 for all, report of the Parliament's gender-sensitive audit, and agenda item 5 is considering evidence that we will hear today from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. Our members in agreement to take that in private. I am grateful. That brings us to our second agenda item, and I would like to welcome Ian Bruce, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards, who is joined today by Angela Glenn, who is a senior investigation officer. Can I welcome you both to the meeting, and can I just formally recognise Ian your appointment now as commissioner, having been acting commissioner during the process, indeed, of the annual report that we're going to look at today. Welcome. Ian, would you like to make a sort of opening comments before I move to questions? I would thank you convener. I'm very grateful. Thank you convener and members of the committee for the invitation and the opportunity to talk to you about the work of our office. I will keep this statement brief, as I am sure that you will have a number of questions for me. I'm joined by Ms Glenn, as you observed, and she will be happy to provide more detail on our work on complaint handling and any detailed questions that you may have in that area. We're keen to ensure, as usual, that the committee is fully informed about our performance. I trust that you've reviewed the last two annual reports and that they will give you a flavour of the challenges that our organisation has faced since I took up office as acting commissioner almost two years ago now. I've now been formally imposed as commissioner following approval by the Scottish Parliament since 1 March, so relatively recently. I don't plan to rehearse all those challenges here, although we will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have on any of them. I felt it may instead be more helpful at this point to bring the committee briefly up to speed on the current circumstances and our plans for the future. Clearly, our last annual report is historic in nature. Audit Scotland, you'll be aware, laid another section 22 report during the course of January to follow up on our progress in the usual way. It did reflect positively on the work that we've done to rebuild our office and the services that we provide and to restore confidence in the ethical standards framework. However, it also made it clear that more work has to be done to embed the good practice that we have adopted since the last section 22 report was laid by the Auditor General. I expect to be giving evidence to the Public Audit Committee on this prior to the end of January. In terms of the progress made, we've included all of the details on our website and in summary in our annual report. In brief, we've fully implemented now 16 of Auditor's recommendations and partially implemented the remainder that we are able to, and we can provide more detail during the course of this session. We've concentrated on re-establishing our governance, our systems of assurance, our relationships with stakeholders and our staffing levels. On that front, we are in the midst of recruitment to fill roles that were approved by the SPCB in October, with the first new staff member joining us just last Monday and currently going through her induction. In terms of my plans for the immediate future, I intend to complete additional recruitment followed by induction in order to clear our investigations backlog and in order to process complaints much more quickly in the future. I'm also planning to introduce a communications strategy and develop and measure progress against key performance indicators. I expect all of this to be in place by the end of the financial year or shortly thereafter. In respect of public appointments, the revised code of practice, which I previously consulted with the committee and all our other stakeholders on, came into effect last October. We've worked alongside the Scottish Government to assist with its implementation and the early signs are very positive. Good practice reports to continue to be at higher than previous levels, which is very hardening. The revised code is intended to embed learning lessons on an on-going basis. I will monitor this aspect of its implementation and report to the committee on progress against it, particularly in respect of appointment rounds that fail to deliver a successful outcome. I trust that this is of interest to the committee and I and my colleague are very happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much Ian. With all the usual fun and games as convener, I'm going to go first and steal all of the best questions. Before we start, it's very welcome, I think, the continuing honesty in respect of the annual report from the previous one and this one about the challenges that you as a commissioner and indeed your office have faced at a time. It is right to say that a number of external comments have pointed to failings that historically have existed within the commissioner's office in the recent past and all of those do show from the evidence that was given at Audit Committee last week to the various reports that go with this. All contain comments to the effect that they have seen great change but there is still change to go and there is some time before rebuilding the confidence, if I use that word, in your department and indeed in yourself. Just as a first off, what do you feel about seeing those comments yourself as commissioner? Does it resonate with you? Is it something that you understand and is it something that you are committed to continue to reach for those highest standards that you have spoken about in your report? I am absolutely committed to continuing improvement for our office. More than that, now that I have been a pointer as commissioner for a six-year term, I am now looking six years ahead and I have already communicated this to the entire office. We are looking to staff up. We will be in a much better position as an office than we have ever been historically. I have ambitions not only in terms of being a really good public sector employer but really effective at what we do and in particular in respect of complaint handling, the most effective complaint handling organisation across the administration and further afield. That is my ambition and it is shared. They are very welcome comments and rather than use the phrase, I hope they do not come back to haunt, I actually hope that they give you and others around you the confidence to carry on and achieve that. I wanted to get into some of the detail and in particular something that I know that you are aware has interested me significantly, which is the relationship between your staff and when they have concerns. We have previously taken evidence and other committees have taken evidence about the quite formalised whistleblowing provisions that exist. Interestingly, in the evidence that was given to the Audit Committee last week, and I intend to quote from this because I would like to receive your comments on it, Pat Kenney gave evidence to the Act that, quote, the routes that staff can use if they are concerned about the office holder in the future have been re-emphasised within the organisation. For example, one route that has been emphasised involves going towards Audit Scotland to raise certain concerns. The Accountable Officer of the Ethical Standards Commissioner can also go to the Accountable Officer of the Corporate Body and it has been clarified that there is a reporting route to the chair of Audit Advisory Board if there are concerns within the organisation. He then gives a little bit more evidence but then says, quote, I would be keeping a very close eye on the process to ensure that it beds in and is implemented effectively because it is key that that be put right. Progress has certainly been made in that respect but it is very important that the Audit function continues to look at that issue. Now the issue isn't just from a point of view of a financial audit but the first green to amber warning signs that something is going wrong. Would you like to comment on that and I hope to give confirmation to this committee that you are in agreement with the evidence that we have heard here but can I also ask what the challenges are with regard to that going forward? I am certainly in agreement with that although we are on a transitional phase at the moment and as much as we have just drafted terms of reference and they are in draft for the advisory audit board and the chair of the advisory audit board, we reached agreement with him that he would be the route for staff to report concerns. If I could take the committee back, part of the reason that things went south for what we expressed within the organisation was that the concerns were about the accountable officer and there is a threshold for whistleblowing so the activity that is of concern has to overreach that particular threshold which relates to criminal activity. It is when the concerns are below that threshold that the reporting