 Fanethodwrach, wrthen nhw ydych chi gyd yn y cyflwgr retard wrth'n ddweud y Ffghysglu Cymru a'i amdano i ysgrifetio bod yn gyd ddynt nestidwyr o wybodaeth bwysigol, fel hynny yn dechrau. Y gyrdiannol yma ym Mhwsl Cymru yn gyrsglu cyffredinol ddath i Gwrtheddion Llywodraeth yn mynd i Gwrthedd Pwledig iawn. Gwrtheddion pan sefydlu i Gwrtheddion byd yn y Pwledig iawn i Gwrtheddion Cymru i Gwrtheddion Gwrtheddion Cyfredinol yn Gwrtheddion Gwrtheddion Scwrddeddion Minister of Public Appointments, Commissioner for Ethical Standards and Public Life in Scotland, and Helen Hane, who is the Investigations Manager at the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life. Do you wish to make an initial statement, Phil? With your permission, convener, I am grateful to the committee for this opportunity to give evidence in relation to the annual report and some other documents and issues which I believe are before you. My two colleagues are very experienced having held their roles throughout the period of office of my predecessors. Before answering your questions, I thought it might be helpful briefly to highlight what I consider to be the most significant developments since the period covered by the 2014-15 annual report in terms of both the standards and the public appointments aspects of my remit. The number and range of complaints about the conduct of MSPs have been remarkably constant for a number of years. However, in relation to councillors and the members of public bodies, the already significant volume of complaints has continued to rise since the end of March 2015. If the increase experienced over the first nine months of the current year is sustained, the outturn will be some 10 per cent up on the previous year. Even though three new investigating officers were recruited in the early summer on a part-time basis and to replace two who had retired, that is putting significant pressure on the resources available to progress investigations. Additionally, our case management system relies on a database that was developed some 13 years ago. It is at the limits of its capacity and, frankly, its usefulness. We have therefore been working on a review with a view to sourcing a new case management system. I have referred to that in the draft of the strategic plan. It is one of the key elements of our plan to be able to sustain our volume of business going forward. That is subject to the funding being available, which I will discuss with other people. Our work on public appointments has also increased, and that is for good reasons. We are now working more closely with the staff of the Scottish Government on a more strategic approach to the planning of appointments. That involves better preparation for new appointment rounds with public appointments advisers who are contracted to work for my office, working alongside the public appointments team, the directorates who sponsor public bodies and selection panels themselves. The focus is no longer simply on planning competitions, but it now includes planning for succession on boards in their strategic role and their operating context. That informs the planning for the competition and how best to attract and assess diverse fields of suitable applicants. I think that it is an important development. We have co-produced with the staff of the Government a competency framework, which has been piloted since the summer of 2015. It assists with the definition of merit in each appointment round and the effective assessment of candidates against the identified criteria. Those in turn support the translation into practice of the statutory guidance on the application of the 2013 code, which I issued in August of 2014. The thematic review published in the autumn of 2015 identified the need for a mechanism to capture and disseminate lessons learned from individual appointment rounds. I am pleased to say that the Government has been working on the development of such a process. We have been consulted on the detail and we expect it to be put into effect in the early part of this calendar year. The lessons learned approach and a number of other topics have been incorporated along with the guidance on merit and most able in a new set of guidance on the 2013 code on which we have been consulting since early in December, and I hope to be able to finalise that very soon. All the indications are that the new approach to working in partnership with those in the Government who are responsible for public appointments has been well received. I am sure that it is already leading to improvements in the appointments process, including better definition of merit by ministers and thereby to the recruitment of suitably able and more diverse appointees. Our work with the Scottish Government on appointments is of course wider than simply on process improvements, albeit that they are important in themselves. That, I think, is indicated in my annual report, and that is all that I have to say by way of introduction. Thank you very much, commissioner. Let me, just before we move to the questioning that we have discussed before you came in, to just pick up on the point about the volume of complaints about councillors rising. I am outside the remit of the committee, but I wanted to ask in that context whether you think the rule that exists that it is a breach of the code governing the behaviour of MSPs for them to make public that they are making a complaint about a fellow colleague is one that helps to keep that volume of complaints at an appropriate level, comparing and contrast the situation in relation to councillors. That is, of course, an interesting question. As you are well aware, from memory, there has only been one complaint since the Parliament was inaugurated in relation to a breach of that rule, although it may be forgetting something. I think that the comparison is not straightforward. The bulk of complaints about councillors and members of public bodies are submitted by members of the public who may or may not be politically involved, and, of course, it would not be possible for the code to apply directly to those people if they were to complain. I am not convinced that it would have the same effect where it would be translated into the councillors code or the model code for public bodies. That is helpful. I think that we will pass on. I had a personal instinctive view that councillors complaining about councillors was a larger component of it than you indicated. Let us move on to what is the remit of this committee, and I will pass the baton to Mary. I want to start by asking you a couple of questions around the guidance on the code of practice, specifically in relation to merit and most able. Can you explain whether specific concerns that prompted you to include merit and most able, and if they were, what were they? Yes, there were specific concerns. Merit was introduced as a principle, I think, in the 2006 iteration of the code, and integrity was introduced in the 2011 revision of the code. By the time that I came into office, I applied along with the third principle. It became clear in the course of investigating a particular complaint that the information that had gone to the appointing minister contained a number of errors, which was problematic in itself. However, the advice on the options available to the minister did not seem to me to be wholly clear in terms of the implications of the application of the principles of merit and integrity. I set that out in the annual report in summary form for those who are interested. It is on page 28 of the 1415 annual report. I thought that it would be useful to clarify, and I think that it is proven to be welcome by those who use the guidance. I thought that