 Gweithgwedd. Welcome to the second meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Welcome to the committee. Our first item agenda is for the committee to agree to take the last item, item IV in private. This is an item where we will consider the evidence that we are about to hear at committee from the Ethical Standards Commissioner. Do members agree to take that last session in private? Iain is the acting commissioner, and if it's all right with you, Iain, we have the pleasure of talking to you and reading through your report, so if it is okay, I would like just to go straight to questions, which will come from the members, two of whom are remote today. If there are any follow-up questions, the members will indicate to me and we can take it for them there, but thank you for coming and seeing us today. We move to the first question, which is going to come from Bob. Good morning, Bob. I'm not sure if Bob can hear us. Bob, I'm going to pass over to Paul just to ask his questions and then the broadcast will get back to us with regard to your connection. Sorry about that. Iain, it's good to see you back again this week. Can you lead on to the questions that you asked? It was on and around about the revisions to the code of practice, supporting the improvement of training and support. First, what are the revisions that support the improvement of training and support, and in what way do you think that would happen? That's a good question. Good morning, convener and members, and thanks again for the opportunity to talk about the work of our office today in public. It's very much appreciated. My bailiwick covers the appointments process, and once people are in post, effectively my involvement ends. That's not to say that I don't take considerable interest in the development and support of board members. It's also not to say that the Government hasn't worked with me and other stakeholders to discuss those matters with a view to improving on the overall journey of applicants and, ultimately, board members once appointed. I am able to provide some information on that, although the extent to which the code might be prescriptive about board support, I think, would be debatable from the perspective of the Scottish ministers, simply given the provisions of the act do restrict me to the appointments process itself. It may be helpful to give you some information on the sorts of activities that are currently under way and where we dovetail with those. The Scottish ministers have established, and this is for some years now, new board member induction events. Those take place three times a year. Currently, they are being held online previously, obviously, in person. I anticipate in due course a return to that, but online at the moment. New board members and chairs receive a presentation from a minister to talk about the aspirations of the Government for board boards and the way in which they ought to work. They receive a talk from a representative from Audit Scotland. Clearly, that is to discuss governance on boards, financial accountability. They also receive a talk from me. At our next one, I have agreed that we will run our talk jointly with the Standards Commission for Scotland. In that case, we talk about the code of conduct for members and the ethical standards that they are expected to adhere to. They also get talks from sponsors. They provide the direct link between ministers and boards, the public appointments team and the public bodies unit. The public bodies unit has responsibility for the sorts of activities that you have expressed an interest in. They have created a governance hub for members with a private area. There are resources on that hub as well. They cover things such as succession planning, for example. Over and above that, I am also a member of a steering group for NHS improvement. Although its remit is wider and does encompass the topic that you have asked about as well as appointments, the activity there was discussed just recently at a meeting this week. The public bodies unit came along to talk about what they are engaged in at the moment. That is about increasing board members and chairs' understanding of diversity and the difference that that makes to the governance of boards. A very important topic. How did that arise? Our own office, the Scottish Government and Inclusion Scotland. That is an organisation that represents disabled people. We worked together on a project for disabled people who had an interest in becoming board members. That was a two-way street, so the Government and boards themselves because they shadowed current boards, learned a great deal about the experience of disabled people and how they might adapt their practices in order to be more inclusive. Training on the back of that is now going to be rolled out. We just heard about that this week. I am sure that the public bodies unit would be more than happy to provide more information and I would be happy to provide contact details. Is there a formal process in place in regard to new board members giving feedback on their induction and their on-going training? Is there a stage after three months, six months a year, where they can feedback on and if feedback is positive or negative, can that then be amended or changed? Is there a formal process for board members? That is a very good point and I think that the code is potentially engaged there. What we anticipate is that members should not be re-appointed unless they can demonstrate that they have not only got the skills, knowledge, experience etc that are required by the board at the time but also that their performance has been effective. That is something that we have audited previously and actually established that practices were quite good in that area. If you felt that the code could or should be more prescriptive in that area then that is certainly something for you to consider when coming at a decision about responding to the consultation. I understand that the sound is back up and running and if I was to go back to Bob for those who are watching it may give a more holistic picture of what we are talking about although we are of course aware of it. With trepidation over to you Bob. Can you hear us Bob? We can't hear you. He can hear us but we can't. That's all right. We are clearly having technical difficulties. Not stepping on your toes Bob. Ian, can I ask you, we are today discussing the revised code of practice and indeed our response to it. One of the purposes of the code of practice is obviously to hold ministers to account but without stifling innovation through over prescription. There is a lot of discussion in the code near accompanying notes about that over prescription. Would you like to explain that to us and more importantly your view of how the code got to its recommendation, which seems to be opposed by some people? Is there a particular recommendation that is of concern? It's really just a generic question about whether or not the revised code of practice can successfully hold ministers to account but counterbalanced by the fact that the complaint about it was that if it was over prescriptive it wouldn't work. I'm happy to take that view on the chin but equally if you have a look at the analysis of responses it's clear that something had to change. I said this to the committee previously and I'm happy to put it on the record again. I think that this administration has done very well in respect of public appointments. The achievement of gender parity on boards, that's an incredible thing to have achieved and that's great but there are areas in which no progress or very little progress is made. It's terribly incremental and in some cases we've gone backwards on occasion. Practices as they stand have not led to our meeting, our joint aspirations. You spoke about holding the Government to account and I think that's right