
I do. I just hope that I can explain as succinctly as possible, and I apologise if it is too succinct.
First, there is no consultation—and as the Scottish Government we have no remit to consult—on the part 2 powers.
Do you mean for the commissioner?
Yes, for the commissioner. That is a duty that falls upon the commissioner. It would be inappropriate for the Government to be able to say that it will consult on how the commissioner should fulfil its duties. Those powers are not in the 2014 act, and it is difficult to imagine how we could do that on a formal basis. That is a straight-up answer.
More deeply, the complaints procedures in parts 4 and 5 of the 2014 act are essential because they deal with the new responsibility that will fall in the main on local authorities for kids from the age of five upwards and on health boards for kids up to the age of five. That is to do with the specific functions and responsibilities that come out of parts 4 and 5, which are to do with the named person and the child’s plan.
That is quite different, I would argue, from what the commissioner is being charged to do under part 2. The commissioner does not have a formal role under part 2 with respect to the way in which parts 4 and 5—on the named person and the child’s plan—work.
There is no overlap there. You have not consulted yet.
I guess that the overlap would be in the theme that runs through the whole of the legislation, which is to say that we would wish for all the different functions—all the different parts of the act—to be carried on in a way that is wholly consistent with children’s rights.
We wanted the UNCRC to permeate the legislation. We very much wanted it to take a rights-based approach. When we were thinking about parts 4 and 5, we wanted them to be carried forward in a way that recognises children’s rights. I can assure you that, when we consult on the complaints procedure for parts 4 and 5 over the summer, we hope that it is transparent and that the children’s rights approach permeates the philosophy.
The complaints procedure that is dealt with in part 2 of the 2014 act has a distinctive role. It sits above, for example, the procedure for complaints that may sit against how a teacher, a health visitor or a social worker may carry out their role. Complaints about the named person are also akin to that way of thinking about the complaints process—how a particular service should be provided to a child, a young person or a family, as opposed to something more overarching, which is what part 2 is trying to capture.
You make a very important point, which is that in coming out with the complaints procedure—indeed, in thinking about all the different parts of the act—it is incumbent upon all the people for whom there are duties to show how those different provisions work together. Although they are distinct, and were designed to be distinct and to serve particular functions, it is important for us to show, not least to children, young people and families, how those different functions fit together.
Your question reinforces how important it is that, when we consult on the complaints procedures, we absolutely make it clear how they fit in and how they are distinctive from other parts of the complaints landscape, as well as other parts of the legislation that they may touch upon.
I am still struggling to understand one example that would justify the investigatory powers. The closest that I got to it would be social work, yet you say that social work complaints would be covered under the named person legislation.
10:00
No—I apologise if I was not clear.
I probably did not understand, but you mentioned social work.
I did. I also mentioned teachers and health visitors. I was suggesting that complaints procedures for the named person and the child’s plan are similar to those for complaints that someone might wish to make about any professional or service that is provided by a local authority or health board. That could mean social work, health—it could be anything. It is about a distinct service that local authorities and health boards have a responsibility to provide—the 2014 act states that they must provide a named person and, where appropriate, a child’s plan. The complaints procedure will be similar to the way in which other sorts of issues are addressed. We need to work out the detail, but it is that kind of thing. The complaints procedure that I set out for the SCCYP is more overarching. It sits above that and deals more specifically with children’s rights.
Okay. I do not want to take up too much time, so although I have many questions, I will ask my final one. I have read comments from the SPSO, the Care Inspectorate, the SHRC, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the Scottish Information Commissioner, and the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and, as you said in your response to Chic Brodie, there is no doubt of their willingness to work together. As the Care Inspectorate said, there is “clearly an overlap” and the Information Commissioner stated that in all the reports there is very little mention of working together—the convener also said that.
The Information Commissioner described the nature of the complaints as “unpredictable and undefinable”, and was concerned that the proposed methodology is
“too simplistic and in some cases ... unworkable.”
The ombudsman stated:
“I would not consider it appropriate to comment on the interpretation of another officer holder of their own legislation.”
I read that carefully because I was waiting for someone to say, “We don’t deal with this; we really need a complete new body, such as the children’s commissioner, to do this because we can’t do it.” Instead, I read of overlap and willingness to work together. I also read about the difficulties of working together—I think that the Information Commissioner said that some information cannot be shared. There is the duty to co-operate, while others have restrictions placed on them. All I heard was difficulties, and after 90 pages, seven months, summary documents and information, I am still struggling to understand what complaints we are turning away just now. What is happening out there to children who are making complaints and being turned away? They are not being served by our current system. I have read all that, and I still do not get it. Perhaps you could tell me.
You may wish to put that question to Mr Baillie. It is his report.
I thought that I would try with you first.
I guess that it is always good to have two bites of the cherry. My sense from the report is that a complex landscape was inherited under the legislation.
They all say that.
Having spoken to many of the individuals involved, my sense is that, as you say, there is huge willingness to work together, and recognition of the value that could be played, perhaps in an informal way—you mentioned enhanced signposting—by working together to help kids and young people to get into the system.
But there is a big difference between signposting and investigatory powers. Signposting I understand, but investigatory powers are very different.
No, I understand, and I was coming to that.
They are two different beasts.