it would be useful to clarify the implications of the application of the principle of merit throughout the entire process, i.e. with integrity. That is what led to the guidance. I may say that I did have some discussion with ministers before I finalised the guidance, so it is not as if it was something that was imposed. My understanding from discussions that I have had is that it was welcomed, and that still appears to be the position. If I look at the guidance on the 2013 code, and maybe it is too early in the day for me to fully grasp those things, paragraph 22 says that merit is defined by the appointing minister at the point at which he or she advises the panel. Is it the appointing minister that decides the merit, or has that been predetermined, or has he given guidance on what that merit should be? I think that the circumstances vary. The minister is responsible for the appointment, and therefore ultimately is responsible for the criteria that are used, and the criteria that are used, of course, are the definition of merit, which then applies throughout the appointment process. There have been some examples of ministers, including cabinet secretaries, being directly involved in discussions about what those criteria should be, but I think that it is possible that there may be other circumstances where the minister has been presented with suggestions that may or may not have commented on them. However, the minister certainly, whoever it is, will have to endorse those criteria, and that is the point at which merit is determined for the appointment process. Can I just come in just for clarification? I see the process as having three parts—the invitation that goes out for people to apply, the selection from those who reply, and then the appointment itself. That all pre-comes before all that, just to be clear. Right at the outset, this process will influence every step of the process. That is correct, convener. The definition of merit, the criteria that are set out, should govern the entire process. It should influence the way in which the appointment is advertised. It should influence the assessment of candidates, and it has to be the basis on which the minister makes the decision at the end of the day. That is fine. I just wanted, in my own head, to fully clarify whether the decision on merit lies with the minister, or is that predetermined? That is really what I wanted to make the decision. It lies with the minister. It lies with the minister, actually. Very clearly. That is fine. What plans have been put in place to monitor how that will progress, and if it improves the situation, or if further steps are needed to change it? I think that you will be aware that I now categorise appointment rounds according to the level of risk that I think applies. Where they are high-risk, which usually means also a high profile, one of the public appointment advisers from my office will be involved throughout the entire process. As I have just said, from the pre-planning stage, right up to the point at which the assessment is done usually by interview, although they are not involved when it is passed to the minister, they are not involved at that stage. In a medium risk round, the adviser is involved up to the conclusion of the planning stage, at which point, if you like, the die is cast. If it is a low risk round, my office is not involved, and that is one of the changes that was made in the 2013 code in order that regulations should be proportionate. I appreciate that that is dependent on the judgment that was made at the outset. There are, I suppose, two safety nets there. One is that because of the good working relationship that we have with the Government staff, if they are concerned about things, they will pick up the phone to my office and check things out. The other safety net is that, of course, people who are aggrieved by the process can make a complaint. There has been a very small number of complaints. There were two in the year covered by the annual report, and I think that there have been two since then. It is a very small number. Can I just check before we move on? There are also appointments that Scottish ministers are made under the UK provisions, where it is joint boards like the Climate Change Committee is an example. Are you involved in that at all? No, I am only involved in appointments that are regulated under the act under which I operate. So there are Scottish appointments, Scotland-only appointments, which are not regulated, but I think that ministers frequently try to use the same process for those appointments, but I am not involved. So you are content that the almost open communication between yourselves and ministers is enough to fully monitor how the merit in most table progresses and is fluid enough to make changes as you go along? I am content. I should say that it is not direct communication normally between me and ministers, although I do have some, it is usually through the civil service. I am content with that. Can I move on now to ask you about the thematic review of the operation of the code of practice? Your annual report for 2013-14 showed improvements to the appointments practices had not done enough to achieve the targets set out on diversity deliverers. In the report on the draft code, the committee expressed concern about whether the addition of experience to the criteria for appointment risks discouraging people with relevant skills. I wonder if you could maybe talk us through that a little bit and how you found the inclusion of experience? Because he is closer to it, I would like to ask Ian Bruce to deal with the detail on that question if you are happy with that. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the committee and good morning. I think that when we last gave evidence to the committee, we discussed an approach that had been trialled on Fife NHS and it was in relation to a similar question about including experience in person specifications. At the time, I think that I indicated that the inclusion of experience is going to rule some people out, but equally it should be included with the intention of perhaps ruling people in who are meeting the needs of a board, perhaps in a different way to what the committee had anticipated. I think that people may feel that asking for experience means asking for people with board experience, and that certainly has not been the intention. The commissioner mentioned the introduction of the guidance on merit and most able. That is fundamentally about meeting board needs and finding what the minister wants. In relation to Fife NHS, we are looking for people who are service users, carers, people who perhaps experienced barriers in relation to accessing services. We have seen the inclusion of very similar criteria for selection in many more health board appointment rounds since that time. Rather than leading to less diverse pools of applicants, we have seen more diverse pools of applicants coming forward. It obviously varies from boards to board. You are looking at what the board needs, and then you are designing criteria around that in order to meet those needs. For example, as well as service user experience, health boards are now looking for people with track records in integration of health and social care. Obviously, that makes sense in relation to the work that they are now doing with the integration joint boards. For example, Creative Scotland ran an appointment round. It was looking for people who were passionate about arts and culture in Scotland and how that should be viewed on the international stage. Again, that is very different to looking for people with perhaps experience as board members. It is quite the opposite, in