and proper. A proportion of what I see on appointment rounds and I say I but I'm talking about the advisers that I allocate and who report to me doesn't represent good practice. Yes they meet the code's requirements but it's not good practice and we know when the Government knows that it's capable of exceptionally good practice we've got lots of case studies on our website that demonstrate that the Government does do that. I do understand and accept that there's an argument that the code shouldn't be prescriptive but I believe that the provisions that I've included in it which is about evidence based decision making and ensuring that good practice is used on each occasion will actually make a difference because I see it making a difference on a round by round basis. It's also worth saying that it's possible for the commissioner to not set aside but to relax any provision in the code so that's built into the code itself. So if ministers want to take a particular approach that they believe is innovative but that currently isn't covered by the practices or would appear to be precluded, as long as it's compatible with the principles I am more than happy to set that particular provision aside and you will see from my annual report. I do that on a very frequent basis. I am pragmatic, very pragmatic and I have encouraged innovation alongside my advisors for years and years so there is nothing in the code from my perspective that actually precludes the Scottish ministers innovating and if they have any ideas that are compatible with the code I'd be more than happy to consider them and set aside the provisions as I've done historically. So do you feel that the criticism of being overprescriptive is unfair because the code within its own confines allows for innovative thinking and actually as you say it is based on the very foundations of the code getting the right person in the right place and the code would allow that to happen? I would suggest that it is already incredibly flexible and I would go further than that. The code encourages innovation and good practice as well as enabling it so where I've gone further on this occasion it is about them having plans and it's about having plans for individual appointment rounds. It's about having plans nationally and for all of that to end up in the public domain. The committee will be aware that I'm particularly interested to know what they would like to see in order to give assurance to the committee and to the wider public that the Government's plans are sensible, that they're smart, that they're achievable, that they will achieve their objectives and where they don't work we need to be made aware of that as well. Simply my annual reporting, I don't think it's sufficient at the current time. I'm grateful for that comment. I don't know whether you're back with us, Bob. No, afraid not, then I will push. Hello, Bob. Excellent. We're up to question 2. I'm not sure how much you've managed to hear. First of all, although I'm not a responsible for the IT, my apologies for the inconvenience to fellow members and the commissioner, of course, giving evidence. I think I heard you, community, asking something. I had to be going to raise about that conflict between being prescriptive to achieve good outcomes in relation to diversity and ensure best practice, disseminating and deflects the ability and innovation that the Government had said that it wanted, but I think there's some good stuff on the record in relation to that, convener, so no need for me to ask about that. I think that's what I was picking up in the bits of sound that I had been getting. The other question, the follow-up question had been, I'll just ask it to put it on the record, is will the revised code help with finding a balance between achieving diversity? Because we want to see that diversity, of course, commissioner, but ensuring that the board has retained the range of essential skills that has to be a diversity of particular characteristics. I'm really good to hear what you're saying about those from various income backgrounds, diversity of opinion and views, but also we need the relevant skills. Again, there can be a tension between achieving that diversity and getting those relevant skills, so how do we get that balance? Again, a good question. I would encourage the members to think about diversity in two ways, and this is an on-going dialogue that we've had both with the Scottish ministers, officials and boards themselves. There are two aspects to diversity, so the first one is you were talking about the specialist skills, but not necessarily specialist from my perspective, it's about a board's needs at a given point in time. Different experience, different skill sets, different types of knowledge, different backgrounds, different perspectives, so that's the first aspect of diversity. The second is protected characteristics, so the demographics. Is there a tension between the two? Not necessarily, but your decision about how you're going to plan for succession has a knock-on effect. For whether or not, or the way in which you're going to achieve diversity of protected characteristics. I'll use an example. Let's say an NHS board decides, and this has been piloted recently, so it's a live example. It decides that some form of digital transformation that will assist in terms of its service delivery is absolutely vital. That's the skill set that they're then going to look for in order to plan for succession. The demographic of people who have that knowledge is going to be different to the general population, so immediately you're looking at what we classify as younger people and we know that there's a death of younger people on boards, but the likelihood is that more people under the age of 50 are going to have that up-to-date skills, knowledge, that skill set in terms of digital transformation than over 50s. So when you go out immediately, okay, potentially we're going to change this board's diversity in terms of knowledge of digital transformation but also we're going to change this board's composition more than likely in relation to the age of its members overall. That same argument applies each and every time you go out. Sometimes you'll go out for a particular skill set, it might be HR related, and we know that there are more women working in HR than men, so again that has an impact. Certain professions tend to be less diverse for one of a better expression in terms of demographics than others, and in that case it's incumbent on the Scottish Government and their officials to take positive action measures. So you know if there's only a limited pool of, let's say, visible ethnic minorities within a given profession and that's a profession that you're looking to fill your board position from, then you need to reach out and target people who have the protected characteristics that you know are currently under reflected. Thank you. I'll let other members come in there again, sorry about the disruption at the start of the meeting. Thank you for that answer. Thank you, Balvin, actually it leads us very much into your area of interest, Paul. Yeah, it does, and it kind of leads on to this, and obviously the diversity deliver strategy I think was really important, the first equal opportunity strategy I think, obviously about the ministerial appointments, and I understand that it needs a change to primary legislation and just wondering what that would entail, what the process would be. Yes, I think relatively straightforward, so it would be for the Government to bring forward and it would be for, well, this is the subject committee and this subject committee to consider. There are already provisions, so we're talking today about revision to the code of practice. There are already very straightforward provisions in the act that say the commissioner is to keep the code under review