My sense, from the report, is that there are clearly areas set out in which it appears that the commissioner’s office is able to step into a role when it is not readily identifiable that anyone else would. An example is given of informal exclusion from school, I believe.
A named person?
I do not think that it is that one.
No, but would a named person not be involved in an exclusion from school, along with a social worker?
They might well be, but if we are talking about the compliance side—
I think that it would be obligatory.
I am not sure that the named person would be responsible for the complaints. We are talking about a situation in which a complaint may be made against whoever is the responsible authority.
If a child is excluded from school, my understanding is that the named person would get involved right away.
To resolve it, yes.
It would be their responsibility to go to the family and to social work, to see what is happening and to try to sort it out.
Absolutely, and that would be the way of resolving the issue. I suggest—
That is not a clear example.
I guess that the suggestion is that, if it was not resolved, and if the work of anyone involved with the school or the local authority did not resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the child or young person or their family, there is no way to deal with that sense of dissatisfaction. That is an example that you may wish to ask Mr Baillie about in more detail. There appear to be examples in the SCCYP report of sectors and areas in which, at least with regard to children’s rights, there does not seem to be a clear locus or responsibility for any of the existing complaints bodies to take such issues forward. I can certainly see that there are things that the office of the commissioner could take forward. The full scope of that is something to be explored further.
Well—
I am sorry, but other members want to come in. I am sure that Mary Scanlon will have further opportunities later.
I apologise for being slightly late, convener.
In looking at the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill that became the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, I am reminded of two of our recommendations. One was:
“We expect all parties to be clear about the interpretation of the Commissioner’s new powers and suggest that, if necessary, the Bill should be amended to ensure this.”
The report also said:
“We recommend that the Scottish Government gives further consideration to the volume and type of work that any extra enquiries will require.”
In response to those recommendations, the Government assured us that, in effect, that part of the bill was clear and the financial estimates were fair. I am paraphrasing, but that was the gist of its response. Given that we have now had a number of months of a fairly comprehensive mapping exercise and there are still questions about those areas, was the Scottish Government justified in the assurances that it gave us in response to the stage 1 report?
We gave you the assurance that, in so far as any of that work will be calculated and worked out in advance, we had made every effort to exhaust the assessments of the likely volume and nature of the work. Inevitably with such things, there is always a recognition that further work will be needed from the commissioner’s office, working closely with the other complaints bodies.
I see the report as a significant step forward. I presume that the final detail will come forward in the memoranda of understanding that will be needed and which are recognised across the board as necessary. We might then need to see what demand there is; that will depend on the types of complaints that are made and how they are dealt with. At the moment, there is nothing that would change the fundamental assumptions that went into the financial memorandum.
You have reiterated points that were made in the Government’s response—that there would be an on-going process of keeping things under review and discussions between various participants—which is not unreasonable. However, the committee and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, of which I am a member, have a specific request from the commissioner about the capacity requirements to deal with the increased workload, and I still do not have a clear understanding—I do not think that anybody is claiming to have a clear understanding—of what that workload is likely to be. We are therefore in the invidious position of trying to determine whether the proposals relating to the capacity requirements of the commissioner’s office meet the expected workload requirements that arise from the act.
It is obviously for the committee and the office to decide how best to resource the office in the circumstances. I imagine that it will not be the first time that resources have to an extent been demand led, and how that demand can be predicted might not be clear. A degree of caution, wariness and close monitoring of how the resources are doled out over a year—or even several years—may therefore be necessary.
That does not sound different from the way in which some such functions are carried out when there cannot be precise estimates of demand. When the SPSO’s office was ramping up in its initial days, I am sure that we could not have predicted how complaints would evolve.
In a sense, that would argue for a staged approach that says, “We’ll see how this works in practice.” The capacity requirements of the SCCYP’s office might increase over time, but it does not necessarily make a great deal of sense to put in resource in anticipation of potential demand some years down the line. That might risk putting in place resource that seeks to justify its existence by going out and disrupting the ecosystem of MOUs and collaborative working with other stakeholders.
The decision is clearly for the committee and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. It sounds as if this is not an unusual situation—there is a body that cannot make an exact and final estimate of what the demand will be over a period of years. There are well-understood principles for how to resource and monitor that situation in a way that would give the body comfort that it will be able to fulfil its obligations and give funders comfort that they have not given away resources that should not have been given away.
I will return to some of the points that Mary Scanlon raised. If I understood you correctly, you suggested that there might be scope for signposting. According to the 2003 act, a restriction on the power to investigate is that
“the investigation would not duplicate work that is properly the function of another person.”
Mary Scanlon went through many of the concerns of other organisations about duplication. The commissioner’s submission to the SPCB on the implications of part 2 of the 2014 act describes one proposed position as
“Head of Complaints and Investigations”,
one of whose key tasks is
“To lead investigations which arise from complaints received by the office”.
Another position is that of caseworker, part of whose job description is
“To assist the Head of Complaints and Investigations in the execution of formal investigations”.
The finances part of the submission contains a budget—I hasten to add that it is very small—for “Expert Advice”. Does that sound like an organisation that is being created to act as a signposting organisation or an organisation that will go into the minefield of duplication?