route is less clear what we are making arrangements for is for staff where they have concerns but they do not necessarily qualify as whistleblowing can raise those concerns with the chair of the advisory audit board and then there is scope for the chair of the advisory audit board to consider what the reporting route that they might use would be so it cuts the commissioner, any commissioner who is not engaging but perhaps not operating in the way that they should, it cuts the commissioner out of that process. We also have internal audit arrangements now firmly embedded and those will continue and so we have already had them look for example at our governance arrangements including our whistleblowing policy and they will continue to do follow-ups so there is much more in terms of independent assessment of the way in which I operate and there are many more routes for staff to take depending on the nature of the concerns that they have. Very helpful. I can see the route that has been charted from a formal point of view but the reality of all of this is that it is based on relationships, it is based on confidence that somebody who chooses a slightly archaic term perceives they have less power than the person that they are concerned about and indeed less power than the person that they are speaking to whether they have the relationship strength in those relationships to be able to do that. Do you have confidence that on a practical level that relationship exists in the sense that someone would approach an individual and be able to say, can I just have a word? You obviously have spoken about a considerable change in staffing and an increase in staffing and the fact that during those occasions there are always challenges about keeping the confidence or the identity but it is also an opportunity to be able to build an identity that you want to see. First, are you confident that the relationships are strong enough and exist for it to work on that? Do you see the opportunity with a changing personnel to be able to build an identity that you are happy with, that you are happy to see but also that your staff are happy to be part of? Absolutely, yes. I have spoken to the committee previously about the fact that one of the first things that I felt that was important that I do was establish a set of values for the office and all existing staff were introduced to those values and part and parcel of that was the need for them to be able to constructively challenge my thinking in any given area. I do not operate in an autocratic way, I do not believe that I always have all the answers, although the buck certainly stops with me. All staff are encouraged, required even to an extent, to constructively challenge me in circumstances in which they feel that I am not operating effectively or if my judgment is not sound. I ran a training session yesterday on precisely this topic for the entire staff team, which Ms Glenn will be able to testify to. We have also made that part of our recruitment process so I have reiterated to everyone who applied for the several roles that we advertised to the Christmas holidays, that those values are fundamental to the way in which the office operates. I am going further than that, so I am notwithstanding that I am a parliamentary office holder and I do not have a board of governance. There are no provisions for that in statute. I, alongside my colleague Karen Elder, who is head of corporate services and was accountable officer until such time as my appointment as commissioner, we have developed terms of reference for the senior management team and included within those terms of reference it is not just about supporting the commissioner to fulfil the statutory function, it is also about, and this is built into the terms of reference, challenging the commissioner in circumstances in which they feel that the commissioner's judgment is flawed. Yes, we have the reporting routes, but all of the staff are empowered to challenge me and in the event that they feel that that challenge is not being taken cognisance of, they understand that there are other routes that they can go down. That is very helpful. The final question from me, which unfortunately is an incredibly specific question, but again it is something that I have had an interest from in a while. The Dehoi audit report gave a whole list of recommendations which now sit in the public and one of them was in relation to the commissioner's office should engage with the SPCB in Parliament to determine the reporting route for concerns about a commissioner. The management update for that was worrying in a sense that there is no revised target date because there seems to be required input from SPCB. I know that we are looking at an annual report in essence for last year and I just wonder whether you could bring the committee up to date with regard to engagement with SPCB, particularly about this point as to the structures that you have already described to us. Yes, so talks with the SPCB have been on-going for some while. It is wider than just my office. They are now talking to all office holders on a more regular basis, so it is an exchange of information. I am not entirely convinced that that reporting route has been established yet. I have just explained one of the things that I am doing for my own part, which is this senior management team terms of reference. We are also writing terms of reference for the advisory audit board, but they have made it clear that they are just an advisory audit board. They cannot fulfil the role of non-executives for our particular body. We are going to the SPCB with a governance framework document which clarifies this new role that the senior management team will have in respect of the commissioner. It will discuss the fact that they are capable of reporting to the Parliament in the event that they have concerns about me. In that way, I think that we are going to provide that additional level of assurance that the auditors were looking for but did not come up with a solution for. Those are the proposals that we are going to bring forward to the SPCB. It is difficult. Clearly, they have in mind independence of office holders and clearly do not want to direct me in the exercise of my functions. I think that this sort of solution that we are positing should give both them and subject committees a level of assurance about what I am putting in place. Do you envisage that that reporting process would be to the SPCB? I am asking you. It is difficult because obviously you have not had a discussion with SPCB or whether or not the reporting route would be somewhere else. I think that there are two options. You mentioned them in as much as Pat Kenny referred to both. The SPCB is basically talking about the accountable officer for the Parliament. As the accountable officer, that individual is also the accountable officer for our budgetary spend but also Audit Scotland. I am still of the view that potentially there is more that Audit Scotland could do looking at governance of bodies similar to ours with more focus on governance for bodies similar to ours as opposed to simply financial issues. I would observe, because I have kept an eye on these for a long time with my public appointments hat on, that the majority of section 22 reports that end up in front of the Public Audit Committee tend not to be about failures in financial management, they tend to be about failures in governance. I would certainly encourage Audit Scotland and the SPCB to continue discussions about the way in which they provide oversight of all office holders. That is very helpful. Thank you. As promised, that was my last question. Collec, can I come to you? Yes. Thanks, convener. Good morning and welcome back in. You touched upon it in your opening comments about your progress with recruitment and it is heartening to hear that you have managed to take on another member of staff. Could you maybe address the progress that you have made currently in terms of staffing and recruitment and what plans you have got in place to manage the existing capacity concerns and I know that that was highlighted by the external auditors as well? We have moved as quickly as we could. We put our bid into the SPCB last May because we brought forward workforce planning. I know that we had a lot going on. We have got statutory function to fulfil and the senior management team was very stretched, but notwithstanding that, we felt that this is a priority. It is one of those chicken and egg situations. If you do not bite the bullet and get on and do the workforce planning, then you cannot recruit staff and people will remain on that hamster wheel. That was done. The earliest opportunity that the SPCB had to meet me in person to discuss that bid was October. It was agreed shortly thereafter. I and the management team then began planning in November. We advertised all those new post vacancies prior to the Christmas holidays. Recruitment is well under way. I have mentioned one new