 I welcome everyone to this, the seventh meeting of the Public Audit Committee in 2022. The first item on our agenda is for committee members to agree or not to take agenda items 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The second item of business is for the committee to agree or not to take our next meeting on Thursday 9 March in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The principal item of business that we have this morning is agenda item 3, which is consideration of the 2021-22 audit of the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland report. It is a section 22 report. I welcome our witnesses this morning, the Auditor General, Stephen Boyle, Pat Kenny, who is a director, Audit and Assurance at Deloitte and Senior Manager from Audit Scotland, Richard Robinson. You are all very welcome. We have got quite a number of questions to put to you about the report that we are considering this morning. Before we do that, Auditor General, I invite you to make an opening statement. I am presenting the report on the 2021-22 audit of the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland under section 22 of the Public Finance and Accountability Act 2000. The commissioner's office plays a vital role in upholding public trust in ethical standards in public life through investigations into the conduct of MSPs, local authority councillors, lobbyists and members of public boards. It also oversees the appointment process to public authorities. Last year, I reported significant concerns about the operation of the commissioner's office. Since then, the commissioner's office has worked hard to address serious failings, and it is clear that improvements have been made. However, the dual task of meeting core business demands alongside addressing all the concerns identified during 2020-21 means that pressure on the commissioner's office will continue. The commissioner's office has now introduced some of the fundamentals of governance that every public body needs to have to operate effectively. It has also re-engaged with its key stakeholders, including the Audit Advisory Board and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and it reports full compliance with the on-going statutory directions that were issued by the Standards Commission for Scotland. However, capacity concerns to manage its workload continued during 2021-22. I note that, in October 2022, the Parliamentary Corporate Body supported the commissioner's office's request for additional funding to help to address some of the matters identified in the previous year. The complaints backlog remains high. The commissioner's office is currently reporting on its website that it will take up to eight months to investigate an initial assessment of a complaint. While additional recruitment will help, it will take time to address outstanding complaints and failure to process complaints in a timely way may continue to affect public confidence in the process, both for individuals making complaints and for those subject of one. A previously agreed restructuring exercise was reversed in the year, meaning that anticipated savings of around £450,000 will not now be realised. Given the pressures to address the backlog, alongside the reversal of intended cost-saving restructuring, a focus on maintaining financial sustainability over the medium and longer term is needed in the commissioner's office. I will continue to monitor progress and report publicly in future as necessary. Richard Patr and I will do our utmost to answer your questions this morning. Thank you very much indeed. I think that that was a very useful laying out of some of the principal points that are contained in the report and some of the areas that we are keen to probe a bit more deeply into. I will begin by inviting Willie Coffey to put some opening questions to you. I wonder if you could start at the recommendations of themselves. The section 22 contained a number of recommendations, 22 in fact. Your report is telling us that 10 are complete and from my reading of it another 10 are still in progress but others may not be being pursued. I wonder if you could give us a little summary please of progress with the recommendations and your view about whether the satisfactory progress has been made in carrying out the recommendations that have been made. Yeah, good morning Mr Coffey. I am happy to start on that and I will bring Pat in as well, whose audit was identified the recommendations and they are set out in detail the progress that Deloitte has judged that has been made in Pat's annual audit report. There are a summary level of 22 recommendations where made 10 of those have now been implemented, 10 are work in progress, two deemed no longer relevant, and the two broadly is in respect of the anticipated savings that I mentioned in my opening remarks of the 450,000 that, given that that has now been reversed, not applicable to track progress against those. At a high level, Mr Coffey, the progress refers to establishing some of the fundamentals that we have spoken about in terms of governance with the committee in previous years such as an internal audit function, business plan, training for staff and a risk register that we set out in some of that detail at paragraph 10 to the report. Work still to be done is in regard of some of the staffing and workforce plans. I will come back to that in a second if I may say a bit more about that. The other aspects of how the commissioner's office is functioning, such as the progress that they are making in terms of the investigations manual that is now in draft, and then progress alongside that about some of the engagement with key stakeholders, progress but still some remaining work to be done. If I may say one additional word about workforce, at the time that was drawn in terms of progress of the recommendations, the commissioner's office has undertaken a significant workforce planning exercise that has led to the judgments and the submission to the parliamentary corporate body for additional resource for staffing to secure the effect of running of the organisation and their judgment together with addressing the backlog. In totality, Mr Coffey, I think that we'd say that progress has undoubtedly happened in the past 12 months. If I'm going to pause and bring Pat in, I'm sure he'll want to give a bit more flavour to that. Yes, there's been ongoing progress. I think that some of the key things that were outstanding, for example, was the full investigation