and the commissioner may from time to time revise the code subject to consultation. And approval by ministers of the Parliament. There is no equivalent provision for the strategy. Excellent, thank you. I suppose moving on talking about your annual report that comes out, but what are the advantages of placing annual planning and reporting requirements on the Scottish Government and do you think that would be too onerous? So the Government already does this to an extent, so the Government has currently, I think, it's a three-year public appointments plan held centrally, so these are all the things that we are going to do. And I think and I'd assume the committee would also think that the Scottish ministers would want their officials to have that in place because, you know, at the end of the day we have these objectives and we know that we're not going to achieve them simply on a round-by-round basis. That's what diversity delivers told us. We did all the research, we worked alongside the Government and it made recommendations about national campaigns. How much public awareness is there of these positions? Do people really see themselves potentially in these roles? And until we're in that space and people see it as, you know, civic participation, the potential to make a real difference to their own communities, I'm not sure we're in that space, so I think we would all expect the Government to have these plans in place and those plans are in place. So I'm not asking them to do any more than they're already doing. What I am suggesting is that we have on the face of the code, yes, you should have these plans in place and also that we should all have access to them, everyone should have access to them. We should know what you have planned. People should have an opportunity to comment on what you have planned. None of us have all the answers to everything and I think it would be very helpful for all of that to be in the public domain. The other thing is, we've spoken earlier about the accountability of the Scottish ministers. We need to know whether or not those plans have been successful. If they haven't, let's have a look at them again next year and see what you might do differently in order to achieve the objectives that you have. As part of spreading the understanding of the role, board roles across Scotland's, civic and beyond society, an annual publication would always give you the advantage of press interest in these events. If people understood more of what the roles on boards did, perhaps we would see a wider pool of people putting themselves forward. I'm very grateful to that. With fingers crossed, I'm going to come to you, Edward. I think it's worked. I've unmuted, so good morning in. I've heard you. I hope you can hear me. I've got a series of questions, if I may. The first one is a really simple yes or no one. Do you think there is a problem in Scotland with serial board members? No. I'm happy to elaborate if you'd like me to. I'm happy to, but maybe I can just make a comment at the moment. I looked at one person yesterday. I was just doing a bit of research, obviously, as you'd expect, who has sat for 31 years on boards across Scotland, I think six or seven, and is currently chairing two. That would appear to be a serial board member, but tell me why you don't think there's a problem in it. I think there is a problem, and the convener spoke to this just now. I think there is a problem in terms of A, people's understanding and willingness about these board roles, so that's about the pool of potential applicants. If people aren't aware that they are going to be treated fairly and that there's potential for them to serve, they won't put themselves forward. My role is about providing assurance and saying, no, if you do want to put yourself forward by all means, you should apply and you will be treated equitably. I think the issue that you've just described to me is based on something else entirely, and that's about how ministers traditionally have defined merit and, in some cases, continue to define merit. Those two things are interlinked. If you keep asking for the same thing, then the process will keep delivering that same thing. If you go out and say that I'm looking for someone with experience of chairing boards, for example, although that's quite unusual, but it's a very narrowly defined skill set, then the likelihood is that someone who's done that previously is going to be more successful than others who apply in competition with them. I think that's the issue. Again, I know for a fact that this is something that might not be immediate, but prior predecessor did discuss with ministers, and this is going back quite a few years now, about five years. We came up with some guidance that has been helpful. If you have particular priorities for a new board and the sort of person that you want to lead that board is different to what you've been used to, it's up to you to specify that. You do see very different appointments on occasion for boards because that's what ministers have taken the time to do. I think of an example, poverty and inequality commission. You've got the head of that commission, has never held a board position previously, never mind chaired a board, but those were the particular attributes that the minister was looking for on that occasion, and that led to a different appointment. In order to address the concern that you've raised with me, and ultimately it's worth saying on the record that these are ministerial appointments, it's not for me to determine who should or shouldn't be appointed. It's for ministers to say that this is what I need for this board. Statutorily, that's their role, and that's why I can't say that there's an issue with that because it's up to ministers to determine what they need. If you do want more diverse boards and if you do want people who haven't held lots of roles previously, that's the way to address it. Ask for something different. I take your explanation of why, to me, it's a very small pool and the people in the pool keep getting picked out. I wouldn't accuse them of wanting to be serial board members, but if you've been a board member for 31 years, you are obviously doing something. I can give you other examples of people who've morphed from, I think, the dear commission to Scottish natural heritage to Scottish water. You know, probably just as one appointment expired, they seem to pop up in another one. Expanding the pool may be the answer, and I'm sure that the convener will push on that. I have a further question to do with ministerial appointments. During the last parliamentary session, I sat on various committees who were given the chance to interview people who were being appointed by ministers. I have to say that it was a tick box ex-assemblies. Do you have any evidence of Parliament ever rejecting somebody? Do you think that the parliamentary committee system of interviewing people who were appointed by ministers is sufficiently robust to ensure that the ministers just don't chew horn in the person they want? That has certainly not been my experience at all, and I can only talk to those ministerial appointments requiring parliamentary approval that are regulated. I don't know what your experience of that is, but on every occasion that a new appointment was to be made and it was a regulated appointment, those people were interviewed absolutely by the parliamentary committee. What I have sought to do, and perhaps slightly ultra-virus for me, I have engaged meaningfully, and I'm sure that Mr Doris will be able to verify this. I have engaged meaningfully with every parliamentary committee because my view is that the Parliament made a decision that those appointments should be subject to parliamentary approval for a reason and that whosoever is appointed to those roles has to meet both ministerial but also the