fact. The thematic review bore that out. It was leading to more diversification rather than less. So, the guidance around the application process and what is required through the definition of experience is clear enough that, if it rules people out, it almost rules the right people out, it allows people to be ruled in? Just so. We have also been working with Government on the introduction of a competency framework, which was a recommendation in the diversity deliver strategy. What that allows panels to do, and ministers where they are directly involved, is to be very specific about the sorts of evidence that they are looking for in relation to all the criteria for selection, the level at which they need to be met. It really is about meeting very specific needs on boards. We are now seeing competitions where perhaps three board members are sought, and the criteria for selection are different for each of those separate positions. That is absolutely right, and it is about securing more diverse heterogeneous boards. Can I ask you now about delivering diversity? There have been issues in the past about diverse boards and appointing a broad mix and range of people. There have been some concerns expressed about participants' reluctance to embrace the shared commitment. Do you have any information that could give us about that? What specifically is happening and what has been done to improve that? I think that in terms of participants' reluctance, which was examined through the thematic review that Ian led on, it would be better if he was more direct on that. There is some good news in terms of diversity, but we can come back to that if you wish. It is a very interesting question. I think that we all have to bear in mind that public appointments do not operate in isolation. We are talking about a societal issue. Probably the first thing to point out is that we need to be thinking about diversity in two ways. We included a diagram in the report on the thematic review to try to help people to understand what it is that we are talking about. Diversity in its broadest sense goes back to the original question that you asked about whether or not asking for experience is appropriate and leads to more diverse boards. Diversity in its broadest sense is about the whole range of skills, knowledge, backgrounds and perspectives that different people bring to boards. That is very important. There is lots of evidence out there now. A great deal of it has been generated since 2008, when the walker review was published. That was into the effectiveness of boards for financial institutions. There is an appendix in there from the Tavistock Institute about the effects of group think and the impact that that has on the ability of boards to appropriately consider risks. However, the evidence is very much pointing to the fact that heterogeneous boards are more effective because they consider matters and there is perhaps more discussion and debate in order to reach appropriate decisions. If one contrasts that with homogenous boards and they tend to arise when people are making appointments perhaps in their own image or replacing people on a like-for-like basis, they have advantages. They tend to reach consensus quite quickly. Perhaps that is unsurprising because there is not much descent there. That can be relatively comfortable for people. If you know much about unconscious bias, you will be aware that there are in-groups and out-groups. Obviously, there can be a tendency to look to recruit to your in-group because that is what you are comfortable with. However, that is not necessarily going to lead to the sort of debates and decision making that effective boards are good at. That is diversity in its broader sense. Over and above that, we need to think about diversity in terms of protected characteristics. To an extent, diversity delivers discusses that. It includes targets for protected characteristics. We have to bear in mind that under the Equality Act, there is an obligation on public bodies and on the Scottish ministers to redress under representation by protected characteristics as well. There may be a view—I will go back to societally here—that achieving representation by protected characteristics is about lowering the bar. Can you explain to me—just for the benefit of perhaps people outside our in-group, could you define protected characteristics, please? The protected characteristics are set out in the 2001 act, so they include age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and belief, and disabled status. Six that we are concerned with in terms of appointment. There is an obligation on ministers to redress under representation. Fundamentally, what you are looking to do in each competition is to have two targets to meet each. One is about the needs of the board in terms of backgrounds, experience, perspective, skills and knowledge. The other is about protected characteristics, where one has under representation. The purpose of a competition should be to redress under representation in relation to both sides of that equation. I will go back to your original point. There is a feeling perhaps in society generally that in order to redress under representation, things like targets are inappropriate because people may feel that merit is already operating effectively. It is not a position that we agree with clearly, but that people are in the positions that they are in because of merit. Again, going back to the commissioner's point, it is very important for ministers to be clear about what it is that they want at the outset of competitions. Merit is what ministers define it to be for boards. There is not some ineffable, perfect board member out there, a template that we should look to fulfil on each occasion. I hope that that answers your question fully. I wonder if you have any examples of good practice that you could share with us that have resulted in a more diverse recruitment pool? Certainly. We may have mentioned the competency framework, which is a hugely important tool. It was included in diversity delivers for that reason. It is a sort of thing that is referred to in HR circles as an anchored frame of reference, but what it does is it allows ministers and then panels to be very clear about what it is that they are seeking and to be clear about the different levels at which, perhaps, criteria have to be met. Perhaps more importantly, to say these are the priorities for this board at this point in time. It was one of our own public appointments advisers because we are capitalising on the expertise that they have more and more as the Scottish Government was instrumental in the design of that framework or names. Jennifer Hawksworth, I'll name her because credit where it's due. We worked along with Government to develop that tool. It was trialled on the Creative Scotland appointment round. It would appear from the press release that the cabinet secretary was particularly happy with the results of that round, not only in terms of meeting the needs of the board, but also because it led to a gender-balanced board. There was a press release about what these new people were bringing. Equally, we are now looking at a board that is 50 per cent men, 50 per cent women, so it hit the two targets that I referred to. That framework has been trialled since the summer on different appointment rounds, all to very good effect. It may be worth saying that, as I said the last time, we had planned to post some examples of different methods that had been used and the difference that they had made to boards on our website. We have quite a few key studies up there now, so we are very happy to send further details to the committee unless you... That would be