I suggest that it is neither. I do not wish to comment on the resources that the office requests. We set out in the financial memorandum what we thought the costs would be. It refers to three additional full-time equivalent staff and describes what we thought their roles might be. That is for an organisation that will be conducting investigations, doing the preparatory work for the investigations and determining what is appropriate to take forward as an investigation—in other words, non-duplication. It will also be dealing with the interest and demand that will come into the organisation from people who wish to complain; the commissioner’s office will have to work out what sits with it and what sits elsewhere.
I suggest that it is not a signposting organisation or an organisation that is seeking to duplicate. As we envisage it in the financial memorandum, it is a body that does all the necessary functions to fulfil the duties under the legislation.
10:15
The difficulty is that the Scottish Information Commissioner says:
“For some organisations (including mine) there are restrictions on what we can share with whom. For us these restrictions are such that they create a criminal offence and cannot be overcome by a Memorandum of Understanding.”
How can you create a third investigative body that cannot get any information from one organisation because that would be a criminal offence?
I presume that any memorandum of understanding, or whatever the document was called, would need to take full account of what the Information Commissioner’s office can do, at least with respect to issues that might involve criminal offences. That would just become part of the landscape that needed to be mapped out and understood before any work was undertaken.
I assume that some such issues must have arisen in the existing landscape before the 2014 act was passed. The four bodies must have bumped up against each other, if I can put it that way, so some issues that are being raised, such as the need to have clear lines of understanding, cannot be novel to them. They must have addressed those issues and found formal and informal ways of working their way through them.
Although there is a new set of issues and a new body needs to be part of that landscape, I am not sure that the process of adjusting to that landscape is novel. Other bodies will have had to do that in the past.
Practically everybody has been discussing the boundaries and where there might be overlaps and so on. The report does not deal an awful lot with where collaboration and co-operation could come in. The landscape out there is complex—that has been repeated again and again. Is it not a huge task to reconcile all the boundaries, overlays, collaborations and co-operations?
The task seems to have been done in other parts of the United Kingdom. As I said, I was struck by the spirit of co-operation and the strong relationships that have been developed elsewhere, whereby people work with each other with respect for and recognition of where the expertise lies. They manage to find ways through the process that seem to ease the administrative burden, not add to the complexity. Whether the way in which they manage to do that can be replicated in Scotland is something that we will all have to look to the complaints bodies and the commissioner’s office to demonstrate.
From the discussions that I have had with those bodies, I understand that there is very much the same spirit of co-operation. It has permeated many of the responses that the committee has received and it lies behind some of Mr Baillie’s comments. If it has not come out in the report as much as it might have done, that is maybe something to pick up with him. You might want to ask him how that co-operation might work in practice.
Is the landscape in Scotland any more complex than that elsewhere?
I do not know. Every area will probably lay claim to its own complexity and the idiosyncrasies of its system or what have you. I am a great believer that, if everyone remains focused on the ultimate goal—to ensure that children and young people are done right by the services that are there for them and that we provide the right supports and safety nets to ensure that, when that is not taking place or is perceived not to be taking place, they can get the redress that they should have—they will find a way. They seem to have found a way in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I see no reason why we should not remain optimistic that that can be done here.
A number of overlaps have been identified, and the idea is that the children’s commissioner should not duplicate. However, on page 6 of the summary report, the commissioner highlights the opinion of counsel that the other person or entity does not have to exercise the power that is duplicated; their merely having it precludes the commissioner from exercising that power. That could severely constrain what the commissioner can do, given the sheer number of overlaps that exist and the fact that all the boundaries still have to be negotiated.
Where are we going on this? Will we end up with a commissioner who does not have the powers that we think he has because they are at least partially duplicated elsewhere and, if the other party is not exercising those powers, the commissioner will be unable to do anything about it?
Ultimately, that would be a comment on the legal opinion that was received. I am not in a position, and it would not be appropriate for me, to—
I am more concerned about the results of that legal opinion than about the legal opinion itself.
I guess that the position will come out in how the commissioner chooses to take forward the duties, how the other bodies act and the relationships that they come to. As I said, if there is the will and the spirit of co-operation, they should be able to operate in a way that enhances the landscape rather than detracts from it.
Thank you for appearing before the committee. I will suspend the meeting briefly so that we can change witnesses.
10:20 Meeting suspended.
I welcome to the committee Tam Baillie, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, and his staff Pauline McIntyre and Nico Juetten. It is good to see all of you this morning. We will go straight to questions, starting with Siobhan McMahon.
Children and young people do not currently use the complaints systems. How on earth will that change? I did not get a sense of that from your 90-page report. I got a sense of what you hope to do and the procedure, but how will that particular situation change for young people?
I will answer that quickly and then hand over to Pauline McIntyre to comment on the operation of the model.
Having taken soundings from children and young people, I can say that you are right—they do not use complaint systems. Part of the reason is that they do not think that they will be listened to or taken seriously. That is why our national scrutiny bodies, which you have been discussing this morning, do not see children and young people—they do not even get past the local processes.
Our job will be to receive complaints from young people and to assist them through the process. We are well used to dealing with children and young people. Our office has a lot of engagement with them, and I am sure that we will be able to set the office up in a child-friendly manner that will attract those children and young people or those who represent them.
Having listened to the previous evidence-taking session, I would say that this is really about opportunities for children and young people. We have talked a lot about some of the barriers and the difficulties with regard to duplication, but our take on it is that children and young people often have a valid reason to complain but do not know where to go. The complaints bodies that we have talked to and the regulators have been clear that although they would welcome such complaints they do not receive them.