manual. That is now complete and will be implemented from this month. That was subject to very wide-ranging consultation with the Standards Commission with local authorities and benchmarked against other investigatory bodies in the UK. It's also been subject to an internal audit review, so that is now ready to launch. The other major recommendation that was outstanding was on medium-term financial planning. Again, progress since the section 22 report on that will be ready to go. I understand that from this month as well. There is also good progress on recruitment of the additional personnel that was approved by the Parliament corporate body. They have recruited individuals into the investigatory team and to corporate services. They've still got progress to recruit in terms of the public appointments team, but in terms of the outstanding recommendations, Mr Coffey, based on what I've seen, there is steady progress on going. I think that the new auditor in place will assess that during the course of the next year's audit, but since the section 22 report, I'm seeing good progress on the outstanding recommendations. Other colleagues will probably pick up on the staffing issue in the £450,000 when they ask their questions, but do you get the sense that the progress that has been made is addressing the weaknesses that were identified? Are you confident and assured that what you've been seeing is doing what it has to do to get the organisation back into a good state? I don't think that none of us should underestimate the scale of progress that was required based on last year's report. There were some real fundamentals that were absent from the commissioner's office. We've talked about some of the aspects of governance, not having internal audit function, an audit advisory board, the breakdown of relationships that we talked about too, alongside the backlog in cases. Progress has undoubtedly been made, but there are still significant challenges to be resolved, notably the backlog. Concerns about what that might mean for public trust in the process. What is done is given them a platform with much stronger prospects of success. The only word that I would bring to the committee's attention is that this has taken a lot of the organisation over the past 12 months. They have described it as rebuilding mid-flight to deliver their statutory functions while addressing very substantial audit recommendations. They've done well and they've still got some work to do. Baili, will you revisit in a period of time just to continue to check progress? I'll keep an open mind on that one if I may. Pat and his colleagues at Deloitte have now finished their audit appointment on the commissioner's office, and a new team has been appointed. That's part of the audit rotation arrangements. There's always that opportunity when a new auditor engages in an organisation that will bring a fresh perspective and will await their conclusions and judgments as we move into the autumn. Upon consideration of that, I'll take a view as to when it was any public reporting required. Would anyone share with us if the 10 recommendations that are still in progress have by and large been completed? What would anyone share with us, do you think? I'll follow the fairly established process that I now have with the committee if I decide not to do a section 22 report on the back of having done one in a previous year on a public body. I will write to the committee with the details of that and set out some of the progress and my rationale for why I've decided either to report or not to, so I'll continue to do that. I think that the action plan of 22 recommendations and the charting of its progress that's contained in the wider audit report is very useful for us and is the kind of thing that gives us a factual presentation of how well things are going and where there are issues. We will come to some of the issues that we think are still outstanding that are identified in that action plan. In paragraph 15, the auditor has reported that the issues remain, will the SPCB and the commissioner's office need to work together to address some specific governance issues identified? Could you tell us more about the issues? I'm happy to kick off on that when I bring Pat and Richard in to say a bit more too. We've mentioned already the scale of challenges that existed with the parliamentary corporate body relationship with the commissioner's office. There's been engagement over the course of this year in terms of the financial position of the commissioner's office through a new budget request, subsequently approved by the Parliament for investment in the organisation. There's also been wider consideration in the committee's own engagement with the parliamentary corporate body through evidence session and then subsequent correspondence between the committee and the presiding officer and suggestions about wider oversight arrangements between the Parliament and its commissioners. From what we've seen, it's clearly a matter for the Parliament to determine what is most appropriate, is that that represents progress that strikes the right balance between operational independence for its commissioners but ultimately a clearer and more effective channel for accountability and oversight. I would say that there are again signs of progress on that front too. Those will be tested in rare occasions where there is stress on relationships and so forth. We're not in that situation at the moment but nonetheless we've seen signs of progress that set out the relationship between the commissioner's office and the parliamentary corporate body. Again, I'll turn to colleagues for a moment if I may if there's anything that they want to add about the weight of governance and relationship. There's probably a couple of dimensions that come through for the audit report. One is if we look to last year's was around breakdown in engagement between key relationships. Some of the governance is around well and I think that you heard evidence from the SPCB last year about this. How do you formalise the requirements for engagement to improve that element of governance? The other one is just around there's internal checks and balances, if you will. I mentioned within the auditor's report is about talking to the SPCB about identifying reporting routes and cases in which the threshold for protected disclosures is not met. Effectively, are they comfortable that if there were concerns around the operation of the office internally there would be