member of staff started on Monday. We have another one starting on 20 May. This is on corporate services side. This is due to their notice period. We have another one starting later on in that month. As far as the investigations side of the office goes, we have already made an offer that has been accepted. There are two offers, one of which has been accepted for an additional investigations officer. I think that their notice period is about a month, so they will be starting in roughly a month's time. Hearings and investigations officer, I think that their notice period is two months. Angela will keep me right, but I think that we are looking at them starting towards the end of May. We have a support officer for the investigations team. Angela, perhaps you can remind me of their start date. Their start date will be 23 March, so in two weeks. We are filling all of these posts at the moment. We have full induction timetables for each and every one of them. We are involving every part of the office. One of the other order's recommendations, which I happily agreed with, was that we needed to build resilience across the office. Every team member becomes familiar with the work with every part of the office, so that we have fail safes in place. Perhaps that responds to the other part of your question, to ensure that we have fail safes in place in relation to all of our work. Clearly, we are still stretched at the moment until such time is all these people are up and running. That is roughly 50 per cent of the pre-existing workforce, so inevitably we were stretched. We continue to be stretched, but once they are all in place, I am more than confident that we will be handling things in the way that we ought to be. That is excellent, but it is great that you have made progress on that anyway. On progress in achieving the three strategic objectives set out in the ASC's revised strategic plan, what progress have you made for that for 2021-24? It is all going very well from my perspective. We are under resourced, and bringing on board that additional resource will allow us to achieve all of those objectives. With no difficulty, in my view. I can go into considerably more detail, but we are very transparent about the progress that we are making. There is a strategic plan, and those objectives are quite broad in nature, but what sits below them is a rolling biennial business plan, which again is new for the office, so it is now running a two-yearly basis. It has a whole range of objectives that sit within it, so specific actions that each part of the office needs to undertake in order to meet the objectives set out in the strategic plan. Below that, and it is part of our performance framework, each section has an individual action plan, and each member of staff has an individual action plan as well. It is discussed with the airline manager at the start of each year, so those are the things that you need to do. What support, what training, what development do you need in order to successfully achieve those? One of the other recommendations from the external auditor was the publication of the investigations manual as well. Has there been any progress made to finalising the manual and when will the final version be made public? Yes. The investigations manual has actually been in place, and I am not having a go at the auditors, but this has been a bit of a moving target in as much as they asked us to produce an investigations manual. We did, and it has been in place since November 2021. A significant amount of work on the part of Ms Glenn. We are now at version 8, and we have been working to it since 2021, but we went further in the recommendation, which was we decided that it was appropriate to consult all of our stakeholders, including this committee, on the provisions in that manual. I know that it is quite technical, but some things we did want people's views on, such as how quickly we should be able to progress investigations. Public consultation finished at the end of last year, it was November, and we are on track. Angela has done all the analysis of all the consultation responses. We introduced some new measures herself, just based on things that people were telling us. If you have been subjected to a complaint, or if you have been a complainer, and you did not like the way we handled something, we think about that collectively, and we have updated the manual to reflect what we feel is better practice in that area. We are on track to publish by the end of March. Okay, that is great. Thanks very much. I am getting no further questions. Just one slight follow-up question, respect of the manual, but also the whole process. It is interesting that, from the website, the view into a complaint, be it towards an MSP, towards a councillor, has a single point of entry, which would, on my reading of it, tend to indicate to people who are using it that the process is the same for all of these. Whereas I think people, and again this is entirely a subjective view of my own, if someone knows they are going to complain about an MSP, they know they are going to complain about an MSP, or if it is about lobbying, or if it is about a councillor. I just wondered about the thinking behind why that single entry and why not allow people to see the differentiation that exists, which I think we have seen evidence that can cause confusion further down the line. Why was chosen to do that, and whether that is something that you would perhaps reconsider or indeed are considering? So a single point of entry perhaps is about making it as easy as possible for people to make a complaint if they wish to, but once you get beyond that single point of entry, so it is all website design basically, but there is an accordion, and people are taking down the appropriate route based on their first choice. The options are, I would like to complain about, so an MSP is one option, a councillor is another option, a lobbyist is another, a nurse is another option. So in terms of procedure and the questions that people are asked and what they say to us, they don't need to know what's behind those particular choices after that initial point of entry, but they are funneled in order to respond to the sorts of questions that we need answers to in order to investigate their particular concern appropriately. We don't expect people to understand what's in the manual, but for complainers and respondents, with a particular interest in how it's going to work out, then yes, they can refer to that, and equally we don't expect people to know what the relevant provisions are for MSPs or what the code of conduct says. They just come to us and say, I don't like what such and such is done, and then we apply the code or the relevant provisions to that conduct. We certainly don't expect them to understand those things. The first iteration of the manual for the final version will be in Word and PDF. Our ambition in due course is to chunk it up so that it's accessible as individual web pages so that if people have got a particular interest, I've made a complaint about an MSP. How long will it take to be investigated? What will you take into account? That will be a separate individual page on the website. I hope I answered your question fully. Do you have confidence that a complainer won't misunderstand the different processes that are involved? Do you have confidence that your website will show the route that a complainer has about who they're complaining about and what is needed for that complaint to be registered, investigated and then concluded? Yes, so even as things stand, I think that clarity is there, but in terms of the investigatory process, which is more technical in nature, do they need to know? It depends on their level of interest. I suppose if I was being complained of, I would like to know the detail. It is available, but we are planning to make it more accessible in due course. Thank you, convener. You won't be surprised that I'm going to ask this question because I think I pushed on it before, is that the original, when a complaint comes in, it's quite formulaic under the legislation on whether it meets the requirements to be investigated. I would like some assurance that there is some way that the simple tests that are put before the complaint are ticked off on a spreadsheet or on a covering sheet and that there is no delay in doing it because it appears to me that that may have been a failing under the previous system and it's that covered in the manual that's referred to under the recommendation. Is it 3.4 in the Deloitte plan? Yes, it's the short answer to your question. We now have admissibility forms for all types of complaints and you asked about tick boxes and yes, they do include tick boxes. The entire investigatory team has been trained in MSP complaint handling across the board and they do need to go through these tick boxes, a checklist effectively, in order to establish whether or not a complaint is admissible and then there are several tests so yes, it