We are looking to provide a centre where children and young people can come and know that we will support them in bringing their complaint to the appropriate body. That is the approach that we are taking. One thing that came out of the discussions with children and young people as well as with practitioners is that children and young people can be quite intimidated by the idea of bringing a complaint, particularly if it is about someone with whom they have regular dealings such as a teacher, a social worker or a case worker, and they often weigh up the impact of making the complaint against the value of bringing it. We would be able to help with that by bringing a child-friendly feel to the complaints process. The flipside is that we would also be able to help the other bodies by working with them to ensure that their approaches are child-friendly and that the response that the child or young person receives when they make their complaint is appropriate to them.
You have said that children do not know where to go, which is, I think, something that everyone will acknowledge. How will that change? We can put in place all the procedures and policies we like to allow a young person to complain, but how will things change if they do not know where to turn? How are we getting the information out there?
Our office has work to do on letting children and young people know about our role and how we operate, and we also need to do a lot of work to link with local organisations that work with children and young people, to use general publicity and to target particular groups that are finding it more difficult to complain. For example, practitioners have told us that asylum-seeking children find it difficult to navigate the complaints landscape. Younger children also find it difficult, as do children with learning disabilities and other groups of children and young people.
What I am talking about is a dual approach. We would take a general approach to publicising the office’s work and what we can do to help while targeting particular groups of people who find it more difficult than others to complain.
In an earlier discussion, my colleague Chic Brodie said that you have to get it right now, because if you do not, when the young people involved become adults, they will already have had the experience of being let down. We have only to look at the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s response to the legal opinion that you have received and how, if it decides not to investigate a complaint, the SCCYP does not have the power to take up that investigation. Do you not think that, if a child asks you to investigate a case, they will be let down at that point?
You are referring to the part of the legal opinion cited earlier that says that another person’s function, rather than the action, would exclude the SCCYP. There will be situations in which another body has the function to investigate a child’s complaint but, for its own reasons, it will not take that action. That will pose challenges to that child and, potentially, to the credibility of our complaints system.
It is a communications challenge as much as anything else. Decisions must be explained properly to children and young people, along with what they can expect from each process, and any gaps that there might be in the system in that respect need to be addressed.
I am not sure that I agree that we are talking about a communications problem. On page 51 of the SCCYP report, the EHRC says:
“You cannot duplicate the work that is properly the function of another body – even if we decide not to undertake an investigation. I think your remit is narrow.”
Moreover, the Scottish Information Commissioner has talked about the law being broken and has said that that matter could not be addressed through a memorandum of understanding. The point is that the SCCYP would simply not be able to do these things. If a child who had not come to you in the past because they did not know where to go were to come to you now with a complaint, how would you respond to them? Would you say, “We cannot deal with that because the Information Commissioner will not give us the information”, or would you try to circumvent that somehow? That does not come across in your report, and we are stuck with the situation in which children and young people are not using the complaints procedure.
It does not matter whether a complaints process is local or national; they all have limitations. The Scottish Information Commissioner is referring to specific limitations under freedom of information legislation, indicating that, in certain cases, she would be obliged not to share information, because it would be breaking the law. However, she also says that there is still scope for using a memorandum of understanding. She is not talking about all cases and she does not exclude working arrangements being put in place with her office.
For me, the key point is that the landscape is very complicated; indeed, everybody accepts that. Given how complicated we find it, how much more complicated do our children and young people find it when, eventually, they feel confident enough to want to complain about an issue? They will need a lot of assistance.
Part of our response will be to help them through that, particularly at a local level, because children and young people do not even get past local complaints processes. That is why they do not figure in the complaints processes of our national scrutiny organisations—they do not get to that stage. Children are looking for some kind of resolution that does not compromise them with people whom they have regular dealings with.
So you are saying that they will get to that stage.
10:30
They might. The two outcomes of the bulk of the office’s activity will be either resolution without the matter going through any complaints process—because people will have the opportunity to take a second look at it—or assisting children to navigate local complaints processes. Inevitably, some of those complaints will reach the national bodies. We are not looking to generate an industry of complaints; we want to get resolution for children and young people who feel that, in some shape or form, their rights, interests or views have not been properly taken into account.
You will have heard my question earlier to Mr Raines about the complicated landscape. I am a simple person, and I look at how we can get outcomes simply. We have heard about encouraging children to complain, but who actually owns the outcome of the complaint, given the complicated landscape, which is what I would call bureaucratic bunkum? How do we get through that? Who owns the complaint and who resolves it? I am sure that there could be co-operation but, through the whole dark tunnel of communication—the communication challenge that has been mentioned—who answers the children’s questions and resolves them? Who has the authority to do that?
That gets to the nub of the issue, which is how complicated matters are. In the Scottish Information Commissioner’s response to the committee, she outlined a complaint about social work and said:
“This complaint would potentially overlap with (and this is illustrative not comprehensive) the Local Authority (a complaint has to go to them before it can go to the SPSO), the SPSO, the Scottish Information Commissioner, the UK Information Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner.”
Because of the complicated landscape, ownership, as you describe it, is located in a number of places, depending on the details of the complaint. I would say that the person who owns the complaint is the young person who wants some resolution. Any number of people or bodies could have responsibility for that.