clear reporting routes for them to take them out if the normal whistleblowing thresholds are not met? I think that those are the two, Patrick. Those routes of emphasis in terms of where staff can go if they have concerns about the office holder in the future have been re-emphasised within the organisation. For example, there's a route to go to Audit Scotland for certain concerns and that's been emphasised. The accountable officer of the ethical standards can also go to the accountable officer of the Parliament corporate body and there's also the Audit Advisory Board chair that has been clarified in terms of a reporting route to that chair if there are any concerns within the organisation. I think that there definitely has been progress in that respect. I think that that was a major route cost of the previous governance failure, so it was very important to rectify that, but again that's something that I wouldn't say that if I was continuing on in the audit role I would be keeping a very close eye on that to make sure that bed's in and is implemented effectively because it's a key thing that has to get put right going forward. There's certainly been progress been made in that respect, but it's very important that that continues to be looked at by the audit function going forward. So we will continue to be updated on that issue? Yeah, really just to reiterate my comments, Mr Coffey. There is an audit will happen as it will always do this year. An incoming auditor will assess progress against previous audit recommendations whether it's been made by their organisation or otherwise, so they'll take a view, but equally so will the Accountable Officer and the Commissioner too. We're approaching the end of this financial year now, 2022-23. Commissioner's Office will be preparing its annual reporting accounts, its governance statement, which is effectively the section of the annual accounts that for the Accountable Officer to set out their view of how effective governance has been. My report this morning includes extracts from the 2021-22 governance statement. The Accountable Officer will also want to update on their view of progress on the audit recommendations in this year's accounts. The auditor will form that view, and I'll report either to section 22, but depending on progress, perhaps through correspondence with the committee. You'll have that clear audit judgment of progress, deputy convener. Moving on to paragraph 17, in respect of the directions that were issued by the Standards Commission for Scotland, do you have any information on how long they are likely to remain in place for? I'm not sure I do. I'll maybe bring Pat in a second. The history to this was difficult in that it was part of the issue of the breakdown of relationships that existed between the Commissioner's Office previously and the Standards Commission. What we know and what we're reporting is that the Commissioner's Office judgment is that they have complied with all the requirements of that statutory direction up until 2021-22. It remained in place, but in terms of progress, I'll turn to colleagues if we've any fuller detail. Yes. The main directions are in place for another two years. I think there are several three or four distinctive directions, but the encouraging thing is that the main one, the main direction, which is really to investigate every complaint, which, as I say, is a key direction, that's only been put in place for the next six months before that will be looked at again. I think that's encouraging news that's such a short window for that one, but several of the other ones I think are there for two years. I'm going to ring Colin Beattie in, but just before I do that, can I go back to the question that Sharon Dowie was asking you was about the governance arrangements and the relationship between the SPCB and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life of Scotland office. Part of your reply, Pat, I think, was about the new whistleblowing arrangements that Richard mentioned, the threshold and so on, and internal outlets for people inside the organisation who've got concerns. I think that's right, but I think there were other warning signs, were there not, that didn't simply need to rely on staff working in the organisation to point out that there were some things not quite going as they ought to do. When I look at last year's section 22 report, I think you documented that in 2016-17, 43 per cent of complaints against councillors and board members were not pursued further, but by the time we get to 2021, 84 per cent of the cases lodged were not pursued. So it wasn't just a matter of those people who worked day in, day out having some concerns about the culture. Presumably there ought to have been some external monitoring of quite a big change in the way that complaints were being processed. Again, it comes back to this root point, which is this is about public trust and confidence in this whole system. I think that you're right, in my own response that I talked about, trying to strike the right balance. That's seen in evidence in the correspondence that the parliamentary corporate body has had with the finance committee and also with your own committee about the overall accountability arrangements for independent commissioners that the Parliament and its committees have a clearer opportunity to exercise oversight and accountability but not impinge upon the independence. You're quite right that some of those statistics suggest that those in themselves ought to have been alarm bells, warning signs that would have led to queries and challenges from the Parliament and the Parliamentary Corporate Body. We welcome the progress and the intended wider stronger arrangements to support that parliamentary oversight of commissioners. I think that, as I said as well, inevitably this will be one of balance that a commissioner is independent, is able to feel that they can exercise their statutory functions appropriately, but where there are evident signs and whatever suite of measures, performance indicators, staff whistleblowing arrangements, all of that serve as appropriate checks and balance. However, I agree with you that, looking back to what I have done to last year's report, there were clear signs of an organisation under stress. We'll come on to the outstanding cases that are sitting in the commission's office at the moment, but I'm going to bring Colin Beattie in. Thank you, convener. I would like to expand a little bit on what the convener has