helpful. Are there any barriers to rolling out that method of good practice and appointments? That's a slightly mischievous question. The main barrier, in its broadest sense, is capacity. We don't pretend that what we are advocating is necessarily the easiest thing to do. It will produce the best results, but, if there are pressures, it may be more difficult to achieve that. I am impressed by the commitments made by the Government, not only publicly but also to the resourcing of the appointments processes, certainly the ones that my office has been involved in. There seems to be a clear desire to change things, and, as Ian has said, there are examples of that. It's fair to say that it won't always succeed whether there are barriers that people put there deliberately or whether they are just the realities of trying to get on with things. I am not expecting 100 per cent success, but I am very pleased with the direction of travel. When you say capacity, do you mean the capacity, as in the numbers of people who put themselves forward, or the ability of ministers and boards to appoint people? By capacity, I mean the amount of resource that is available to the system when it is seeking to appoint people. Do you think that more resource should be available? I am not saying that more resource should be available, that is not a decision for me to make, but if there is not adequate resource, that will create a problem. If you are planning properly for something, it takes longer than just rushing out and doing it. I am sorry to be so simplistic, but that is the truth of it. What we are advocating and the good practice that we are describing involves a fair amount of preparation. The logic of the argument is that, if that is done properly, the later stages of the process will be easier to handle and will be less difficult and will be less consuming of resources. Overall, in time, it will lead to not only more diverse boards with the rights of the people on them, but it will also not be a more expensive process. However, it is fair to say that the transition involves extra effort and is probably quite difficult to absorb at times. The last part of your answer has answered the question that I was about to ask you. As the process beds in and people become more used to the different ways of looking at recruitment pools and generating that diversity, will it, by the very nature of it, become easier and less resource heavy to do? It will. If the lessons learned mechanism, which I referred to in my opening statement, works well and there is no reason to suppose that it will not, then there will be more information available to people and it will be easier to find and success in effect should breed success. As it becomes standard practice, it becomes something that is onerous is maybe the wrong word to use. That is looking at one part of the process. The other part, of course, is attracting people from diverse backgrounds and there are different issues there. My final question—you will be pleased to know—is how do you see the monitoring of the thematic review being carried out? How will that be done? I will pass back to Ian for that, if you know me. Certainly. The commissioners mentioned the lessons learned framework that the Government has been developing since the thematic review was published and we saw an early draft of that in the new year. I do not anticipate that being rolled out, put into practice across the board until probably February, March of this year and it is only legitimate that we would want to allow that sufficient time to bed in, but we have a stage 3 review planned and, based on that timetable, I would expect for us to go and have a look at how it is working in practice by doing some field research in March of 2017. Just a fairly brief question on complaints. There were 19 complaints that your report refers to that were deemed to be inadmissible. I wonder if you would like to tell us a little bit more about why they were inadmissible and should that lead us to any particular conclusions or actions? I anticipated you asking me that question and I had the information, but I regret to say that I cannot lay my hands on it right now. On page 18 of the annual report, you will find a breakdown at table 13 at the bottom of the page. Eleven of those were not pursued by a way of investigation. Five of them were no inquiries at all, and that means that what had been alleged could not, in any circumstances, amount to a breach of the code. Not pursued following initial investigation means that, having done a bit of inquiry, it was clear that the investigation could not lead to anything that would amount to a breach. We are talking about MSP complaints. Some are excluded from my jurisdiction under the rules that you will be familiar with. Some are referred to others, so there is a list there. One was referred both to the Presiding Officer and to the First Minister, which I think is the first. Four were referred to the First Minister because they appeared to relate to alleged breaches of ministerial responsibilities. Two were referred to the cockpit body. I think that they related to alleged breaches of rules regarding members' expenses. One of them, I offered the person who complained the opportunity to have it referred, and they did not come back to me, so I did not refer it. I do not refer it unless I have the authority to do so. Right. That is helpful, Dave Thompson. Thank you, convener, morning commissioner and team. A number of the points that I was going to pick up on have already been covered, but it might be useful for me to find out from you what kind of volume of change there has been in terms of improvements in the broad sense of greater diversity, greater numbers of people coming forward and so on. Is it a 1 per cent, a 5 per cent, a 10 per cent? Do you have any way of measuring how effective it has been? I often come across people who are the chair of this or the chair of that and the board of this and the board of that. Most of them are multiple clanguteers, so it strikes me that we still have an awful lot of the usual suspects covering an awful lot of the positions. I accept that it will take time for that to change, but do you have a measure over the past few years, as those changes have been coming in, as to what kind of volume of change there is and how long is it going to be until we get the real change that we are looking for? I start by saying that some of those people who are more than one board may of course be extremely able people, and that goes without saying, I suspect. We do publish information. The information is provided to us by the Government, so it is based on its statistics. Again, if I can refer to the annual report on page 35, there is a table number 24, which is headed demographic profile of board membership. It sets out the percentage of board members who are female, disabled from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, aged 49 and under, and from the lesbian, gay and bisexual community. There are percentages there. We do compare them year on year, and that is over the page in table 25. As you know, the Government's priority at the moment has been to increase the gender balance on private boards, aiming for 50-50 by 2020. In table 25, you will see that the percentage of female board members in 2013-14 was 35. It had only increased very slightly from 2004-05 at the baseline that we take. It improved in 2014-15 to something more than 38 per cent. I am told that although the figures have not yet been published, the current percentage is 41. 