The Scottish Information Commissioner goes on to say that we have not paid sufficient attention to the early stages of complaint resolution. That might sound like a criticism, but it is helpful. However, I think that the bulk of the activity that we will be involved in is in the early stages, before matters get anywhere near investigation. It is because of the landscape’s complex nature that we need specialist and knowledgeable staff to tackle the issue. Indeed, that comment was made frequently to us by a number of bodies.
I understand that, and I appreciate your answer. I have no doubt that there will be co-operation. I am sure that my objective is yours, too, and I applaud the report, which is helpful—I was not a member of the committee when the previous one was produced. Children have to be encouraged to bring complaints. However, I am trying to find out who at the end of the day is responsible in this huge bureaucratic landscape. I know that you have to call on experts, but I am still not clear. We have heard about conference calls, talking to Wales and what have you. What evidence do you have from the wider international landscape on how the objectives that I seek are being addressed?
If a complaint comes to us, we will take the responsibility of seeking to give best advice. Enhanced signposting has been mentioned; that is an awful lot more than just pointing a young person or family in the direction of a particular body. We will take responsibility for contacting bodies and ensuring that, if the issue is another body’s responsibility, it is taken seriously and is passed on in a way that facilitates the resolution for the child or young person. The experience of those other bodies is that the involvement of the commissioner’s office generates or facilitates a resolution in itself, because in most cases, the organisations want a resolution that is in the best interests of the young person, not complaints.
And what about bodies in other countries?
There are many ombudspersons in Europe who have that sort of case-handling responsibility. Our Nordic colleagues are facing the same criticism from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that the UK faces, which is that commissioners do not handle individual cases. In fact, we are in consultation with them, because they are very interested in developing case-handling responsibility.
My direction of travel is towards ensuring that the majority of ombudspersons and children’s commissioners have case-handling responsibility. We have lots of models to draw on in that respect, but we used comparisons with Wales and Northern Ireland, because they are closest to our jurisdiction and are under the UK’s jurisdiction. Commissioners here and in England do not have case-handling responsibility, which is a particular issue in England because of its huge size.
That seems at least a step forward with regard to the question of who has the responsibility for this. Thank you.
Before I bring in Colin Beattie, can you clear something up for me, Mr Baillie? This issue has come up previously and, having listened to you carefully, I think that it has come up again this morning.
You said that you would help young people through the process, and I think that you also said that you would help them mediate through the process. I am asking about this because I want to clear something up, which is that those kinds of phrase were used with regard to the commissioner’s role back at stage 1 consideration of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill and we asked the Government about that at the time. I will read out again the Government letter that I read out earlier, which clarified the Government’s position on the matter. It said:
“We would therefore not foresee there being a role for the Commissioner to have extensive, ongoing involvement in a case prior to local processes being exhausted and it is not our view that the Commissioner should take on any mediation-type role.”
That statement was backed up the Minister for Children and Young People, Aileen Campbell, when she appeared before the committee.
I am just trying to understand your position, Mr Baillie. You say that you will help young people through the process and help them mediate it, and the Government says that you will not have a “mediation-type role”. Is there a problem with that?
No, but I think that it might be helpful to talk through some of the examples, because the clarity of our actions has come up again this morning. I think that it might be helpful to talk through the three examples in the final chapter of the report, for which I think we gave quite a detailed description.
I am happy to do that but, before that, I would like a relatively simple answer as to whether you believe that your powers allow you to be involved in a “mediation-type role”—I think that you referred to mediation through the process. I am trying to understand that aspect. I know that you want to use the examples, but is it the case that, in principle, you would be involved in that mediation?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that I used the word “mediation”, and I feel that—
I thought that you said earlier that you would mediate through the process, and later on you said that you would “help them through” the process.
Did I? I stand corrected if I did.
We will double-check with the Official Report afterwards.
I will stand corrected. However, I think that it would be helpful to look at the examples. I do not see any issue with us being involved in a case to assist the young person in getting involved in local complaints processes, but I think that that is what your question is about.
My recollection is the same as the convener’s on this, although in today’s briefing paper there is a quote from Aileen Campbell from the committee meeting of 17 December 2013 in which she confirms the point about exhausting local dispute resolution processes but goes on to say:
“However, once those processes have been exhausted, we would not want to prevent the commissioner from mediating on an issue where such a course of action was likely to result in a matter being resolved more quickly and effectively than could perhaps be achieved with a full investigation.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 December 2013; c 3174.]
Yes, but that refers to what might happen after the “processes have been exhausted”.
Indeed. However, I think that the word “mediation” has been used at different stages in relation to different aspects of the process and I am not sure that it gives much more clarity. The Government has probably used the word in different contexts as well, which is not helpful.
And used it in different ways.
I do not want to get into an argument with Mr McArthur. The question that I am asking is about mediation in the early stages—in other words, mediation in the local processes—as opposed to mediation once the local processes have been exhausted, which is what Aileen Campbell was talking about, at which point she said that there might be a role for the commissioner to play. Those are two separate things. Would you mediate in the local processes?
We would assist youngsters through that. If I used the word “mediation”—
Let us forget the word “mediation”. Would you be involved at that point?
Absolutely. We would want to assist youngsters in accessing those local processes, because that is a major gap in our system. Young people and children do not use those processes, because they do not feel listened to or they do not want to escalate the situation. What they want is some resolution to their situation.