been saying about governance and so on. I'm looking at Exhibit 1 in your report, which shows some reporting lines. The ethical standards commissioner, according to this, reports in to two different bodies, depending on what the source of the complaints are, to the Standards Commission for Scotland, the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. What oversight do they have in terms of the Ethical Standards Commissioner? Exhibit 1 sets out the relationship between the Ethical Standards Commissioner and its key stakeholders, both with—I'll come directly to your oversight question in a moment, Mr Beattie, but maybe I say that the Exhibit illustrates that there is a complexity here, both in terms of reporting lines from the work of the commissioner, depending on the subject matter—MSPs, lobbyists or public appointment process—through to the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Parliament. If it relates to members of public boards or local authority councillors, it goes to the Standards Commission. Oversight and reporting didn't work effectively. I think that's one of the clear judgments that we can see from both last year's report and, while welcoming the progress this year, you see that there is still an issue that requires careful consideration. We welcome the fact that the Presiding Officer herself is taking an interest in the issue alongside the chief executive of the Parliament to have that clear balance. I continue to use that word if I may, Mr Beattie, about the independence of the commissioners, that they are able to carry out their functions as intended, but there are sufficient checks and balances alongside the work of commissioners. From what I read of the correspondence, some of those issues go wider than just those of the commissioner for ethical standards. It's about a wider consideration of all the independent commissioners that are appointed by the Parliament. If I read carefully the official report that the parliamentary corporate body and the evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee that there are more commissioners that are potentially coming into the Parliament's arrangements, there is a really opportune moment here to just to say, well, that the Parliament itself is satisfied that they have that balance between their independence and their oversight. The split of that oversight is set out, but those arrangements have been tested and if I just finish on that one last example that we set out in last year's report, that was not able to be resolved as it related to local authority members and public boards by the Standards Commission other than issuing a statutory direction. That feels like a one end of a spectrum of interventions that a key stakeholder could make. There ought to have been other opportunities for oversight, especially by the Parliament itself. Do we understand what the Standards Commission and Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee understand by oversight? Is it the same as what we think oversight is, or are they just passively receiving reports in from the Ethical Standards Commissioner as in when? By limit to my understanding, it is probably not appropriate for me to speak on behalf of the Standards Commission for Scotland or indeed the Standards Committee of the Parliament. The only thing that I would probably add to that is that I do not think that you could say that that would be a passive recipient, certainly not the Standards Commission for Scotland can clearly, as we set out in last year's report and I have updated today, that those relationships broke down. Rather than being passive on it, the Standards Commission issued that statutory direction to safeguard its interests in its own statutory functions. It may be something that the committee may wish to explore further with those two organisations. I am still looking at that exhibit. If we are looking at the SPCB and you have here advisory audit board, can you describe what the advisory audit board does? Yes. The advisory audit board of the parliamentary corporate body is akin to an audit committee, so it will receive reports from the internal auditors but its primary purpose is to advise the principal accountable officer of the clerk to the Scottish Parliament to support his approval and consideration of the annual report and accounts. Its business goes wider than that but it will also consider risk management arrangements and, as I mentioned, audit reports. The best description is that it is the audit committee of the parliamentary corporate body. You have here a dotted line from the advisory audit board where members are drawn from the SPCB's own advisory audit board. Does that mean that the individuals who are appointed to do all the investigations and so on are members of the advisory board? There is a slight nuance to that. I will bring Pat in a moment to say a bit more about some of the detail of that. Ultimately, the re-established audit advisory board of the commissioners office, while sharing membership of the parliamentary corporate body's own AAB, is not tasked with investigations. It is about the internal governance and running of the commissioners office, rather than having a direct operational function to consider. If I have understood your question correctly, Mr Beattie. What are members doing in the ethical standards commissioners office? Ultimately, you would describe them as non-executive members that the Parliament appoints to support the principal accountable officer in respect of audit risk internal audit matters. It is not about the day-to-day running of the organisation, but it is about effective governance. If I might pass on to Pat, I can say a bit more about that. One of the fundamentals of last year's report was that the AAB was not operating. Effectively, that was an organisation that had the core of good governance that did not have an audit committee to support the commissioner and the accountable officer to discharge their functions. It is welcome that that is back in place and operating as intended, but it maybe just illustrates the scale of breakdown of governance that it is almost unheard of for a public body not to operate with an audit committee or advisory board. If I may, Pat, I can add a bit more depth to that. Typically, Mr Beattie, the advisory board would, for example, approve the internal audit plan, the areas of the internal audit function that we are looking at, would review internal audit reports, external audit reports, assess whether they