41 is significant in terms of being a long way beyond 34.5. It is below 50, but it is above the level that is set by the European Commission. I am certain from my point of view that that is to be welcomed. I would make the point that my interest is in diversity in a broad sense, but I am very happy that progress has been made in that sense. We will continue to report on that year on year. Thank you very much for that. That is very interesting. It is encouraging, and I was involved in discussing the diversity deliver and all the rest of it a number of years ago on this committee. I am pleased that it appears to be having quite a positive effect when we are moving in the right direction. In terms of getting a broader spread of people across society, rather than just the specific sections that you have mentioned, is there evidence to show that people from different sections of society in a broader sense are also coming forward now in being appointed? There is some evidence. I do not think that we could report on that in a terribly tidy way. Ian gave some examples earlier on of the sorts of people from different sections of society who have been recruited to health boards in recent times. I would like to draw attention to the Government's public boards and corporate diversity programme. We have plugged into part of that. That is an attempt, reasonably comprehensively, to look at all the different factors that are involved in that, including reaching out to sectors of society who are not currently well represented on boards. Although I do not think that we should be looking for instant results, I think that it is a very good thing that the Government is attempting to move forward on all those different fronts. Progress in one area without progress will lead to the whole thing juggling to halt. To make a very simple example, if you had somebody appointed as the chair of a board who was not comfortable with a diverse board, then it patently is not going to work. Things have to move together in parallel, and there are a lot of different factors. In direct answer to your question, I do not think that we will be able to produce precisely the sort of information that you are looking for, but I think that we and I suspect that the Government would be happy to discuss progress with you from time to time. Just before Dave continues, Mary has a specific question about table 24. Yes, please. I have a question about a particular group in the table on page 35, and it is the age 49 and under group. While I absolutely understand that the focus has been on gender and ethnicity, when you have a figure of 17.3 per cent of under 49s are on a board and are 54 per cent of the population, I wanted to specifically ask what will be done to improve that. Well, I am glad that I mentioned the Public Boards and Corporate Diversity programme, because under that efforts are being made to engage with a variety of different groups that involve younger people, including people who are involved in business and in the third sector, if you like, who will have experience that is relevant but might not have considered putting themselves forward. We have participated in some meetings, but we are not directly responsible for driving that, but it is fair to say that the Government is well aware of the issue and is trying to take steps to address it. Is there a specific issue in the perception that people have of boards and board membership that under 49s do not apply? It is an artificial cut-off, but I suspect that you are right. Or are they just too busy at that stage in their career doing other things? They may be too busy for a number of reasons. One of the issues is the nature of people's perception of boards, but another is the reality of board membership. What are you required to do? How much time commitment is involved? Is that made clear? When are meetings held? All those things come into play, but I suspect that the basic question is hitting the nail on my head. Patricia is going to come back more specifically on diversity, but I was just going to say today if we could focus on some of the other issues. Just to continue along the same lines in a sense in terms of the number of people who are on multiple boards and so on, many of those will be unpaid positions. They will not be paid positions. Some of them will be paid positions and they will be very well paid for a few days a month, and that is not for me or the committee to comment on directly. I think that there has been a temptation in the past, and it has been very easy for people who, once they get into the system for the thing to be self-perpetuating, and that is why diversity delivers on all the rest of it, is necessary and we need to change. Would there be a case for limiting the number of boards that individuals could be members of, or limiting the number of chairs of boards that they can hold? Or is it necessary for some of those people, if they are giving up time and they are not working and they cannot hold down a full-time job because they are on boards, need to be on a number of boards to get an income to live? I am just wondering if a limit would be useful or if that is something that you think is not relevant at all. Can I answer this obliquely and then directly? The Government is also, at the moment, looking more carefully at reappointments than it did in the past, and that is what I refer to at the outset in terms of looking at the planning of the appointment process, not just at the setting of a competition at the point where a vacancy occurs. Thinking ahead, looking at the strategic requirements, the operational context and considering whether the people currently on the board are the right people to be there in three years' time or whatever. There will probably be a lower percentage of reappointments than has been the position in the past that may or may not have an impact on the number of people who are on multiple boards, at least the number of boards that they are on. To answer your question directly, I think that there is a risk in applying a limit. It would inevitably be an artificial limit and if somebody who was already at that limit put themselves forward for something and they appeared to be precisely the right person for it, the consequence of appointing them or trying to appoint them would be that they would have to resign from something else, which would create a vacancy that was not planned for and then you are into this whole resourcing issue of trying to do the job properly. I can see arguments for and against. I would not personally be keen to argue for a limit at this stage. I need to be convinced that it would work. I wonder if you can comment. You mentioned that the new approach has been well received by all involved. We noticed that the Public Appointments and Diversity Centre of Expertise Pace has now changed its name to Public Appointments, Wellbeing and Diversity. Can you maybe just explain a wee bit to us how their role has changed or has it changed or have they just changed the name? Again, I think I will ask Ian to go into more of the detail of that but just to update you. In next year's annual report they will be the Public Appointments team. Their name has changed again. Yes, they have been rebranded again. It is now the Public Appointments team and that very much reflects their role. They are wholly dedicated to Public Appointments and nothing else. I have been really impressed by, first of all, the level of understanding that exists within that team. We said in the annual report that they had a new head of the Public Appointments team and again credit where it is to her. Her name is Eva McLaren although I normally hesitate to name an official. She is very understanding of what it is that we are engaged in, very dedicated to that activity and has drawn together a team and strengthened the existing