is in the manual and we'd be happy to provide a copy if it's of interest to you. It would be helpful for me to see it because one of the things that I feel very strongly about without, I don't want to discourage anyone about making complaints but for the person who has received the complaint against them, actually a speedy resolution with a fair resolution is absolutely critical because hanging over somebody if you get a letter informing you that there's a complaint if that takes months to sort it out I believe it goes against natural justice and the pressure that's on that individual is huge so I'm keen to see that that procedural form is there and I'm keen to see that there are review dates so that if it sits there for more than a set period of time that it's flagged up to the next level of management until eventually it ends on your desk saying sort of with a flag saying if I don't solve this tomorrow it might be my job on the line as well but is that procedure in place? Yes, it's probably more robust than you might anticipate so the entire investigatory team meets every week to look at all live cases and complaints sitting at the admissibility stage I sit in on those meetings every second week the senior management team receives a full report on all complaints and respect of all the work of the office every month and the senior management team including myself looks at those and discusses how we're getting on with, for example, the backlog in respect of MSP complaints and I wholly agree with you I've said quite candidly to the committee previously that I don't think that we're doing well enough at the moment and I still hold that view because we still have a backlog and it's wholly unfair to individuals but in respect of MSP complaints simply because of the nature of those and the admissibility criteria are completely up to date at the moment there is no MSP complaint backlog Okay, well, I'm sure that's good news I mean, I would stress I'm not trying to discourage people from complaining I just think the pressures on the individual I have a question on the advice given to people who have a complaint against them it may be appropriate to do it later in the... Yes, I think that if we come back to that because I was going to move on to Alexander since we've raised the question of complaints about MSPs let's have a look at the report from that point of view Thank you very much, convener, and good morning It's very obvious from the discussion already that things are going forward and you've made some very positive remarks about confidence and ability and ambition and these are all good to have in the process It would be useful just to now try and pick slightly more of the complaint issue as to where we are You've touched on the backlog this morning about where we found ourselves and there was a massive increase in complaints between 21-22 in comparison to the previous year so it would be a good flavour to get an idea of where we are with that backlog the sort of number of complaints you're trying to manage at this position in time and how well you are reducing that backlog We've touched on staffing and I think that's vitally important You've touched on the training of staff and that's vitally important to make sure that all these are lined up to ensure that you can perform and you can progress So it would be good just to get an idea of where we're sitting at that situation now so that we can compare and contrast where we're at Yes, so I think I've probably already addressed where we are in terms of MSP so we are completely up-to-date We still have a backlog in relation to councillor and member complaints It is reducing I think if it's all possible I might bring Ms Glenn in because she does have and is across all of the details so perhaps I'll answer that if you could Thank you Good morning The question relates to the updates as to where we are in terms of the backlog and as Mr Bruce has already covered the MSP complaints that are currently outstanding there is no backlog in relation to MSP complaints The update from 1 April 2022 to where we are now in the world of MSP complaints is that a large number of cases have already been closed For instance, from April to December 2022 we have already accessed a total of 37 cases comprising of 556 complaints at stage 1 and that's as at December 22 Currently there are two MSP complaints at stage 1 and there's one MSP complaint at stage 2 where the report is awaiting the committee's consideration and that's why the focus of the backlog is really on the number of complaints that we have outstanding at stage 1 for councillors and members' cases Just taking the councillors' cases as an example we began the financial year with 60 councillors' cases at missibility stage and throughout the year until October 2022 hovered between 50 to 60 councillors' cases at any given time However, we currently have about 30 cases at assessment stage and the oldest case is from June 2022 comprising of three complaints the next case up being from August 2022 and then thereafter from October 2022 Members will note that this is already a lower number of cases at stage 1 as compared to when we began the financial year We also have the website banner currently showing a wait time of nine months for completing a stage that previously reflected a wait time of nine months for completing a stage 1 assessment but this has been revised to eight months recently because of the progress that we've made and we have every intention to revise this to seven months very shortly I would also highlight that these numbers are set on outlier cases the most outlier cases and represents the worst case scenario the assessment of councillors and members' cases would not take that amount of time Members will recognise that there has been progress made and it is an ongoing effort The progress that we have already made is by and large due to the investigations team committing ourselves to allocating backlog cases and having a triage system in place so that where complaints can be closed at an earlier stage then it is closed at that earlier stage There is a clear and express effort in terms of assigning ourselves to those cases and working through them as fast as we can but we also bear in mind that when we pick up a case particularly a councillor's or members' case for a stage 1 assessment we always require to keep in line with the Standards Commission for Scotland's eligibility direction and we are required to investigate and to report on every case that matches it so whilst we are picking up as many cases as we can that does not change the rate of assessment or the rate of acceptance for investigation because for every case that does match the direction we require to investigate and we would require to report and that will inevitably mean a decrease in capacity for taking up other assessments I should also add that against this backdrop there is a very high number of active on-going investigations per month and this remains at its highest levels compared to all of our previous years and it also reflects in the sense of having the highest number of reports referred to the Standards Commission compared to all previous years combined As you've identified there there is a sea of information coming towards you and they are in the form of a number of complaint capacities As an organisation you've struggled in the past to recruit and to sustain funding has been very crucial to you as well about what you require I know that additional funding has been granted by the SPSC and it would be good to get a flavour as to has that is it enough to manage the situation at the moment do you feel that there will be other pressures that will come forward that will be financially orientated because I think that your ambitions are there and we acknowledge that but if the ability is not and you don't have the resource behind that then you're not going to achieve what you want and we all want to see the process progressing to the level where we don't have to wait nine, seven, eight months to progress you should be in a much more effective and efficient role but as I say I'm concerned that you're still there you're going to have these new people and you've had some extra funding but is that enough to manage the situation and the crisis that you find yourself in today Yes I wouldn't necessarily describe ourselves as in crisis as Ms Glenn has eloquently pointed out the backlog is reducing even without these additional staff in place I'd be very happy to share if the committee has an interest in the workforce plan that we put together it was very very comprehensive and and I am content that it was exceptionally robust clearly the SPCB was otherwise it wouldn't have released these additional resources in a time of financial constraint and my firm view is that it was sufficiently robust and evidence based to provide assurance to anyone who would care to cast their eyes over it that we will be in a position not only to clear that backlog