Parliament's ambitions for the sort of person who is sought. I'm going to say more than encouraged. I have actively encouraged the Scottish ministers to consult meaningfully with those committees about their plans before anything ends up in the public domain about what's required for that role. The system here operates very differently to the way in which it operates south of the border. I think that it is absolutely vital that Parliament is properly consulted on those roles, which is why I've put it on the face of the code. My final question is, are you aware of any circumstances where somebody has not been approved by the committee that's interviewed them? One of the problems is that you'll appreciate that committees are the way they're appointed and run on the Dahan system means that there is a natural bias towards the Government on all the funds. Are there any examples? The examples that I saw in the Parliament in the last session and indeed took part in were punctury, I would say. I am very sorry to hear that, if that has been your experience. As I say in terms of regulated appointments, it hasn't been mine but I don't know what goes on in private session. All I can guarantee you is that for those in which my office has been involved, the purpose of our meaningfully and having the ministers meaningfully engage with those committees is to ensure that they have a say. That's the type of person that's going to be appointed. In those cases, inevitably, when the best candidate is put up, I would anticipate that the committee would say, that's exactly what we asked for. Why would they want to reject them? That's very different from a situation in which there isn't engagement during planning, in which case I would quite understand that a committee might say that this is not the person that we were looking for at all, but that's not the reality from my perspective. I think that we may agree to differ and thank you, convener, for being there. No problem with that. I suppose just to get an answer, so you're not aware of the situation where a committee has said no to a proposed appointment. Not in relation to regulated appointments. Sorry, not in relation to those very specific areas that committees involve themselves. The next sort of follows because you've talked about this very small pool in which people go fishing for board members. Are you confident that the revised code can break that dam, remove it, widen the pool? Let me put it that way. The code encourages and enables the practices that will achieve the objectives that we want to achieve. It now includes provisions that mean that the Government has to be transparent, assuming that everyone I am consulting agrees that this is an appropriate way forward. So that national activities can and should take place that will encourage a wider pool of people to come forward. I cannot guarantee in terms of the code that any of these things are going to achieve these objectives and my powers are limited. I can draft a code, it can require certain things of the Scottish ministers and their officials. I monitor how they do against that and I then report to the committee that that's the system. Are you confident then that the amended code would facilitate that if the intention was there? I believe so. Absolutely, particularly in terms of the requirement for this annual plan. If we want to go further and if we want to ensure the likelihood of success is much higher, then a refresh for diversity delivery is also a requirement. That would take us beyond what I have put on the face of the code. Bob, I understand that you have a supplementary comment. I think that the commissioners probably dealt with it in exchange with Mr Mountain. I was just going to put on record that it might be worth seeking out the role of the Social Security Committee in the last session in relation to the poverty and inequality commissioners in that process. I would like to help with meeting with that, but that might give a life example of not just having a tick box exercise, but jumping through the dynamic process with the committee. I would like to help with meeting in relation to that. Thank you, Bob. It's certainly an example that's raised by a number of people as a fine example of how it should work. I think that you've used rightfully put it on the record. Thank you for your patience, Alexander. I turn to you. Commissioner, you've given a very broad view this morning of your intentions within the code and how you want to encourage individuals to come forward and be much more diverse and to take on all of that. I do think that that is starting to now become reality. I think that it's also very important that we try to get the best individuals and there's a good calibre of candidates coming forward, but not all candidates will succeed. When we're looking at that, those who don't make it, can I ask about what you're doing within the code to revise that, to look at what happens to a candidate that doesn't go through the process and fail? Are they encouraged to come back or what role do you have, because you've talked today about how you're very involved in the application process and that would be where those individuals progress only so far. It would be good to get a flavour from you as to what you're trying to do there and how you're going to try and revise to encourage people who have to come back. Absolutely. Again, it's a very good point. We do track how people get on in the process and we do report on that in our annual report. I think that it's fair to say that, for people from certain backgrounds, they are less successful when they apply in comparison with others. That's an issue. It's something that I hope to tackle ahead on. I've revised the code to include a new principle. It's entitled respect, but fundamentally it's about customer care for applicants. It's about treating them respectfully for making their application, for taking the time to apply and the intention is that they will get meaningful feedback when they have been unsuccessful about why they were unsuccessful as opposed to a template letter. I do understand that there are resource implications for that but I do think that it's very important for people to understand why they didn't do as well as they might and what they might do differently. Next time, in order to improve on their chances of success. From that, the interview that might happen if a candidate is successful and goes in front of a number of individuals, but there's an application form that is normally completed as well. How supportive are you to encourage and support individuals to fill that form and to understand—I know that from seeing them in the past they may have a one-line question that they're expecting to write, maybe three or four hundred words on it or whatever—that's the topic and that's the style. That style can sometimes be quite restrictive as to what individuals can and do say. How are you planning to broaden that whole idea of ensuring that the application form and the interview are much more aligned? Some times, they can be quite stringent or stuffy or people don't feel comfortable in those kind of environments because it's seen as a—how do you manage to change that? Yes, again a very good question. The application and assessment methods have always been the responsibility of the panel. The code is being revised and my suggestion is that ultimately it's the chair of the panel on behalf of the Scottish ministers who is responsible really for ensuring that every appointment round delivers. We expect them to design application and assessment methods that are going to meet the objective. The revised code talks about an individual plan that the chair of the panel is responsible for writing saying, these are the methods that I am going to use and this is why I'm going to use them because I know what it's going to deliver