were fit for purpose, make observations and suggestions. That is the typical role. The auditors would be, if you like, accountable to the advisory board members. As the Auditor General mentioned, the key issue that was the root cause of a lot of these issues was the breakdown. The advisory board just did not sit under the previous commissioner at ethical standards. That was a major cause of the failure, I think. I had six years of audit appointments for all the commissioners in Scotland. My feeling as I leave that appointment is that it is a very distinctive role, the commissioner. The advisory board has similarities to an audit committee, as the Auditor General mentioned. In my experience, it does not have the full power of an audit committee that you would see in other parts of the public sector. I was struck when I took over the appointments of the commissioners because of that independence dimension. I had never quite experienced anything quite like it before, despite a wide public sector experience. The commissioners were very keen to emphasise their independence to me. That took several man of infestations. It is a very, very—because they are smaller bodies, very high-profile bodies and very different and distinctive bodies—that my feeling as I leave is that it possibly would be worth having a independent review of the governance model end-to-end between the commissioners and the Parliament corporate body, because of that distinctiveness, because of that difference that you do not see in other parts of the public sector. Did the SPCB receive reports from the advisory audit board? I understand that the advisory audit board within the Ethical Standards Commissioner failed to meet and just did not do its job, but presumably the advisory audit board that is linked to the SPCB was still functioning, and SPCB was receiving reports. What kind of reports? In the year that they were in functioning, I would need to double check that, but I do not think the S. There was obviously no formal reporting link between the Ethical Standards Advisory Board and the corporate body, and that was part of the issue. That was one of the red flags for me in that year of audit. I can double check what exactly happened there, Mr Beattie, but I do not think that there was any reporting in that sense in that particular year. What reporting would you expect? Given the fact that they share membership or ought to have shared membership, there ought to have been an escalation arrangement that a member sitting on the AAB of the commissioner's office should have had the opportunity to highlight to the parliamentary corporate body's own audit advisory board that there were issues of concern. That goes back to the conversation with the convener that, for the parliamentary corporate body to take its own view now about what checks, balances and oversight arrangements it wants from its commissioners, perhaps speaks to the wider-point pat that is making that these are unusual governance arrangements. Although I should say that the committee will be interested to know that this is the arrangement that the Scottish Government also has through its audit and assurance committee, it too is advisory to support the principal accountable officer, so not quite as you would recognise as a more traditional audit committee. However, there should be an escalation opportunity for the commissioners audit advisory boards into the parliamentary corporate body's own AAB and beyond, if necessary. Has that now been put in place? Those are the arrangements that are being proposed, as well as the suggestion to the convener's group that there is wider oversight. We would need to explore further with the Parliament that those are the precise requirements, but it is very clear that we can see that this matter has been taken seriously and that governance is in a stronger position. I do have a slight caveat that we have not yet encountered an example where they have been tested to that extent, and it is the scenario and stress testing that all parties are clear about roles and responsibilities. I have a couple of quick questions for you. Both in your report and in your opening remarks, you talked about the dual task of meeting core business demands alongside progressing the remaining auditor recommendations, which means that significant pressures on the commissioners office are likely to continue in the coming year. Can you expand a little bit on some of those pressures and what action needs to be taken to address them? I am happy to do that. It is all well and good for us to recognise that. I think that what is also welcome is that the commissioners office itself is reporting that. I mentioned the in-flight analogy a few minutes ago that it has taken a lot from the organisation to recover to the position of where it is rebuilding its relationships. It is with external parties, with its staff as well, and also discharging its statutory functions as intended. It is good work to do, as we set out in Exhibit 2 about the scale of complaints that have been received together with the reported backlog. I think that our report sets out that there is a nine-month backlog for people to have an initial complaint assessed. The commissioners website is reporting some progress. They are now saying that it is now eight months for an initial assessment. However, that still contrasts with a number of weeks' weight, as was the case before the pandemic and organisational challenges that exist. Progress-wise, it is important to stress that the organisation has undertaken a strategic workforce review. That led to a conclusion that it was under-resourced and under-staffed to discharge its functions. It needed to have an operating staff of around 20 people, and at that point it was identified that it was a 7.4 whole-time equivalence short of that number. That formed the fundamentals of their budget submission to the parliamentary corporate body, now since approved by the Parliament. Work to do still must have been to recruit to the new posts, to provide training and engagement with new colleagues, to deliver on-going statutory work and, at the same time, clawback some of the backlog that has grown. You have actually addressed to some extent the second question that I was going to ask, but it was about staffing and capacity concerns that have been evident in terms of 2021-22. Are you satisfied that the workforce capacity has now been resolved? I think that that is much a question for the commissioner's office