relatively quickly with the new staff in place but we will be getting through complaints with much more solidarity than we ever have as an office in the past and you touched on your performance I know there has been the introduction of performance indicators within the process to tackle the handling of complaints it might be quite useful to tease that slightly out as to how that is managing to progress because that will inevitably assist and support you in ensuring that you air get rid of the backlog but you are also managing the complaints that come through on a regular basis and how they are assessed and how their performance is managed using some of these indicators I agree wholeheartedly they were published in the manual we've consulted on them we will measure so not just us, yes we will measure our progress against those indicators and to be clear they're not vague and fuzzy they are about every stage of every investigation so how quickly does it take us responding to Mr Mountain's question how quickly does it take us to assess some things of misability and either dismiss it or get for it at the next stage that's one indicator but every stage of an investigation for those that are progressed we will measure our progress against and we have times set out for all the way up to 100% so yes that will inform me, inform the senior management team but we're going to publish progress against those at least annually so we'll be very transparent about where we are in relation to all of those we're going further the next senior management team will be looking at a paper that I've produced so we have those which are on timing but I've also produced a survey that we plan to send to respondents and planners and it's how did the process feel to you were you treated with dignity, were you treated with respect, did we demonstrate our values and people will be able to complete that anonymously we're moving our survey provider quite shortly but we expect to be rolling that out in the next couple of months alongside the ones for timings and as you've already indicated many of your complaints are unremissable in the process but it's about that understanding and making sure you promote so that individuals know what areas and what capacity that you have to deal with a complaint or the nature of a complaint so can I ask how do you manage to get that out so that you get the information and understanding that you can only investigate certain aspects when it comes to code of conduct within that process it would be quite a good to see what your ambition is for that because I think that that may help you in managing the number of complaints you receive I think that's a fair point and it's one to be honest with you that I struggle with a little and again I think we need to split out complaints about MSPs from complaints about councillors and members so the act that I work to in relation to MSP complaints makes it pretty clear that I'm not supposed to provide an in principle view on whether or not conduct might constitute a breach of the code now that makes it difficult for me because I can't say on the website well you know if you if you identify an MSP behaving in a certain way then you know that's a breach I need to look at every complaint on its individual merit so it's not as though I haven't thought about it I have, I think there is scope for us to do more in terms of education for the public one of our internal auditors recommendations with a communication strategy so that's certainly something that I will take on board and as you identify managing that communications is vitally important because then there's no misunderstanding and there's no complexity it might not be black or white but there's still a grey area amongst all of this and we acknowledge that as members ourselves as to how we fit into the process but we have to have the confidence in your organisation and others have to have that confidence that you will manage and you will support but you will also investigate and have that result at the end to show that you have gone through the process fairly and without favour of all of that because that's what the confidence in the organisation needs to see and that's maybe where there's been a slight lack of confidence in the past so we all want to get to that place I've no doubt you do and your report itemises that very very clearly but as I say we need to make sure that the steps that you are taking are making that progress and are seeing that resolution for future and I've said previously I'll simply reiterate so I already have plans to publish progress in all these areas on our website so KPIs but I mentioned the business plan earlier it's just a simple example progress against our business plan that's published after a year at the year end and in terms of my general approach as well so not just for committees but if the committee wants anything from me at any point in time they merely need to ask I'm very transparent about what our organisation is engaged in where we're doing well, where we're not doing so well but even at the individual complainer and respondent level everyone gets a full explanation for a decision that I have come to that's the level of transparency that's required and I think that's the level of transparency that can give people confidence that okay my complaint may not have been upheld but there are very clear reasons for that and they've all been explained to me fully thank you, convener thank you very much thank you, convener can I start, Ian Bruce, by welcoming you to your permanent position and also to thank you and Ms Glen for all the clear hard work that's been on going over a period of time to turn this organisation around and we should put it on record I think that in our report you talk about the slight which gives an example of you have to do the day-to-day job but do the bigger picture stuff at the same time so thank you, the committee would agree that thanks is required that said, I'm going to scrutinise various aspects of current performance if that's okay so your website says current initial review time 8 months, we know it might begin down to 7 months then it says we are very sorry that it can take up to 8 months to conduct the initial assessment of your complaint we write everything we can to reduce this but I think we have from Ms Glen that that's not the case for complaints regarding MSPs that's not clear on the website nor does it give an average time for an initial complaint to be assessed as admissible so it gives a pretty misleading picture of the performance of the organisation which I think is unfair in the organisation actually but I think it's also misleading to members who might be deterred for making a complaint in relation to MSPs so I would welcome some reflection on that before I move to my next question Mr Bruce I think those are as usual I thought it was very fair points on a stew and we will certainly take those on board we had a full discussion at the SMT before we even thought about putting up a banner but we felt it would be fair we tried to keep it as simple as possible but I think those are very reasonable points and I think we will make the distinction between councillor and member complaints and MSP complaints and we can have a think about perhaps putting something up in terms of average I don't have a great deal to add to that as Ms Glen said it's the outlier cases and we didn't want to give those who were in that position the impression that it was taking much less time for everyone else but no I think those are good points Mr Bruce that's fine I'm pleased to accept that as a relevant matter that should be addressed I'd like to move on to the complaints that were existing for MSPs in the year 2021 which was 738 in the first year I say and then 760 in the second year I say and I think we all know there's a reality that if I was let me give you an example rather than talk about those specific cases if I was to air somehow not to ever do that you understand Mr Bruce and there was a complaint coming in that's one complaint but if 30 different people want to complain about me slightly differently that's logged as 30 different complaints if 100 different people want to complain about me slightly differently that's 100 different complaints so could you say a little bit more about the numbers for 2021 2021-22 why they've melted away and to an outsider looking in they might think looking at those numbers oh my goodness what on earth is going on with those MSPs the place is an absolute riot look at all those complaints it's a wee bitty unfair on MSPs absolutely should be held to the high standards but the data given by your office needs to reflect the reality not just the raw data so any information you can give on that Mr Bruce would be very helpful an interesting question what we've committed to is reporting on MSP complaints and cases on a like for like basis and some of that had fallen away a media predecessor and we continue to do that and we do