and then at the end of that appointment round basically to say whether or not they've been successful and that revision will fundamentally make a difference. By creating that template that you're putting together, that will then give them the opportunity to develop that. Is there also the opportunity for things to be expanded within different boards when they're looking for different people because they say that if the criteria is too rigid and people don't fulfil the criteria, they're bound to fail? If the criteria is widened and people can feel that there's a bigger opportunity to develop that, that may encourage more people to progress. Absolutely, but we need to take a step back there because that's a ministerial responsibility. The minister says, this is what I need for that board and sometimes it will be quite narrow and sometimes it will be very wide and it really does depend on what you're looking for. Let's say an NHS board is looking for someone who has experience of accessing the services from the perspective of someone who's underprivileged or someone who faces barriers in terms of healthcare, then you're going to be looking at a wider pool than when you're looking for the chair of an audit committee. Inevitably, that doesn't mean that those are different classes of board members. They absolutely are not. They both have a really important contribution to make to the thinking of the board overall, but that's a ministerial responsibility. Once the minister has said, that's what I want, it's then incumbent on the chair of the panel to adopt good practice and to use methods that are suitable for those people. Given the examples that I've just used, we have, and have had for years, good practice advice on our website about all the different range of things that panels potentially can do, but quite often it's easier because of resource constraints, time constraints just to go down the charm lines. This is what we did the last time, so we are trying to again just be transparent about, look, these are your decisions to make, but they will have an impact. But if you were looking for the chair of an audit committee, what will you do? How would you assess? You give them a balance sheet. You present them with a board paper that's directly relevant to that role and you get them to give an assessment of it. I'm fine. If it's someone from the other background, that user background, then you want to make it as accessible as possible and that might not be about an application form at all. The code doesn't require an application form. We need to gather your demographic data and we need to know where you are, but it could be a wee letter just describing yourself and your experience of accessing healthcare. That's absolutely fine. That's what the code anticipates, whether or not it happens all the time. We're going to swap hats slightly now. The other piece of evidence that we'd like to hear from you is in relation to the strategic plan that you've got for 2021 through to 2024. We've had the benefit of looking at it and again the members have questions, but I was going to take the privilege of convener and kick off and really just ask for an explanation. The word case and complaint is used a lot. Can you explain the difference between or give the definition of what is a complaint for the purposes of the numerology that we see in these reports and how does that become a case? I'm working on the assumption that we're talking about MSP complaints in cases, although the way in which we operate applies very similarly in relation to board member complaints and those relating to councillors. A complaint is a single complaint from a single complainer about a single member. A case is where multiple complaints may have been made against a single member or potentially in some cases multiple complaints made about multiple members. Where those share similarities, we group them together into a case and deal with them as a case. It's about us being consistent as an office. Everyone deserves us to act consistently. If lots of people have made a complaint about a particular instance, a particular type of conduct that is of concern to them, we will put them all into the same case. The member will know, because that's the obligation under the act, that we'll let them know the names of those who have complained and the nature of those complaints. We group them together if the complaints are all very similar. That's the way it works. I'm not going to talk to our annual report, which is yet to be laid, but I can talk to last year's one if that helps, just to give you an example. To clarify in my own mind, in essence a complaint is when someone corresponds with you about an event that they wish to complain about. In some circumstances that will become a case in its own right as a one-off and there will be a response made by whoever the allegation is made against. There are occasions where there are a number of different complaints, perhaps from a number of different sources, where for the purposes of reaching an equitable and legal conclusion it would make sense to deal with them together. That would then become a case. Where there are large numbers of complaints and smaller numbers of cases, it's not that things have vanished, it's that they have been brought together for the purposes of justice. Would that be right? Absolutely. Can I move on to help you to facilitate what you intend to do? There has been an increase in the admissible complaints received by yourself. Are you in a position to express a view as to why you think that's going up? What would you like the committee to know from your point of view as to why they're going up? I said that I was going to give an example from the last annual report published. It looks as though, from the figures, there was a significant rise in complaints sitting aside cases. I know there was a rise in cases but they do fluctuate and the numbers are relatively small. I don't think that we can draw conclusions in relation to that annual report. I handled this particular case and 67 members of the public all complained about a single tweet made by a member. You can see that something that's relatively straightforward can lead to an apparently significant increase in complaints. Generally, there is a trend, and I think that it's fair to say that this applies to not just MSPs but equally to councillors in relation to treatment of others. Section 7 of the code is about how members treat others, particularly the respect provisions. I am not convinced that there's a significant rise in terms of admissibility at this point in time. You've asked what are the reasons behind that. For the past year and a half, people have had a lot of time on their hands and there is an exponential rise in the way in which members engage with the public via social media. I think that these are important factors that the members may want to take into consideration. It's not a simple process of things getting worse. It's more complex than that. There are more nuances in it, but I think that it's interesting that you've seen a rise in the view that people have of the respect that, in essence, citizens are showing each other within this place, within councils and elsewhere. Do you think that the figures are sufficient to make a strong conclusion that that's where it's going, or do we need more time? I think that a little more time but not a great deal. I am monitoring that situation very closely. As members will be aware from the strategic plan, I have staffed up because I don't anticipate diminution based on what I know at the moment. Thank you, Paul. I think that it's just a little bit more discussion and questions about this. I've always changed the codes that have been in place since late 2019, but the revised act only passed last year. I think that you've touched on it and said in a