At the moment, is there anything to prevent you from assisting a young person in taking their complaint through the local processes?
Are you talking about our current powers?
Yes.
We do not have an end point on that, which would be—
That is not my question. If a young person came to you and said, “I think I’ve got a complaint about something to do with my local authority,” could you assist them in the way that you have described?
In a limited way. We would not have any capacity to ask the local authority about the specifics of the case, because we do not have individual case-handling responsibility. We are specifically debarred from that under the 2003 act.
I do not want to get picky, but there is a difference between assisting a young person and having responsibility for handling their case. You are not supposed to get involved in the early stages, according to the quote from the Government that I read out. I am trying to understand whether you are involved in assisting young people by saying, “Here’s how you take forward a complaint—this is the way you do it.” That would be perfectly understandable, but the Government seems to be quite clear that its interpretation of the legislation is that you do not have a role to play in the early stages of the process.
As things stand under the 2003 act, and as they will stand under the 2014 act, we cannot duplicate an activity that is the responsibility of another body. That is why we would try to get the young person to use those other bodies. Essentially, the first port of call would be local processes.
I hope that that answers your question. I am trying to be as clear as I can be.
Let us consider the examples and see whether that helps.
Before we look at the examples, I would like to make an additional point. The issue is about the level of support that we provide to a child or young person.
That is what I am trying to get at.
If a child or young person brought an issue to the office, of course we would try to direct them to the right process, but currently we do not have the set-up to enable us to do that in the way we would like to do it—in a way we think is child and young person friendly. It is not so much that we would want to mediate on behalf of the child or young person—I think that that is a bit of a misnomer; it is a case of supporting that child or young person to access local processes. In doing that, we might, for example, find a local advocacy support worker who could work with that child or young person. We might find that another support agency could support that child or young person on the ground.
It is a case of ensuring that, as we transfer a child or young person to the complaints process, they are in the right place and have the support that they need, and that the other body is prepared to deal with that child or young person in an appropriate way—in other words, it must know about the particular needs of that child or young person. We are talking about taking a holistic approach to such situations. At the moment, we are quite restricted in that we do not have the staff to enable us to take that in-depth approach, which we think is the most child-friendly way of approaching things.
I was going to leave the issue there until you said that you do not have the resources to take an “in-depth approach”. That is where my concern lies. You are right that the issue is about the level of involvement. Fundamentally, that is what my question is about. My interpretation is that you are not supposed to carry out “in-depth” work at that point.
It is not in depth in the sense that we would become actively involved in the case; it is in depth in the sense that we would be able to take the time to identify the most appropriate support for that child or young person. We are not talking about being actively involved in such cases; we simply want to be able to identify the right support and which route to send the child or young person down.
Okay—thank you.
Colin MacDonald is next—I am sorry; I meant to say Colin Beattie.
We have the same hairstyle.
You just look the same, guys.
I am not sure whether to take that as a compliment.
We might need some dispute resolution.
I apologise.
10:45
Let me return to the boundaries and so on. According to the specifications, your powers are rights based and investigatory. The concern is whether there are overlaps or duplication and so on. As your counsel stated, if some other person has any of that power to any great degree—whether or not they choose to exercise it—that would exclude the commissioner from taking action on the case. If you felt that something needed to be addressed, but another body with the power to address it was, for some reason, not going to do so, how would you deal with that?
You are right to point out the narrowing scope of the exercise of our power because of the wide-ranging implication of the non-duplication requirement—that is one reason why the estimated number of investigations comes in so low at one to four. We will develop relationships with those other bodies—we have already been doing that during the mapping exercise—and we would certainly want to seek some reasoning or rationale for why that body was not dealing with a particular complaint or issue.
A memorandum of understanding could not possibly envisage the variety of cases that might come forward; there would have to be a resolution.
A memorandum of understanding would not necessarily cover the range and variety of cases that are likely to come through. The memorandum of understanding will set a framework, but some of it will be about the custom and practice that we establish with the other bodies that we operate with.
Clearly, the memorandum of understanding will be quite important, but what happens if there is a dispute between you and another body, either in the course of producing the memorandum of understanding or subsequent to it? Who would adjudicate? How would it be resolved?
Before I bring Nico Juetten in on that, I say that my sense is that the relationships that we have been establishing with the other bodies have been very co-operative. You have seen that and they have been cited; the other bodies are in agreement on establishing a memorandum of understanding. We are an established office and I think that people will be professional in dealing with that. People are of a mind that they want this to work, rather than have disputes. Inevitably, some people will have differences of opinion, but let me put on the record that I am absolutely confident that we will be able to work through those. I say that on the basis of our experience of putting together this report and looking at the implications of what is a complicated exercise. The level of goodwill has been very high and I have no reason to doubt that that will continue.
Just to echo that, assuming that any kind of dispute over where the boundaries lie involves two organisations, then both would be expected to approach the issue in good faith and find a negotiated way through any disagreements. The terms of the non-duplication requirement in new section 7(2A) of the 2003 act are essentially that the commissioner has to consider the evidence and any information received, and be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the investigation would not duplicate work and so on. In individual cases, it is a judgment for the commissioner to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is no duplication, and the commissioner can be held accountable for those decisions, ultimately through the courts.