include an explanation in the annual report for what constitutes a complaint and what constitutes a case and again I'm happy to take views from the committee on this either today or in due course but if an alternative approach should be taken I would be happy to consider it because we are reporting on a like for like basis people are able to identify trends over time now I know that's a very high number in comparison with previous years but the reality is on a like for like basis it does represent the number of complaints that we received over that period and there was a significant number of complaints received over that period the committee will know my obligations under section 16 of the act and the fact that I'm not able to provide any detail on the nature of those complaints and if the circumstances were otherwise I would like to be able to share that information but fundamentally I can but that is the reality we had that number of complaints and we did deal with them as far as disposal goes so I hear what you're saying would that raise a question or a concern in the minds of the public about MSP conduct the reality is those were dismissed as inadmissible and that's what's going to be on the face of the annual report so the fact that x number of complaints were made doesn't necessarily mean that they were legitimate and the annual report doesn't suggest that they were I agree with that Mr Bruce but as a snapshot in time at the end of the week that would go oh my goodness there's 700 complaints and you must accept your bound by very clear rules in statute and in guidance for how you can interpret that data and what you can say publicly about that data but would you just without dwelling on the matter there's other matters what to move on and talk about would you take on board that if one MSP was to allegedly err in some way and 200 complaints came in about that all a wee bit different and the consistent way you report Mr Bruce is that there's 200 complaints that might give a false impression to members of the public given that you're bound by confidentiality that you can't say that's effectively one complaint about one MSP because at a snapshot in time to measure the public might go what on earth is going on here would that be a reasonable point that would make Mr Bruce and would you look at potentially ways where you can say more about that publicly you can report in a more clear way and whether there are constraints perhaps you could share with this committee on constraints I would be happy to enter into a discussion with the committee about that particular issue but I need to reiterate that I am bound by the statute in this area and fundamentally that's a matter for Parliament it's a very early act it was created very early in the Parliament's existence and whether or not you feel that there could be scope for my office to be more open about aspects of the complaint investigations I conduct that again and I would have to throw that back to the committee sorry if just coming in it is right to say that although the act itself was very early on in this Parliament it was a very I'm not going to say unique but an unusual set of circumstances that led to it and perhaps engagement had a later date with regard to data and what can be deduced and the difference between the complaints, the cases and actually the number of MSPs that were involved would be beneficial and I'm grateful for your indication that you'd be happy to do that of course, I appreciate that I'm going to come back to the end of my line of questioning and keep me right right for time constraints in relation to welfare because I think Mr Mountain is alluding to the welfare of MSPs as well with a lot of supplementary healers on that until then but I was going to mention it at this stage just in terms of the process for complaints about MSPs someone complains today should they expect admissibility and although there can be unique cases that are complex Mr Bruce should they expect that admissibility is established within weeks oh yes, more quickly than that that's very helpful I think I also saw if I got my scribbles right that there are a number of active cases reported on the active cases in relation to and if you can't give me the information, don't give me it Mr Bruce but I'm just trying to be clear about what can and cannot be provided so how would this community missy monitor, it might not be our job, I don't know how many active cases there are in relation to MSPs at any one time I would be happy to provide the committee just in terms of business planning I would be happy to provide the committee with an update at any point in time on the number of active cases it was more about how long it takes once admiss it wasn't really about trying to undermine the confidentiality and the privacy arrangements it was what we were trying to get at once admissibility has been accepted if that is the case what are the cases difference so it will be difficult to answer but what is the length of time that a complainant should imagine it will take for a report to be forthcoming from your office or indeed the individual complained about and how do you get a baseline for that and how do you measure performance around that well again the KPIs are in the manual for every stage of an investigation but having said that there may be occasions on which we don't meet those KPIs in which case fine people can say well we would have expected you to have investigated this more quickly but the reality is every case turns on its individual merits and there are lots and lots of factors which Ms Glen and her team are aware of that can have an impact on things I'll give you a very simple example because it's quite a common one but if we need to interview complainers, respondents, witnesses that type of thing quite frequently or we need a response from them even in writing and usually we provide time scales for that so it might be please could you respond within two weeks quite frequently people will say well that's not good for me because of my personal circumstances I need a month and those sorts of things can accumulate process longer than it would be in an ideal world I think what you're saying is the KPIs are tailored to each individual circumstance so you can't give a a report that's baseline about whether performance is improving or deteriorating about the length that takes to investigate each individual case in the round because each case is so specific and unique or can you look at in relation to baseline data about the speeds at which the office operates to make a determination or a complaint? So the KPIs that we are measuring all complaints against are clearly based on all of the cases so there'll be some where we meet all the KPIs and there'll be some in the margins perhaps the very complex ones but we will be publishing all of that data so people will have a general expectation of well okay in 75% of cases I will expect to have this the investigation completed and reported to me within this timeframe I might be in one of the 5% that takes 12 months to complete Mr Bruce that's really helpful that gives me an assurance you do some modelling work over that as you expect there to always be outliers and that's really helpful I know we are not looking at councillor complaints convener but there is a direct connectivity I think a positive one because I read that the entire investigation team are now trained in MSP complaints handling where there was maybe a silo working arrangement previously were not always investigators were trained in MSP complaints so clearly any backlog within what impact is on the disposing of MSP complaints so do you want to say a little bit more just briefly because I got one final question about whether that makes your organisation more fleet of foot or are you content that the backlog in councillor complaints wouldn't compromise your performance in MSP complaints going forward so I need to take a view as does the senior management team on all of the work of the office clearly we don't intend to rob Peter to pay Paul I'm putting this quite simplistically but if we've got a backlog in councillor member complaints and a backlog in MSP complaints in the normal run of things we would be getting through those in parallel no particular complaint type takes priority over others I think I may have touched on this earlier the reality with MSP complaints because the admissibility requirements differ in comparison with councillor member complaints the reality is we don't have a backlog there because far and away the majority of them simply aren't admissible and because we can rule them out in early stage we are ruling them out in early stage just as we do with councillor member ones so but sorry I'm not sure I've answered what I'm doing is I'm flagging up that it's not for us to scrutinise councillor complaints given the fact that your team can investigate both complaints there's direct consequences positive ones as well Mr Bruce we might have