itself, that they have reached that judgment. Certainly, that was the basis of their budget submission to the parliamentary corporate body and the Parliament's consideration of it. They have grown by almost 50 per cent in terms of staffing cohort. Clearly, that is hugely significant and quite at odds with what you would expect of budgetary constraint at the current time. Clearly, it is their judgment that that was what was needed for them to operate effectively to discharge their statutory functions and to make inroads into that backlog. From an auditor's perspective, we will continue to monitor and assess that progress over the course of the year ahead. Thank you very much indeed. I am going to invite Sharon Dowey to come back in with another question. You mentioned in your reply to Colin Beattie about the workforce planning exercise, and that revealed that the commissioner's office would not be able to meet the statutory functions and address the recommendations that were made in your 2020-21 audit report. Emergency proposals for additional funding were submitted to the SPCB in May 2022 and were granted in October 2022, which is quite a long time period for something that is described as emergency proposals. Do you have a view on that? I am not familiar with any particular reason why there is a gap between the proposals from the commissioner's office and the Parliament's consideration approval. The only thing that I can assume would be that it was deemed appropriate that that sat in line with the Parliament's overall consideration of the SPCB's budget submission for the 2023-24 year. There is perhaps something of a two-stage element to the workforce component, deputy convener. We set out in the report that it has recruited to vacancies in its staffing structure, so it has gone some way to address the full component of staff that was needed, but the second element will be far more substantial. It may be that the SPCB is better placed to answer its consideration as to why it felt that it was better to wait for the annual budget setting process rather than an autumn budget review. That delay in confirming the funding would have an impact and then being able to action the recommendations in the report? I think that it is fair to say that there is a correlation between those two things. The commissioner's office has noted that the scale of challenge that they have been dealing with in the current year of delivering their statutory function, while addressing audit recommendations, we would expect to see now that it will really well be into 2023-24 as they recruit to the new staffing structure that will see more significant inroads into compliance and addressing the backlog. Thank you very much. You mentioned Exhibit 2 in one of your answers there, and I know that Craig Hoy has got some questions in that area as well. Thank you again. Good morning, Mr Bolls. Nice to see you again. I just want to get a sense of whether or not we are turning the corner on the backlog. Exhibit 1 on page 7 of the report provides information on the increases and complaints that are still open at the year end of 2021 and 2021-22. It shows an increase in the respect of complaints that are still open that relate to local councils and boards of 122 and an increase of cases relating to MSPs of 22, so 22 are higher than the year before. Obviously, you referenced that they are just closing the 2021-23 figures, because those backlogs are to 31 March 2022. Do you at this point in time have an impression as to whether or not the backlog is now falling? Certainly, that is what the commissioner's office is reporting on its own website, so it is saying that the backlog, as we report, was nine months. They are now advising the public that it has fallen to eight months. Clearly, that is progress. There is still a way to go, Mr Hoy, to address the point that I mentioned in the introductory remarks that, although a backlog of that extent remains, it risks challenging the trust and confidence in the process of those that are making complaints and those that are subject to a complaint. We all want to see a small sense of progress in the investment that the Parliamentary Corporate Body has made in the organisation into a growing staffing complement. We will address that backlog quicker over the course of 2023. Perhaps you have talked quite extensively about staffing restrictions and budgets, but I just wanted to reflect on paragraph 22 of the report, which states that all vacancies bar 1 have now been filled. However, when discussing the complaints backlog, paragraph 25 states that additional recruitment will help, but that it will take time for that to be completed. Does that mean that further additional posts have been created? If so, can you say how many and whether or not the recruitment exercise is presently under way for those? There are two separate things. Paragraph 22 refers to the previously agreed staffing structure and vacancies that had arisen, which were one of the contributory factors to the issues in the organisation. All those posts that have been a pre-existing structure have now been filled. The Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Parliament in the emergency budget proposal that the deputy convener referred to have agreed to increase the staffing cohort of the commissioner's office by 7.4 additional whole-time equivalents. A real significant growth in the organisation is the recruitment that is currently under way to fill for those vacancies. Obviously, for the public and also for elected members and board members to have confidence in the system, it is important that we see sustained improvements in performance. Your report states that the commissioner's office is planning to introduce performance indicators to track complaints handling, and that that will be introduced by March of this year. Can you tell us if the work is going according to plan and if the deadline of March 23 will be met? I will have the last part to pick that up if there is no detail on it. Yes, absolutely. I am pleased to confirm, Mr Roy, that the KPIs are part of the new investigations manual, which will be finalised in this month, which has been subject to extensive consultation. There are clear KPIs in stage 1 and stage 2 assessments with targets set at each stage of the investigation process, so that will be implemented from this month. A bit of a crystal ball projection, Mr Ball, but in relation to an acceptable level of backlog, what would that be comparable with