If somebody disagrees with a judgment in an individual case and thinks, “Well, we have power,” I am sure that they will not be shy about coming forward to discuss that in good faith. Ultimately, the backstop is judicial review of the commissioner’s decision, which requires the commissioner to show that the decision was made on reasonable grounds and on relevant evidence—that it was a rational decision. That is a general principle of public law and it will apply to the commissioner’s decision making.
However, if there is a turf war—with the best will in the world, such things happen—and there is a child in the middle of it, how will the situation be resolved quickly? Who will adjudicate? You talk about judicial review. Will the child have to wait for that judicial review before a decision is made?
It is in the child’s interests, and in the interests of all the organisations that are involved, to make sure that we do not get to that point. As you rightly point out, a judicial review would take time and expense, and that would not be in anyone’s interest.
I would hope that everybody would have the child’s interests at the forefront. However, with the best will in the world, two organisations might believe that they had the child’s best interests at the forefront. How would you resolve the situation if there were two different points of view?
You can be reassured by the fact that there are overlaps all over the place in this landscape, yet the bodies currently manage to resolve their differences. It is not an intractable situation. We should look at the evidence of how the system operates at present. In my estimation, people are very respectful of other organisations, and at the centre of it there is somebody—either an adult or a child—who seeks some resolution. You should be reassured that, however complicated the landscape is, bodies manage to resolve their differences in a way that does not damage the complainer. I think that we would go at it in the same spirit of always keeping in mind what is in the best interests of the child. I accept that there will sometimes be differences of opinion, but those will be resolvable and you can be reassured that they are resolved right now without extending the powers of the commissioner’s office because, as we illustrated, there are overlaps in many parts of the system.
The memorandum of understanding is going to be a fairly high-level document. In your report summary, you state that it is
“difficult to deduce the ‘proper functions’ of some regulators or complaints bodies, as their remits may cover areas of significance from a children’s rights perspective.”
How long are the negotiations with bodies going to take when you are having difficulty in working out their proper function, whatever the definition of “proper function” is?
I think that the body to which you are referring is the Care Inspectorate, which was the most enthusiastic about setting up a memorandum of understanding. It has one of the widest scopes, in terms of the use of the powers, and it was enthusiastic in engaging early to say that it was more than happy to look at a memorandum of understanding.
I think—
This is your final question, Colin.
The quote that I read out is from your report summary, in which you say that it is
“difficult to deduce the ‘proper functions’”.
That must make it quite difficult.
I do not have the report summary in front of me, but that was the case regarding the Care Inspectorate. However, I repeat that I am confident that we can work that out. The evidence of that has been the production of the report. Even with the complicated landscape, there has been confirmation from all those bodies that they are satisfied with the interpretation that is given in the report, which was quite an undertaking. Other bodies that are looking at the tribunal landscape in Scotland are taking much longer to produce a report on it because of those complications.
You say that all the bodies are satisfied with your report, but none of them has told us that. Furthermore, a memorandum of understanding is just what we would expect from every organisation. The organisations are all thoroughly professional and I would expect nothing less. A memorandum of understanding is not an endorsement of what is happening; it is an integral part of professional practice.
How many children’s complaints have you turned away in the past year because you did not have the individual case-handling powers that are conferred in the 2014 act?
I think that the question is getting at the volume of traffic that we expect.
It is a simple question.
Yes, and it is to do with the volume of complaints that are likely to be made. I refer you to the supplementary evidence that we provided after my previous appearance at the committee, in which we gave details of the estimates of the number of children who would make complaints. Using the evidence from Wales and Northern Ireland and factoring up the child population, we came up with a figure of 870 complaints that we would have to handle, just on the basis of the similarity of roles. That was provided as a result of a supplementary—
To be fair, I did not ask about Wales and Northern Ireland. I asked how many people have come chapping at your door, metaphorically speaking, in the past year whose complaints you have been unable to pursue because you did not have adequate powers and staff. I really do not want to know about Wales and Northern Ireland, or indeed about England. I am just looking at Scotland. How many have you turned away in the past year?
We do not have the complaint-handling power right now, so it would be rather—
Well, I know that you do not.
It is a question that we cannot answer. I will be frank; I cannot answer that question because we do not have the power right now. That is what we are debating in terms of the extension—
Okay, I am not going to get an answer so I turn to my second question.
I have read through the submissions from SPSO, the Care Inspectorate, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Health Improvement Scotland, which is asking for a robust memorandum, and from the Information Commissioner and the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, and none of them has said, “Oh, yes, there are real, serious problems here that we cannot investigate—there is a need for the children’s commissioner to undertake investigations because we can’t do it.”
They have all given us thoroughly professional responses. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, there is clearly an overlap between the Information Commissioner and the Care Inspectorate. The SPSO said that he would not consider it appropriate to comment on interpreting another office-holder’s advice, and there are clear concerns from the Information Commissioner and others.
You have not identified a specific case and none of those organisations has put its hands up and said that it is having to turn people away because it cannot deal with them. We have been discussing a cluttered and complex landscape, and much of what I have heard this morning is about matters that will come within the remit of the named person. It is already cluttered and complex, and the Government is about to undertake a consultation on the named person. Do not tell me that it would be easier for a child in Bettyhill or Drumnadrochit who could talk to their teacher or their health visitor to get a bus or train to Edinburgh and come chapping on your door.