to look at that in a bit more detail in the future on my final question convener not welfare I thought the thing to do performance is improving dramatically I've looked at the risk register I was able to probably my incompetence on the internet Mr Bruce I was able to find the risk register policy but not the risk register itself is that a public document and if so what would your top 2 risk speed for the organisation going forward so the committee's aware of this sure it's not currently published perhaps because we review it very regularly what we can publish and I can certainly actually thinking about it I could provide the committee with a copy if it's of interest but it's updated very regularly because the risks to the organisation changed override of governance controls was sitting quite high in the risk register and you'll be aware from the annual report and accounts that we do publish anyway but they do vary currently and that fell away simply because I've now been a pointer risk commissioner on the senior management team fuels or they're confident that I am not intending to override management controls so the risks I think that we're facing really at the moment is we're onboarding all these new staff and there's scope perhaps for that to stabilise the organisation so that means that in terms of mitigation we need to ensure that their induction is appropriate and that they are trained fully in order to fulfil the role that we need them to fulfil the other is public confidence because clearly we still have an issue there and I've spoken about the communication strategy that I'm planning to put in place because clearly we are still being discussed as an organisation publicly and we've again just had another section 22 report and the last thing we want is people not to make complaints because they feel that they're not going to be progressed appropriately so those are a couple of the top ones. We've got about 16 on the register at the moment. I may come in after Mr Mountain's line of questioning about welfare but at the end as I started and that is genuinely thank you to you and your team for the improvement and organisation in a relatively short period of time Thank you. Just coming back to your prior question the other advantage of having everyone being able to investigate everything is resilience. Can I just clarify before I hand over to Edward there are not 16 elements sitting at red on your risk register there are 16 elements in total on the risk register that's great. Just to go back the whole point of the system is to be fair to all parties to be fair to the person who makes a complaint and to be fair to the person who the complaint is made against and you've outlined a bit of the procedure that you've gone through for the person who's making the complaint and how they can find out and in due course see the progress of their complaint through the system which I think is really important because I think it gives you a certain amount of strength to argue your case that you're taking each one seriously which I know you do but to prove it just a quick person on the person receiving the complaint are you happy whilst you have to be impartial in how you investigate it that you are giving advice to the person who is receiving the or at the sharp end of the complaint what they can do because it is quite nerve-wracking and I will be I can say that I have had a complaint against me which was actually struck off but it is a nerve-wracking procedure because most I would say all MSPs actually want to do the best they can in here and it is quite daunting when you get a letter especially if you're a new MSP which it was in my case so I'd like to know that you feel you're doing as much for the person who the complaint is being made about and giving them the correct advice on where they can seek support and help on No I don't think I am and I think we could certainly go further in that area but I do need to be super cautious again just in terms of what the act says what I do think is required and in general is an office what we try to do is signpost areas of support for people particularly in cases where we're not able to provide that ourselves clearly we can't be seen to be partial in terms of our investigations so my role is set out in statute I investigate conduct and try to assess whether or not it's compatible with relevant provisions in respect of MSP complaints to provide anything even equivalent to pastoral care and I've got nowhere to signpost respondents to in the event that they have concerns and that's of concern to me I actually raised this with the Scottish Parliament I think about a year and a half ago and as I understand it is still work in progress I spoke to our equivalent organisation in Westminster which is the independent complaints and grievance scheme that we are aware of my understanding is that they have a separate contract with a totally independent body which I think is victim support but they are there to provide support not just to complainers but also to respondents, witnesses anyone involved in a complaint and I think it would be great to see something equivalent for the Scottish Parliament so that in every letter that I sign off from this particular organisation I am still in dialogue with the Parliament over that I'm not sure it's my role but I think that there should be somewhere that MSPs can go OK, thank you I may just leave it at that but to say that I'm sure it is work in progress that everyone considers because it is important that it's fair for all this not just fair for the complainer and I welcome your comment that you think more could be done Thank you Edward I'm just going to come back to Bill It's just very, very visual I think Mr Mountain made the points that I was hoping to make I can have to take a slight step back and think about any MSP, not in the case of Mr Mountain where there was not a missibility but where even where the most significant breach has been found so breaches can be incredibly minor we've seen those already in this term they can be really significant attract a lot of media attention and of course it's for your independent investigation to rule on that and it's for this committee to if you like agree to that ruling as appropriate and decide what a sanction might look like within all of that there still has to be a duty of care on the individual complained about irrespective of what they have or haven't done and I suppose more generally I'd quite welcome your reflection because it's something that the committee is grappling with as well about where that duty of that's not your primary role Mr Bruce at all but where that duty of care sits for individuals even those that are quite clearly have done wrong and deservedly get sanctioned where that duty of care sits within the commission I think we have to reflect to the Parliament as well any thoughts on that? I wouldn't have a follow-up question on that but just any thoughts on that I think it's vital actually and I've said very soon after taking up office's acting commissioner I noticed there's a clear lacuna here for our own part we introduced the values that absolutely work to them so everyone who comes into contact with us complain or respond it doesn't matter we treat them with kindness we treat them with empathy we treat them with respect but in terms of providing support to that individual and we can provide advice procedural advice this is how things might go or this is how an investigation will progress but if you need to speak to someone about how you're feeling that is the role of the investigatory office but there is a lacuna there there's no doubt in my mind and it should be filled and that should apply to respondents certainly complainers witnesses particularly in cases where the conduct concerns bullying harassment complaints of that nature but everyone in that process should receive support for our own part we have provided training to our staff so rate crisis Scotland we've had legal training on progressing complaints of that nature so we have gone as far as I think we are able to but there is still a gap and I would like to see it filled thank you very grateful Bob a couple of things just in conclusion and I would like to turn actually to the public appointment side because although it perhaps doesn't get as much airplay as some of the others matters it is actually a crucial role that sits with you and there have been some very serious questions about how the diversification to public appointments has gone or not gone and I wonder whether you would like to comment on the changes we have a very full report in the annual report but maybe from the tail end of last year's report that we are looking at but going forward how has that changed and what are your hopes for the future for it we are seeing progress it's incremental but as long as we are seeing progress I'm relatively happy I think it could be going more quickly that won't be news to the committee I wouldn't have brought