similar institutions? I would probably need to take away and come back to the committee in writing what the Commission for Ethical Standards in Scotland backlog relates to other parts of the UK and wider jurisdictions. I am happy to do that, Mr Roy, but in terms of its own performance, I think that I mentioned already this morning that before the organisational issues that were documented last year and an update to run today, it was a number of weeks of backlog, as opposed to eight to nine months that we are currently operating. In today's report, we think that there is the foundation for progress to re-establish the commissioners office. It is done well to address the audit recommendations. We expect to see that the investment that the parliamentary corporate body has made in additional staff to make inroads into that backlog quickly over the course of this year. Thank you very much. There are just a couple of areas that I wanted to cover before we close. One was to go back to that Exhibit 2 table, which tells us about the rate of complaint. I mean, I have to say that one of the things that struck me was that there are 1,227 elected councillors in Scotland, and that is not including board members that are added to that category as well who are facing 146 complaints. There are 129 MSPs who are facing 760 complaints. Why is that differential? I would only be speculating, convener, as to the rationale for what draws a member of the public to raise a complaint about a member of the Scottish Parliament, as opposed to a local authority elected member or Parliament board. I assume that the profile and reach of members of the Scottish Parliament is such that it brings more attention as opposed to that of elected members and members of public boards. My speculation is maybe not that helpful, convener. Yes, I understand as an auditor that you do not want to speculate. We are very flattered by what you have just told us about our profile. The serious point is the one that I made earlier on, which was when the organisation appeared to be in some kind of crisis, one of the measures of that was the extent to which cases were not pursued. I cited the example of complaints against councillors. 84 per cent were not pursued. Do you have any up-to-date figures about the number of cases that are not being pursued? If those KPIs are set out in the commissioner's office reporting part, I may have a bit more detail to hand a term to him in a second. The only point that is aligned with that, convener, is that perhaps worth reiterating—I think that I came up with evidence last year—is that the commissioner sought legal advice just to test whether cases that had previously been adjudicated on could be revisited and the advice was that no, they could not understand statute. It matters that the process is right going forward and to re-emphasise the trust and confidence of the public in the totality of the process. If we have that, if Pat has that detail, he can share it with you, convener. If not, we can again come back to you in writing. We can come back with the specifics, but my understanding is that the figure is now more in line with what you would expect from historical percentages. There has been a change back to the norm. That is helpful. You mentioned the situation that I certainly raised last year, and I think that other members of the committee raised it as well, which was a concern that we have that is referred to in the audit report as functus officio, which is the Latin legal term, which means that people who had cases that were discarded, as part of that, 84 per cent, do not have a right to resurrect those claims. Those claims and complaints are dead. That raises a wider question about public confidence in the system, and whether or not those people had justice served or not. I wonder whether you have a comment about that. On receipt of Pat's audit report last year, the judgment that I made to raise a section 22 report last year was primarily on that basis, so that the Parliament and the public can have awareness and look to restore trust and confidence in that important function on behalf of the people of Scotland. That exists for a reason that it was not operating effectively. I think that there is some regret, and perhaps that the commissioner's office is not able to revisit those cases, because undoubtedly it will take a lot for a member of the public to raise a concern, whether it is about a member of a public board, a councillor, an MSP or indeed a lobbyist, for that matter, and that they are unable to have confidence that they are complaining what either was or was not one of the ones that was deemed to be handled properly. No doubt will require effective communication from the commissioner's office going forward, just so that they can reassure the public that arrangements are now operating as intended. Those people may indeed seek their own legal advice on that interpretation. One of the other things in this area that rang a bit of an alarm bell with me was the management update on the recommendations around this whole area, which included the exit. We took our own legal advice and concluded that we could not reopen investigations on the basis of the legal principle Functus Efficio. We also concluded that there would be no value in conducting a lessons learned process. Why was that conclusion arrived at? Do you have a page reference that I can draw on from? I am looking at the action plan. The legal advice is, as noted, a bit more about the auditor's judgment in respect of that. My take on it is that the organisation has changed so fundamentally since its period of challenge. It has a new commissioner, a new acting accountable officer and re-established governance arrangements that were in place. I can go on to the new business plan and strategic plan. There is a clear direction of travel for the organisation in complying with its statutory functions and addressing the issues at hand. Overall, together with rebuilding relationships and the oversight point that we have talked about this morning in terms of the parliamentary corporate body, many of the components of lessons learned are actually happening. Even if management judgment is that an exercise that is labelled as such is not necessary, I think that it is clear to see that all the evidence before the committee reflects events that took place and responds. As I said, although it has not been called yet, it is clear to see that that in the round is what is happening. That is my take