team. There is a new development manager called, again, credit where it is to Kirsty Walker. We have been working with them on developing an action plan under strand 2 of the Public Boards and Corporate Diversity programme board, which is about addressing underrepresentation on the boards of Scotland's public bodies. The last time we gave evidence we said that a number of recommendations and diversity delivers had not been implemented and subsequently sent an indication to the committee of those that we felt had been in abeyance. The action plan now looks to address a whole raft of things that had not been implemented to date and we are working very closely together on doing that. It is not just about the appointments process, it is much, much broader than that. I, along with members of Evie's team, spoke earlier about attracting people who had not thought about roles under the age of 50. We ran a couple of events along with Equate Scotland, so that is for young women in science, engineering and technology subjects, to encourage them to apply for board roles. It is not just work on the process, it is much wider. We have a detailed action plan. I am sure that the Government's permission if the committee were interested to have a look at that, we could provide it to you. We have assigned people for all those activities, we have dates by which they all have to be achieved and we are very much working in partnership with a view to meeting very much what is a shared outcome. There is no adversarial relationship. We are still very much guardians of the code, guardians of the principle, but I think that there is that understanding there on their part as well that our activities, the activities of our public appointments advisors, are all with a view to meeting ministerial aims and getting the best possible people for boards. I am very heartened by the work that we have been doing with them. Thank you very much for that. It is very encouraging to hear that things have progressed so well in recent years, because it was not always last. Those things take time to bed in and change, so it is encouraging to hear what you are saying. Let us hope that progress continues as the years move on. I am just saying in terms of management that we want to step up the pace a little bit, and I am intending now to allow Patricia to ask some questions. I listened with great interest to the previous conversations about diversity and it is good to see progress being made. I noted that, in the report, it was mentioned that you were cautiously optimistic about the trends. Table 24 demonstrates that all of the target groups are still under represented. Have you considered—let me put it another way—the things that have worked and things that have not worked, and if you could perhaps give us an example of the good practice that is helping to make a difference? If it works in one area or for one target group, it could be rolled out to others? Is that what is happening? I think that I am conscious that you are slightly concerned about time. I do not think that we need to get too concerned. I am just alafting my colleagues, because I am keeping an eye on them. Ian has previously referred to the example of the Creative Scotland round, which led to people with a passion for the arts in Scotland and in the wider world being appointed and also to a balanced board in terms of gender. He has referred to a developing practice—I think that it is fair to say—within NHS appointment rounds, where a much broader range of people are being attracted to put themselves forward and are being appointed to boards. I think that those are good examples. I accept that all the groups remain underrepresented, so I am not complacent about that. All the things that I have said before indicate that there is a lot of positive work being done, there is a lot of positive attention being addressed to the issue, and the signs are that things are moving in the right direction. The lessons learned mechanism, which we have referred to a couple of times beforehand, should do precisely what you outlined at the beginning of your question and make it possible, easier for people to see what has worked well. Of course, circumstances will vary, and it would be a great pity if we got to the point where whatever I had worked say in NHS Tayside, just to pick an example, was then seen as the model for everything else. It shouldn't develop that way. I am very conscious that the figures for women are getting better, but the figures for disabled people and people under 49 are not moving in the same direction as quickly. I am just expressing a slight anxiety that perhaps there is understandably a focus on increasing women's representation and on hoping that we are not losing sight of the other target groups, but that work is also being done to make sure that they are coming forward and being appointed, because their issues will, on some occasions at least, be very different from the issues that prevent women from taking part. One approach does not necessarily fit all. I do not know if it gives you any comfort. I share your anxiety. Having said that, I very much welcome the high-profile attention that has been given to the gender imbalance, because that opens the door to consideration of issues of diversity in a way that it would not otherwise occur. Certainly, my office—if you speak to the public appointments advisers, some of them are quite passionate about this—are very interested in diversity in a much broader sense, so we are not thinking that the problem has been addressed far from it. My next question is a slightly different one, so I am not sure whether that would be appropriate point for Fiona to comment. I am just interested in the conversation about the profile of needing diversity, which has definitely been raised and accepted by so many. In your thematic review, because I am interested in the actual process, on page 13 of the thematic review, where we talk about publicity, how do we get the applicants? First, we have to look at where we put the application out and, therefore, is it in a space that attracts more diversity to look at the application in the first place. You talk about it very much being centered on what is it called, the Scotland Applies website, appointed for Scotland website. It is then part of that other process as well as having applied, having seen the advert, how do you apply? Are we bringing in different ways? We talked about this the last time you were here. Do you have any examples of a more creative way of putting out an appointment and then allowing people to apply for it? There has been some inertia there, I think that it is fair to say. Once people are in the process, I think that there has been more proliferation of different methods, techniques. I mentioned our action plan earlier on. One of the key things that has appeared in that for the first time and is due to be rolled out this year is a social media strategy. That, again, speaks to the attraction of people under the age of 50. It is not a thing that has been rolled out yet, but I have had a copy of the draft strategy in the past week, and I am very encouraged by that. That is not to say that specific techniques have not been used to attract target groups. They certainly have, and they have been used on a range of rounds. Again, it is about under representation by protected characteristics. The commissioner's guidance was altered, as you know, and a draft was provided to the committee. It is very explicit that the outcome is about meeting all the needs of the board and that part and parcel of that in terms of learning lessons is all protected characteristics. You have to look at whether or not you attracted