roundabout, did the changes to the act result in an increase in cases that you've touched on? I think that probably the question that I'm trying to get to is the 2021 act. Do you think that that's going to result in a further increase in the number of cases? Potentially. It's not been my experience that the change in the legislation or the changes in the code have led to the rise. I think that it's fair to say that. They really haven't. I am not sure what's going to come forward, but it's incumbent on me to prepare for it, and that's what I've been doing and I'm in the process of doing. I think that it would also be fair to say that if cases of this nature—for the record, so that people are aware of what we're talking about—historic cases involving sexual harassment by members, potentially, or bullying, I think that it would be fair to say that if a number of those cases came before us, even if it was a relatively small number, the complexity involved and the time involved in investigating those properly to a conclusion will be high. Just on that, I'll take it—this might be anecdotally, but when complaints come in, cases come in, is there an understanding from the member of the public who's complaining about the details of the act? Or is it generally that it comes in a new, then, that this refers to seven codes, whatever part of it? Did they quote that? I'm just trying to get an understanding. Is there a better understanding of the code itself? Or is there just, as you said, because people have had much, much more time and they're sending in something genuinely and thinking that it's out of order? I'm trying to get the balance where that strikes. I would say in the majority of cases, no, that the member of the public is not familiar with the code, certainly not familiar with the legislation. We absolutely must be even-handed as an office, but equally, it's all about public trust and confidence, so we do enable people to make complaints if they've fallen at the first hurdle and if they don't understand the act and the code. That's perfectly understandable because these are quite complex things that members themselves need to struggle with, but that's not an issue from my perspective. My role is to help them to understand in very simple terms whether or not the code, the act is engaged and if not, why not? I take it that there's appropriate feedback if there's a case or a complaint that comes to you that there's feedback to why it's not admissible to do any further kind of stuff. Absolutely. It does almost get to the point that you're not wanting facetious complaints coming in, so if there's that feedback to members of the public who understand that, I think that's an important part of the service. Absolutely, and to members. Everyone needs to understand what the view is, why I've reached the decision that I've reached. That's very important and I go beyond that. I always add on an offer to discuss the decision if people would find that helpful. Again, that's open to complainers and to members. It's important that they understand and it's important that I'm transparent about my decision making and how the code and the act is applied. Thank you, Paul. Bob, hand over to you. Thank you. I am going to move on to the line of questioning, but just a brief reflection. I think that you're navigating those questions. There's a diplomatic core job for you, as well as a commissioner's role, but I maybe do put on the record that if you want to reflect on it, that would be interesting because clearly the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland should be about making sure that the public are aware of your office. They are aware that they can complain to you if they believe that those ethical standards are not being met and that that should be open and transparent and accessible. The more effectively your office does that, the nature of things are that complaints will come in that maybe don't meet the criteria or maybe are inspired by an individual treat. Perhaps there's a campaign for people to complain about an individual MP or MSP or whoever. I think that you're in a very difficult position because even if we're to get many, many, many more complaints coming in that were not upheld, that might actually be a success for your office because it means that your office is more open, more transparent, more visible and more accessible, even if the complaints coming in are perhaps not of a substantial material nature. I absolutely agree and part of my reason for bringing forward this new strategic plan ahead of what would normally be the time that members and others might anticipate such a major change is to be much more open and transparent, not just here but much more broadly. In relation to all our stakeholders about the work that we do to give a really simple example, all of our procedures are currently in the public domain. I'm having all of those redeveloped and they're all being redeveloped to reflect the way in which I require this office to work and everyone in this office to work. It is about accessibility and also consult with everyone. All our stakeholders about those procedures are these right. Do you think our KPI's response rates are appropriate? If not, I need to know and we'll improve on them. Once we've finished that consultation, all of that will end up in the public domain as well. It doesn't matter who's coming to the office and for what reason, they will know absolutely what to expect and they will be given an opportunity to hold me to account if the expectations that they have and that we have set out publicly aren't met. I think that's very helpful, which would put on record that sometimes a significant increase in complaints may not necessitate, necessitate that there's anything untoward going on with elected representatives but might actually be a success that the office is more accessible to those who wish to comply. One of the things within the draft plan I was pleased to see was that there's now going to be a new statement of purposes, values and strategic objectives. I suppose it's stating obviously to say that this is a good thing but it does maybe beg the question if this didn't exist before, perhaps what was missing before and what added benefit will this give? I think I speak to this in the plan itself, I think what was missing previously in particular, so yes I agree, a clear statement of the purpose, a clear statement of objectives and I think they were there although they've been revised. Our values weren't on the face of that plan and they absolutely had to be included. Given the nature of the office, people rightly have high expectations about not just what we do but how we go about it and that had to be on the face of the plan. Some things you would anticipate anyway so we need to act ethically, we need to be responsible in terms of our stewardship of public resources. Some things are in there that perhaps wouldn't necessarily have occurred but were absolutely vital to me and that was about acting with empathy and kindness towards people who come into contact with us. I apply that to members of the public but members also. When people make a complaint or have a complaint made against them, that can be a very hard thing and we've been through a very difficult and challenging period and it was absolutely vital to me that everyone in the office was on the same page. I've just run induction for three new SIOs. I'm investigating officers this week and that's where I started. Here are our objectives but here are our values. You need to act kindly towards people so for me it was really important to get that out there and in due course we will ask people on an anonymised basis is that your experience of coming into contact with our office is important. I find that last bit very helpful. I'm kind of inferring some of what you're saying is that the