Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

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

Filter your results 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 30 April 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1241 contributions

|

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

Those are very interesting and helpful points. The question of how MSPs’ time and resources are utilised is broad and has been touched on by the committee. Dr Gill, did you want to come in?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

I will bring in Lorna Slater in a second, but I have a question for Dr Gill or the other witnesses that follows up on that point. Do you have any thoughts on whether there should be sunset clauses? For example, should there be a review after five years of whether the body is performing its functions and is still needed? Should there be a periodic evaluation?

In our previous evidence sessions, the possibility has been raised not just of holding more frequent scrutiny sessions with parliamentary committees and creating the capacity for that, as Alison Payne rightly touched on, but of whether there would be a benefit in having a new committee dedicated to the scrutiny of SPCB bodies—or whether there are other models that we should explore.

Lorna, do you want to add a supplementary question to that?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

As the former Minister for Social Security and Local Government, I am very aware of that. It is helpful of you to set it all out for our evidence and as part of the discussion on the wider landscape, so I thank you for detailing the legacy and the nuance. Much of the scenario that the committee is considering relates to the position that has built up through legacy; we will get into more of that shortly.

In your written submission, interestingly, you categorise SPCB bodies as “less complex” in relation to audits. Can you comment further on how Audit Scotland ensures that the audit process for those less complex bodies is proportionate to their size and their complexity?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

That is helpful, and it dovetails into my next question. In some of the committee’s previous evidence sessions, office holders highlighted that, in some instances, recommendations that were provided to smaller organisations were not tailored to the specific organisations. I would be grateful if you could clarify further what measures are in place to ensure that the recommendations that are provided during audits are sufficiently specific to, and actionable for, smaller organisations.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

I am conscious of time, colleagues. If there is anything that you really want to tell us but have not had the chance to say yet, please let us know.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

That is interesting. We have both engaged with organisations such as the Scottish Commission on Social Security—SCOSS—so there are bodies that fulfil some aspects of that function. However, your argument is that there should be a comprehensive approach.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

You talked mostly about older people, but you also mentioned the Children and Young People’s Commissioner. Sarah Boyack has a proposal for the unborn and future generations. Do you want to answer my question, Sarah?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

I am sorry to interrupt you when you are in full flow, but it is important to note that there are a number of Government-funded commissioners in organisations. Part of the challenge that we face is that there are the SPCB supported commissioners and there are commissioners such as the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, which is funded by the Scottish Government but is seen as being independent. Although we have been tasked with considering only the SPCB-funded bodies, we are conscious of the wider picture. I feel that it is important to emphasise that, for context.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

You have given us lots to consider and to probe further. I hand over to Murdo Fraser.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Ben Macpherson

I thank you all. That will be helpful when it comes to our further questions.

I have another generic question. Obviously, the realisation of human rights, sustainability and the wellbeing of people in different groups in our current society and future generations falls to the responsibility of ministers. As MSPs—parliamentarians—we consider those issues as part of our casework, our daily deliberations and how we hold the Government to account. Other public bodies, whether they are funded by the Scottish Government or the SPCB, are focused on human rights, value for money and delivery. Could you elaborate further on why you think that your proposals are necessary, given what is already in place?