on it. I will pass to Pat. I agree totally, Auditor General. We made that recommendation at the time. It was on lessons learned and that was before we fully understood the degree of change within the organisation with the new commissioner. I am satisfied with how they have taken on board the recommendations and the progress that has been made. As the Auditor General has said, effectively the lessons have been learned. One of the issues that arose last year was the separation of the commissioner from the position of accountable officer. Can I just clear up what the current status is? Those arrangements have continued. I am sure that the committee will know that a permanent commissioner was appointed in January. Ian Bruce, who had been acting as the commissioner, the accountable officer had been acting as the previous job holders title, but one of the senior officers in the commissioner's office. In terms of forward arrangements, I think that it is my understanding that they are continuing to remain separate. I will check in with colleagues if they have any country. That is my understanding. Pat, you have shared with us your experience of dealing with commissioner's offices over a long number of years. Is that a usual arrangement that there is a split between the commissioner and the accountable officer role? That is not the norm. It was applied in this case, given the very specific issues that were relevant to the organisation. It is fair to say that it is not the norm, but it might possibly be worth reconsiderating that again in terms of what would happen in other commissioners. I can definitely see the argument for it being the same individual. There are pros and cons. Even outside of the realms of commissioners, there are one or two other examples in Scottish public bodies where there is that separation, for example in the register of Scotland. The keeper of the registers, although effectively as the chief executive, is not the accountable officer by virtue of statute in terms of whether they themselves are part of the Scottish administration. Managing what would be perceptions of conflict of interest, there are isolated examples where the most senior official is not the accountable officer. In that example, I do not think that there is an unhelpful consequence that they have reached to, particularly given some of their statutory functions, to have that separation. I am here to offer advice that one would be kept under review as to whether that the new model is operating as intended. If anyone was to take up Pat Kenny's recommendation of an end-to-end review, that might be something that would be worth considering. From our point of view as a committee, it might be useful if we are able to get data on the accountable officer slash commissioner role in the different commissions that are accountable to the Parliament. I think that that would be useful for us to have sight of that, because of course the accountable officer is a position that is in the Scottish public finance manual and is a designated position. Invariably, I think, is the person who is the most senior official in the organisation. Yes, convener, and of course they are personally accountable for the effective operation of the organisation and effective discharge of public funds to that organisation. We would be very happy to work with the committee to share further details on the commissioner's arrangements and indeed to engage further with the parliamentary corporate body on its intentions. The very final question that I have relates to something that Pat Kenny mentioned much earlier on in the session, because we were concerned a little bit about medium-term financial planning arrangements. Again, just picking up on the action plan report, we were struck by the expression in there where we were told that it was at that point outstanding, but in the views of the management that this is considered a low priority to which I think our question was by who, because medium-term financial planning, it seems to us, is pretty important in ensuring the sustainability of an organisation like a commissioner's office. Can I say a word about that first, convener, and I'll bring Pat? Yes, there is. I think that in our own section 22 report we've noted that the need for a medium-term financial plan to feature prominently as part of the commissioner's office actions in the year ahead. We're not querying its financial sustainability in the short term, but it matters, as we would expect to hear from us for all public bodies, to have a medium-term financial plan to explore scenarios about how it will resolve them and that it is appropriately connected to their workforce and wider business planning arrangements. I think that I'm right, but Pat can certainly correct me that the low priority, I think that's the audit view in terms of the prioritisation of recommendations. Pat can come in on that and say as much as he wishes. I think that they are making progress, chair, and I think that they are looking for templates from other similar types of organisations in other parts of the public sector in terms of developing a medium-term financial plan. As I said, I've got six years' experience of commissioner's offices. To be frank, there's often not a great deal of enthusiasm for medium-term financial planning. Typically, you would get the response, so we only get a one-year budget settlement. What is the point of that? I've tried to emphasise that it's very important in terms of governance that they engage in creating that medium-term financial plan, but you do find across the public sector in smaller organisations where they have a limited financial planning arising that it's sometimes difficult to convince them of the merits of medium-term financial plan, but that's the continuing role that we, as auditors, have to undertake to make sure that they get over the line in terms of completing that medium-term financial plan. I think that it's right that we'll leave the last word to you, Pat Kenny, because I think that it's felt a little bit like you've shared with us the candor of an exit interview with your honest assessment of what's going on out there. I've finally found that very, very useful. I thank the Auditor General, Richard Robinson and Pat Kenny for your evidence this morning. We have found it very useful, and we will consider, as a committee, what our next steps are. I thank you for your contributions this morning, and I'm now going to close the public part of this morning's meeting.