purposes, the values and objectives are things that your office may have been doing anyway but you can't just take that for granted so it's about putting it out there openly and in the public domain. I absolutely accept that as you expand the staffing team within your office to make sure that they're clear about what that is but I particularly like that last bit about doing members of the public feel that you're upholding your purposes, your values and your strategic objectives so I think that's really helpful and that was a helpful answer. I've seen page 5 of the quote that sets out some key changes that you would wish to deliver as well, relanging from recruiting and developing staff to ensure consistent high quality in a professional skills base. I think that there's six or seven of those. I wouldn't run through them all for time constraints and the fact that my eyesight probably won't allow me to run through the tiny typing on this handout that I have. Perhaps I might ask how you feel these key changes that you've set will improve the quality of the outputs from your office so you may want to pick one or two of them and just flesh out what differences you think that will make. I'll start with staffing and I need to say thanks to the SPCB for their support with us. I felt that we didn't have sufficient resource in order to move through the complaints that we are receiving at a rate that was appropriate and took account of the feelings of those who come into contact with us. I'm talking about complainers but also members. It's not right that people should have complaints hanging over them simply because our office doesn't have the resource to get through them timeously. That is absolutely vital to me and you'll have seen from elsewhere in the plan staff, that's it, and it's true of most organisations. We rent offices, we've got IT equipment but in terms of the resources of our office it's the staff, that's it. They need to be supported, they need to have good work-life balance, I want them to be happy in order for them to do the things that we need to do in the way in which we need to do them. That's absolutely vital. As I say, the SPCB agrees the increase in complement or budget bid for next year which will increase goes in soon and I'm hopeful in anticipating support again in order for me to make the changes that I need to make. The other thing, and again I'm going to expand on this a wee bit more even though I've mentioned it already, is around transparency for our office. I anticipate everything that I'm putting in place and it's not all covered here, I have an extensive two-year business plan as well that I will provide to the committee in due course once an annual report is published so all the detail is in there. I anticipate that all of those plans will be implemented, I'll be publishing all of that as well and they will make a difference. Over and above that I do absolutely plan to consult and then publish on our performance as we go along so that the committee and everyone else can see whether or not we're achieving our objectives, the extent to which we're achieving our objectives, all of that will be in the public domain. It will be much more comprehensive than you've seen previously in annual reports. If I'm not doing the job then absolutely it's the role of this committee to hold me at account including others in this Parliament. No further questions. Thank you Bob and I'm slightly conscious of time. Alexander, would it be all right if I just jump to you? I'm sure that you can mean it. The strategic objectives that you're putting forward are really showing that you are attempting to have greater accountability, transparency and even stakeholder engagement and that is welcome because that's what we want to see in the way that people can feel that they are able to engage and have all that. If we are trying to have that meaningful relationship, how are you balancing that with your existing resources that you have? You have indicated that you've taken on some new roles and some new people but your budget constraints are still there and your workload is increasing. In trying to ensure that we do all of that, can I ask you how you managed to square that circle? As I say, I've got agreement for additional staff and that was from the SPCB and that will have ramifications and that budget's yet to be approved. We certainly worked well within our means in the current year. Staff, that's our primary resource at the end of the day. I have a job to do, I intend to do it well and I anticipate that I will have the support of the Parliament in order to do what I need to do. Engagement, that's not a resource intensive thing necessarily. I'll give you a very simple example of one of the small things that I've changed but we just changed our survey monkey licence in order to add additional users. For public appointments, we've always, for a good long while, surveyed applicants to allow them the opportunity to provide their views anonymously on the appointments process. All we're doing is expanding that to cover the work of the office. People will get a link in future in letters that I sent to them. That will include members and complainers. How did you find it? You can tell us anonymously and we promised a report on that. Over and above that, clearly I have a personal responsibility in terms of engagement with our stakeholders such as the Standards Commission for Scotland, COSLA, this committee. I'm not going to say I'm cheap but I'm more than happy to dedicate my time to this sort of activity because I see the importance of it. It's about avoiding the concept of a tick box exercise just by going through the motions or the process. Even the current pandemic situation has meant that staff are not able to meet as they would have normally in an office environment but that hasn't given you any difficulties in managing to fulfil your role and responsibilities in ensuring that you can still have that engagement. It would be good to get a feel of how you see that developing. I just mentioned the induction of the new IOs in it. It's not being straightforward but staff turnover in our office is worth seeing at this point in time. You'll see it from the annual report when it comes in. It has not been good. It was 70 per cent in the year before last, 60 per cent this last year. Do you think that that's pressure of work or the environment that you're in? A number of factors but I've been acting commissioner since 20 April. I saw what needed to be done and I had a number of recommendations from auditors which I welcome about what needed to be done with the office and these are the things that I am putting in place. Staff are absolutely pivotal to that and the way in which I engage with them, I think they appreciate it. They'll be the judge of that. They may vote with our feet but it is about we have these values. This is us as an office and everyone had to sign up to that and no one who came forward for any of the new roles was in any doubt that that's what the expectation is. I think that we're all on the same page and I think that we're all dedicated and looking forward to our time working together ahead. I'm going to push time wise for a yes no answer on this. There are clearly changes in the way that you're reporting with the contents of the annual reports and also the publication of your minutes. We're not going to lose any information that's previously been reported that won't make trends trackable over a period of time. Absolutely not. In fact I've instructed an audit this year covering the last two annual reports to ensure that information that wasn't in those that was in prior ones has been reinstated. I need to say as well, sorry I know you asked for a yes no answer but I want the committee to be aware of this. Anything that the committee feels that should be in the public domain