disabled people a fifth of the population to apply for those roles. If you were not successful at doing so, what do you have to do differently next time in order to achieve that? I will choose one example. Again, there are others on the website. For the enterprise bodies, they understood that they had under representation by gender. They held open days and encouraged women who belonged to changing the chemistry, the IOD, to come and find out more about those roles and people who would not necessarily have thought about applying for those positions. It is not as though there are lots of pockets of good practice out there. It really is just a matter of widening that net. I will get that on your website. I can go in. I was very interested in table 27 on page 37, where it tells us how many people applied and then how many people got through the process at various levels and were actually appointed. I was struck by the fact that some 1,742 people had applied and that all those 431 got as far as interview, which would suggest that they perhaps were people who were considered to have at least some merit and ability to fit all the criteria that we had, but all that just under a quarter were actually appointed. I just wonder whether there is any process that allows those people who are not appointed to have some feedback about what the reasons were for them not being appointed, because presumably if they got as far as being invited to interview, then they had some merit and ability, and they may be people who would not fit the criteria for a particular appointment, but might have abilities that would fit very well for another. I would not want to see people being discouraged by not being able to progress through the process, given the numbers that we have in the process itself. That is absolutely correct. In some of the discussions that I have been involved in, there is clearly a heightened awareness of the opportunities to retain people's interests by giving them better feedback. If they are not successful, there have been some very good examples, I should say. There is also an awareness that, in an exercise where, as we have already been identifying, there are certainly sectors of the population who are less likely to be interested, where those people do put themselves forward, it is very important to retain that interest and encourage them to put themselves forward again. There is an awareness that there is some developing practice, but it is fair to say that there is certainly quite a lot of scope for improvement there yet. That would be an interesting one to follow. Two points arising from questions that colleagues asked earlier. I was struck by a good point that Mr Thomson made about people's paid appointment to boards. However, I wondered if you had any statistics that could explain how many board appointments are remunerated, as opposed to being given expenses, and whether that is some kind of barrier or encouragement to appointment or to application? We do not hold that information. I think that it is available on the appointed for Scotland website, but not gathered in a way that would answer your question neatly. I am a little bit hesitant to volunteer to do that in the short term, but it is maybe something that we could try and do for another time. It would be quite interesting to know whether remuneration was a factor, I suppose, in people's decisions to become involved. I am sorry. There are some people who effectively have a career on boards, which is not in itself wrong. They may be contributing extremely effectively. There will be other people for whom being involved is more important than the remuneration. I am not quite sure how we would get that information. That is why I am hesitant about trying to provide statistics. That is something that we might ask our own spice to look at for us. The convener mentioned or raised with you the issue of inadmissible complaints, the 19 complaints that come forward. I was struck by the fact that a number of them were referred on to more appropriate locations. Do you, as an organisation, get any feedback as to the outcome of those referrals? Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Certainly, I do not think that there have been any more recent examples. The previous permanent secretary's office was in the practice of sending a copy of whatever the final letter was to my office for our records, not that we would do anything with it or could do anything with it. There just haven't been any more recently, so I am presuming that practice will continue. Whilst I am interested, I have no role in relation to those, so there is nothing I can do with it. If you are going to ask me what I thought of the information that I received, I really cannot make a comment, I am afraid. No, I was not going to do that. I was just interested to know whether you, having referred on, got feedback as to how the matter had been handled and the outcome. In that sense, we do. That is helpful to know. Gil Paterson. I am going to ask you questions in relation to accessibility for the public to be able to complain. I know that the act requires allegations to be made in writing and also signed, but your recommendation of what you are going to operate, you are going to change that, and you are going to allow people to complain using IT methods through email, etc. I wonder whether the benefit of allowing the complaints to be submitted online outweith the potential risk of acting out with the statutory competence. My short answer to that is, I think so, otherwise I would not have put it forward as I have done in the draft of the strategic plan. Behind that, there is a slightly more complex picture, as with all of those things, unfortunately. If the complaint is about a member of this Parliament and it is unsigned, I have to submit a report to you, to this committee, seeking instructions and direction as to whether or not to proceed with it. If it is a complaint about a councillor or a member of a public body, that separate act only states that it requires that, as far as possible, I will only investigate complaints that are signed, which are in writing and signed. The legal definition of writing has moved on, even since 2000, to the point where I think that an online complaint could be treated as written. The difficulty is in relation to signature. My view is that the risk of proceeding inappropriately with an investigation is very small. I have not yet, in the period that I have been in office, received any complaints that appear to be completely frivolous. Some of them, I think, are so far outside my jurisdiction that I am not sure why they come to me, but I have not received any which are somebody pretending to be Mr Sea Lion or whatever. It has not been an issue up to now. When we do investigate, we have quite a lot of contact backwards and forwards, so it is a prickle to go back to the discussion earlier on, or some other arrangement. I think that it would be very difficult for somebody to maintain a completely spurious complaint throughout the process. If I had any doubts, I would be asking to speak to them. That is a long way of saying that I do not think that the risk is very high. If it is an MSP complaint, I will have to come to you anyway, and you can direct me whether or not to proceed or your successors anyway. If it is not an MSP complaint, I think that the risk is very low. I am looking at it from a slightly different angle here. If the requirement was that it should be in writing and should be signed, I understand your point with regards to email, etc. I understand that point and it makes complete sense. However, if the access is signed, if a complaint was made against an MSP, could the MSP itself say, well, you are not complying? Could it be stopping its tracks because it would seem to me under the law the requirement is that it should be signed? If it is not signed, how can it move forward? Would it not be better to seek that? I agree with you, by the way, so I am not trying to put an obstacle in your way, but would it not be better to seek that the act be amended or can it be amended? Is it something that was passed to us in the Scotland act or is it something that we have the competence to change here? That Parliament would have—it is an act of the Scottish Parliament in the first place, so it could certainly be amended here. As I say, if MSP complaints are unsigned, I will have to come to this committee or its successor to seek authority to proceed or directions as to whether or not to proceed. I am not sure what the value of a signature is. Some signatures are completely illegible. I think that we have to think carefully about all Governments that I am aware of seeking to move to digital provision of services. I think that there has to be an assessment of the risk of not requiring a signature, and I think that that will be something for this committee or its successor to make a decision on. If I do bring to you a report saying that I have this complaint, which in all other respects meets the requirements but is not signed, I am not sure if that answers the question. No, it certainly does. I think that you are quite right to put it on. He has to have a look at this actually and square the circle. The other thing is that you have already mentioned the additional investments required for the renewal of your IT system, but I wondered over and above that what, if any at all, the scale of the resources that will be required to alter the relevant systems to deliver those changes over and above the IT system. I may have to be a little bit coy on this in part, because we will be going to tender. We are very reluctant to discuss figures. Can I just say that if you are going to tender early, then simply we should leave that. Provided that I have the backing, financial backing to do so. Yes, I do not yet. Can I just ask a simple straight forward question, because commissioners have raised it and you have raised it also, and it is the increase in complaints with raggards to councillors. Has the complaints being upheld also increased? That would be nice to hear. I think that percentage wise, the number of complaints being upheld is reasonably static. I think that the highest number of cases if I can talk about, remember, in the 14-15 annual report we referred to a complaint in Aberdeen where we had 524 complaints. It is all about the one issue, so that was one case, so it is distorting the figures. But the highest number of cases that have been considered by the office came in in 2013-14, there was a dip in that sense in 14-15 although the complexity has gone up. We are now heading back to 2013-14 levels, and I do not see any sign of it tailing off. But the two things get up together, the complaints. You can look at the number of hearings held by the Standards Commission where I have reported to them that there has been a breach. Percentage-wise that does not change, the numbers are very small, but percentage-wise it does not change very much. I do not think that it is an indication of rampant bad behaviour. I think that it is just the volume of complaints. Maybe just an observation. I am fairly confident that we have already got legislation that provides for electronic signatures in other jurisdictions. We have also, as the committee recently just been through standing orders and codes of conduct, to make it clear that in writing should not be restricted to the physical process of an imprint on a page. To give certainty, it might be something that our successors, as a committee, would look at doing something about by a committee bill. Certainly not for this session of Parliament. Finally, Cameron Buchanan. I am just interested in what you said earlier about the changes in working practices, which have contributed to the reduction in the number of reported concerns. Is there a significant fall in the number of reported concerns? I would like to ask Ian Bruce, who deals with the enquiries. I presume that we are talking about public appointments here. Yes, I think that we indicated in the annual report that, in part, at least that is going to be due to the amount of oversight that we provide, although that does not mean that we are hugely concerned. As the commissioner indicated, issues arise on rounds on which we are not providing direct oversight. Officials pick up the phone to the office and say that there has been an instance of maladministration. How do we address it? In that respect, that is not a huge concern. I think that our closer working relationship is the fact that there is a clearer understanding that the advice that our advisers provide in the field is welcome and helpful in terms of achieving ministerial aims. I think that those things are contributing to the reduction in the number of concerns. We also have to bear in mind that there were fewer appointment rounds live during the year, perhaps in comparison to previous years. Inevitably, that is going to have an impact also in terms of the number of reports that come to the office. I will not commit myself to saying that we are now looking in perpetuity at fewer concerns necessarily coming to us. Our position has always been where our folks are involved in appointment activity. That is always with a view to addressing issues as they arise, which is why we do not appear before the committee with reports. We are there to ensure to facilitate compliance on an on-going basis. We passed two bills this process, the lobbying bill and the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament. I was wondering what impact we would be on staffing and other resources. For clarity, we have only got stage one on lobbying. We may or may not have. I think that I can still ask the question. Oh, no, the question is relevant for the record. I think that the impact clearly will depend on the volume of issues that we have to investigate. That does not answer your question, I realise. I have assumed—in fact, I have given evidence to this committee—that the number of complaints received will be a handful. If it is a handful, while there will be an additional cost in dealing with them, I am sure that we will find a way of dealing with them. As I have already said, we are at capacity. We really are in terms of the range of things that we are looking at on the standards and complaints site. If there is a large volume, I do not know what we will do, is the honest answer. I am keeping my fingers crossed, and I hope that we have a new case management system that allows us to streamline our administration and generates a lot of material automatically, which will reduce the amount of time taken. It is part of the IT system, yes. There are other issues, but we do not need to go into that today. We are trying to make improvements in our efficiency. We have already done so. We will continue to try to do so, but we will have to hope for the best that the volume of complaints is not large. That brings us to the end of the questions that we had previously discussed to put to you. Is there anything of significance that we have not covered that you want to draw to our attention, Bill? No, thank you, convener. That has been a fairly extensive counter around the field, I think. In that case, I thank all three of you for attending and helping our consideration of matters related to public appointments, etc. That has been very helpful. I now move the meeting into private session.