forward a new code of practice if that weren't the case and I'll go back to something I said earlier one of the purposes of this new code of practice is to embed learning lessons within the process and what it now requires is the selection panel chair at the conclusion of every appointment round so if it hasn't delivered exactly what that minister has asked for they need to tell them why and they need to tell me why and we will share that information with the committee and lessons need to be learned when things haven't gone precisely the way in which they should I would observe though and again just repeat what I said earlier and also what was said in the annual report the improvements that have happened haven't happened by accident we have seen definitely an increase in reports of good practice and that's by my representatives who are out there in the field looking at what panels do and as long as that continues I think we'll continue to see progress I think that but that's very hopeful for the future but as you say it's far from a concluded effort and perhaps rightly should never be concluded it's an ongoing there seems to be a particular area with regard to age that's becoming apparent is there anything that you would like to comment about the lack of younger people putting themselves forward to the very important roles to the communities that the various public appointments interact with that's a slightly more complex question and the answer is perhaps harder to identify we've made it clear in the revised code that ministers can ask for much more so they can't select on the basis of a protected characteristic alone that would be unlawful apart from anything else but equally the sorts of skill sets I would suggest that ministers may be looking for for boards at this point in time and the sorts of knowledge sets I'll use digital as an example so the demographic the age demographic of those who are at the cutting edge of digital would tend to be in the age bracket where we currently have under reflection so again just making the point about learning lessons so if ministers are asking for that and I do see examples of it in relation to health boards looking to deliver services digitally if they haven't managed to attract people within that age group and see them appointed then the panel chair needs to explain why that has happened or not happened as the case may be with a view to improving their practices the next time around the minister can as well say look I would like this round to achieve more diversity in terms of protected characteristics so it's not part of merit but if a minister says there should be more younger people on this board I want you to make that happen as well it's then down to that minister's officials to make that happen and that's about positive action so you know it could be a public campaign it could be greater use of social media which again you know there's a demographic element to that finding ways of encouraging younger people to apply who might not have thought about doing so previously but if ministers are ambitious about diversity in all its senses they should be making that ask now and it's really up to officials to say well we've managed or we haven't and if we haven't this is why not there's an explanation that comes out I think that's very helpful now to echo the phrase of ambition I think that would be good to see a number of different areas with regard to what can be achieved a really short sort of technical question one of the criticism that's been levelled with regard to the financial reports from the audit is next 12 months is fine but the medium planning and long term planning leaves a little to be desired let's put it that way I mean obviously a cognizant of that is that something that you hope to achieve in a very near future i.e. before the next report even sooner it's something we're looking at and we're struggling with that a little so we've asked Audit Scotland for examples of medium term financial reports for organisations similar to our own and we've still seen any we've looked at medium term financial medium term financial plans for all sorts of organisations for the likes of local authorities etc to try and find something equivalent and we are due to meet Audit Scotland to have a chat about what one for us might look like and perhaps for office holders more generally but the reality is our only source of income is what's approved for us by the SPCB you know we don't have any other income streams they've already approved our budget and I can't see that changing in any significant sense given the additional resource we've had what might a medium term financial plan look like for our circumstances I'm not saying we don't want to implement a recommendation if it's well founded but we are and I am just being frank about this we are not entirely clear at this point in time what it might look like but not saying no once you see it no certainly not that's very helpful and I think you have offered to share staff planning document which would be useful and also in due course obviously the communication strategy which would be useful can I just finalise this with actually I'm reminded I actually did this last time looking at the last paragraph of your report where you rightly extend your gratitude to each and every one of your staff in the office because of their unwavering dedication and the remarkable resilience which we've spoken about today and the support during a challenging period then remain immensely proud to belong to this team and on behalf of myself and the committee can I echo that both to you but also to your team and point out when we were last discussing this it was exceptionally challenging period and we're now just at a challenging period that doesn't mean it's easy it doesn't mean it's solved but can I thank you for your very frank and honest evidence today and also to Angela Feill help and assistance with the committee today so thank you very much thank you convener and thanks again members for taking the time to listen to us excellent I'll just have a short suspension before the next matter can I welcome people back agenda item 3 is for the committee to consider correspondence that we've received from Stuart McMillan MSP in relation to the proxy voting scheme I know you've had an opportunity to look at the letter if the committee will give me the patience just to kick off we are in a period where the proxy voting scheme is being trialled very deliberately for this year and I have to put on record that I am indeed pleasantly surprised at the uptake in relation to using proxy vote that's clearly facilitated people to exercise their constituents rights for them to vote here while still having a work-life balance that works for them Stuart has written to us in respect of a very particular matter about seeking an extension in relation to if I can put it this way parliamentary duties when they're out with this parliament and I think it's a very valid question to ask I am slightly concerned at the timing of it in a sense because we took a long time to deliberate and with discussion with members across the chamber the the pilot scheme itself and we did that very deliberately because we wanted to build support for proxy voting we wanted people to feel that they could use it and part of that process was that we would review it probably after the summer recess into the autumn so that we can make proposals to the chamber to make what are effectively temporary changes permanent changes to the standing order and my view that part of that will be a reach out across the chamber to people to MSPs again to say where they would choose to use proxy voting and then for it to come to us to see whether there is an agreement from us and then an agreement from the chamber and I think in some extent Stuart Millan's letter is slightly premature but is definitely indicating an area that we would be more than happy to look at when we consider the permanent proxy voting scheme rather than the one that we operate at the moment so to that end I would invite Stuart and Duke of course to effectively give evidence as we will collect evidence from a number of people including those who have granted and used the proxy vote because I think that's important but also an open invite to members to consider other areas where they think proxy voting may be useful given in mind that we still have remote voting in this parliament and that is now a fixture of our iterative development and that there are also other methods that I know exist between parties to match people who can't vote where there's a number but can I take any comments from the committee or are we happy to proceed in that manner happy to proceed in that matter that's very helpful well then I will obviously speak to Stuart McMillan but we'll also as a committee write to him and suggest we're very anxious to have his contribution when we look at the next stage of proxy voting I will now move this meeting into private