and would be useful for the committee or the public to see the committee need only ask and I will ensure that that's done. Subject to obviously the restrictions placed on me by the legislation. I'm very grateful for that. I would say kind offer but I think from listening to your evidence today the sort of offer that we expect and can expect so. Can I thank you for your time as acting commissioner coming in today on a slightly dreak day and for your evidence and as always on behalf of the committee thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. We now move committee to agenda item three which is in relation to the cross party groups. We're being asked to consider a change of purpose for the proposed cross party group on independent convenience stores. Section 6 paragraph 40 of the code requires that any proposal to change the purpose of a group must be drawn to the attention of the committee and that the committee can then decide whether the group should be accorded recognition. Paragraph six of the papers of our paper set sets out the purpose of the group and in session five and the paragraph seven sets out the new proposed purpose. So there's been a change and I'm very grateful to Gordon MacDonald who's the convener of the proposed group who's provided an explanation for the change and that is set out in page eight of the papers. Just before I invite comments on this I did want to float a challenge that I see developing. What's happened is that this cross party group has stated in part of its purposes a fact about various things and those facts have now changed. As a result of that and rightly so, the convener has written to us to say that this has changed and therefore it needs to come back before the committee. One of the things that I think would be beneficial to discuss going forward is whether or not we give more guidance on that aspect of it to prevent changes in fact, be it the number of people who visit an area, be it produce landed at somewhere, be it maybe even a style of fashion. Is that changes whether or not that is something that should come back before this committee or whether or not the purpose of a cross party group should be at a higher level to discuss the reasons that the MSPs have formed it. Can I invite any comments on the application that sits before us on the change of purpose? I attended the first CPG on independent stores, not as an office bearer. I arrived at the meeting late and it wasn't part of the discussions. It was probably taking a view of whether I should take part in this discussion first of all. I think that the second point before we get on to that is our own role in CPGs. We will all be involved in various CPGs, as members and conveners. For clarity and openness and transparency of the committee here, I think that it would be good to discuss that going forward in terms of our own positions as either conveners, vice-conveners or members. There is guidance on that as well, so that would be okay. Absolutely. Having spoken to the clerk, I have indicated to a number of CPGs that I will not take part simply because of this role. That is not a requirement. That is just something that I feel would be beneficial so that CPGs understand that there is an evenness. Attendance and membership of a CPG by any member of the committee is perfectly fine. I think that it is good practice to point out exactly as you have done, Paul, where there is a specific intent of something that is before us, but it certainly wouldn't preclude your involvement in the discussion. I think that you make a very important point about putting statistics or data or facts that change over time into the purpose of a cross-party group. Godwin is almost quite right to throw that to her attention to seek permission to change that purpose. I am just noting that, in changing that purpose, it notes that the sector employs 47,000 people. It has sales of £4 billion and the sector corpus of £530 million in GVA to Scotland's economy per annum. I am delighted to put that on the record for my colleague, Gordon MacDonald, but I suppose that that is also a snapshot at time. What will that be? What if a new report comes out and that data changes? I am just wondering whether or not, if we are going to that kind of data within the purpose of a cross-party group, if that is what happens, whether there should be a reference to the nature of those figures. That could be from one year ago, it could be from two years ago, but it could be from a report last week. I have no idea. As soon as we approve that, and I think that we should approve that, that might come out of date. The second thing is procedurally where, if such things have been put in the purpose of a cross-party group, if the statistical data does change and we wish to keep that within the purpose of a cross-party group, in this case I get that to draw the importance of the sector to Parliament, quite clearly up front. Perhaps, rather than having that as a formal agenda item, we could simply note those changes. It could be a procedural change rather than a formal agenda item, but I am not sure that the processes around that are helpful. That is very helpful, Bob. What I would say, the only process that I have pushing forward is in relation to the fact that it is a resource draw, a very heavy resource draw on the committee's resources monitoring and guiding these. I echo your thanks to Gordon in respect of this. I wonder whether there is not a better process by which we can have a purpose of a CPG, plus, obviously, the requirements that a lot of CPGs have about calling out from the highest possible mountain the benefits of that group. Alexander. I think that, with specifics to this group itself, it is only right and proper that there is the change and I would concur and I would accept that. You make a very valid point about the resource and timescale that we have. There are a large number of cross-party groups and they are quite diverse in their roles, responsibilities and their curriculum activity that may get involved in, depending on the topic. I think that it would be good for best practice if we do have some kind of structure that we do not have a tsunami effect on the committee clerks and the officials within this committee of having to manage that, but if we can try and tailor the structure so that there is a design or a formulation that is put in place that helps the CPG but also helps the committee and the officials to manage that process because I am very aware that they put a lot of effort into all of this and we cannot have them being engulfed with hundreds of CPGs in reality and if they all did this you would spend your complete working life dealing with it and that cannot be the case. Absolutely, and I very succinctly put Alexander. Can I see whether there is any suggestion from any of the members that there is a desire not to allow this CPG to re-register? I see nothing so I am going to formally ask, do members agree that the CPG on independent convenience stores still be accorded recognition with the new purpose? We are agreed on that. Thank you. My apologies, Edward. Sorry, no. I do definitely agree and I am not going to disagree. I just make the general point on cross-party groups. It is a way to get people to involve themselves in the Scottish Parliament and to become involved in what the Scottish Parliament does so it is very difficult for us to ever say no to it. I am with Alexander in a formulae process to allow them to continue because it would only be in very exceptional circumstances in my mind that we should stop people engaging with the Parliament which I think is our priority and the priority of all Parliament hearings. Thank you, Edward. On that point, we move to the next agenda item that the committee has agreed to take in private. I call an end to the public element of this committee. Thank you.