˿

Skip to main content
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 14 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3298 contributions

|

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

Accountability was the issue.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

I want to be clear about it. I do not want to get this confused. Do you want to elaborate on

“the disproportionality of the governance model”?

Are those your words?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

You said earlier that your staff complement is around 28. Some 24 hours ago, the Public Audit Committee was taking evidence on the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, which has had two years of section 22 reports because of problems of governance, of value for money, of propriety, of accountability and so on. It has only 21 members of staff, so size is not something that allows you to avoid accountability, audit and scrutiny. It is actually quite important that those rules of transparency and accountability are in place.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

In response to an earlier question, you touched on areas in which you think your remit could usefully be extended. As Lorna Slater described, you are going to come up against, and have to try to proactively pre-empt, an evolving set of challenges, but are there aspects of your powers that could be enhanced to lead to better outcomes from the work that you do?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

Thank you. That is useful

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

I am sure that some of the figures are in your annual report, so feel free to supply us with a written summation of the answer to the question about how the cascade works.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

Let me move on to another area. This question might require quite a short answer, because you have made it clear in your evidence this morning and in your written submission that you see yourself very much as a stand-alone commissioner. To what extent do you collaborate with other public bodies to enhance the overall effectiveness of your role and of their duties and positions?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

Are they your words or SPICe’s words?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

Dr Plastow, you have answered some of my rudimentary questions about the extent to which you are reactive or proactive—you have said that you are 90 per cent proactive.

However, I have a related question. In this debate, people define certain commissions and commissioners as regulatory and define others as advocacy commissioners. Where would you place yourself on that spectrum?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 20 February 2025

Richard Leonard

I have a final question. You are very blunt in your written submission and take a position that is contrary to Mr Hamilton’s. you say that having individual corporate HQs is a “non-affordable luxury”. That is a clear statement of your view, and you are very strong on the issue of sharing services—that comes through in your evidence this morning and in your written submission.

In your written evidence, you also allude to the fact that you are dealing with data about vulnerable adults, children and young people, and you talk about information rights. To what extent do you collaborate and work with those other commissions? If you are dealing with the treatment of the biometric data of young people below the age of 18 and so on, do you have conversations with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland on issues that are relevant to that age group or with the Scottish Human Rights Commission on, for example, a human rights approach to some of these questions? What is the extent of your interaction?