Do you not think that it is already complicated? Nothing has been identified for you. Is it going to be more complicated, or less, given what is happening with the named person? How can we clearly see the need for your investigatory powers, your signposting and your supporting mediation, or otherwise, without seeing the end result of the named person legislation and regulations?
I refer you to page 79 of the report, which outlines case study 3. Remember that the report has gone to all the bodies and they have all scrutinised it. Case 3 is an example of a case that none of the other bodies would deal with. If there is time, convener, it would be helpful to walk through that example.
Of course, you must answer the question, but we do not have an awful lot of time. We have a lot to do today.
Okay, but it is wrong to say that we have not identified a case that would be dealt with by the powers that we are discussing. All the other bodies are in agreement with the chapter in which we give those examples.
The example given is that of a child who is being disruptive in school. I appreciate that I did not hear stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, but my understanding is that, if a child is disruptive in school, the first—and, we hope, the last—port of call would be the named person, who would use the multidisciplinary getting it right for every child arrangements and would talk to social workers.
There is no mention of the named person in your report. You say that the example that you have given would be your responsibility, but my understanding is that it would be the named person’s responsibility.
11:00
Let us hear what the commissioner has to say.
With respect, the child in the case has already made a complaint to the local authority but it was not upheld. In other words, the named person does not have a locus for the child’s complaint. They have already made a complaint to the local authority. Ordinarily, the complaint would then be escalated to the public services ombudsperson, but it cannot deal with the case because of the particularity of the issue. The child is not actually excluded—essentially, it is an internal exclusion within the school—so the school has no locus either.
I do not know whether you do not understand the legislation, but the point is that the regulations relating to the complaints procedure for the named person under section 30 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and the child’s plan under section 43 of that act will be consulted on over the summer. The consultation is to take place, but—I am not trying to tell you how to do your job, convener—it also has to be scrutinised and endorsed by this committee.
You have used an example and said, “This is what’s happening just now”, but in three months we will be looking at regulations that will clearly define what the named person will do. I cannot understand why we are looking at investigatory powers for you today and the example that you have given me is for a named person.
I never want to curtail a member’s questioning, but I think that we have covered that point. I want to get a response from the commissioner on the issue that I think we have, which was raised in Mary Scanlon’s question about his role in terms of investigation. Mr Raines talked about the role of the named person. We do not have the regulations yet so that is still to be seen, but my understanding is that the role of the named person will be at that level, and the commissioner will come in later on.
With respect, it is difficult to comment on a complaints process that is not there yet. The regulations have not been passed.
I appreciate that.
Nevertheless, it would be rather short-sighted to think that the named person will put an end to all complaints. We will still have instances where a child has a legitimate complaint, it goes to the local authority and it is not upheld. That is the situation in the case that I mentioned.
There might be another interplay with the named person. That remains to be seen, and I will be interested in the committee’s deliberations on how that will work, but it would be short-sighted of us to think that having a named person means that a local authority will not process a child’s complaint and find against them. That is the situation that we are discussing.
Okay. I ask Mary Scanlon to be brief.
I will be very brief. The Scottish Information Commissioner states in paragraph 12 of her response to your 90-page report, which was seven months in the making:
“There is little mention in the report of working with other regulators, as opposed to dividing work between them.”
Why do you make little mention of working together? Why do you not mention the named person?
I have no doubt that we will be working with other regulators, and if the Scottish Information Commissioner is picking that up, we will certainly attend to it. As has been stated repeatedly this morning, we cannot operate this process alone. If anything, we will be doing more work with the other regulators as a result of some of the initial assessment.
It is to be decided how the named person will operate. I have no doubt that the named person will appear in many other documents, including ours, once the working model is established. It has not been put into effect yet. You are still debating the regulations on it, and we need to wait and see how that pans out.
We are not debating them. They are being consulted on.
Then the debate will come back to you. You will make the decision on it.
You will have heard the exchange that I had with Mr Raines on the previous panel. There is concern that, although there is a legitimate process for seeing how things evolve through the memos of understanding and collaborative working with others, there is not as yet certainty about the required volume of work. Would it be unreasonable for the committee to assume that that lends itself to a phased introduction of the capacity of your office to deal with a workload requirement that will reveal itself over time?
At the risk of repeating myself, we provided the committee with supplementary evidence to outline the volume of work that we expected. We provided a full report to the SPCB that showed where those same figures came from.
Nobody knows the exact number. The best that we can do is examine similar operations in other jurisdictions and consider them in terms of their child populations. We have taken the lesser estimate. If we factored up the Northern Ireland estimate, the number would be many more than the 870 that we have estimated.
I think that I covered the point about a phased introduction when I responded to the SPCB, but I will repeat it. We are talking about a new function. We need specialist staff—we need people who can understand the landscape. It has already been said numerous times today how complicated the work is. If we do not have sufficient staff to deal with it, that will place the office in an invidious position, frankly, and expectations for children and young people will be high and our ability and capacity to deliver will be low. That is just not the way that we should be going about setting up a new function of the office.
I thank all three of you for coming along this morning to explain your position. I also thank you for the report that you published on the matter. It has been very helpful to the committee. I thank everybody who has been along to discuss the matter this morning. The committee will discuss it further this week or the week after—we will do so as soon as possible.
11:07 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance