 Welcome to the 13th meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The first item on our agenda is an evidence session with the Deputy First Minister and the Scottish Government's continuous improvement programme. The Deputy First Minister is joined today by Scottish Government officials Leslie Fraser, director General Corporate and Ian Mitchell, interim director, propriety and ethics. I welcome you all to the meeting and invite the Deputy First Minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener. First of all, my apologies for detaining the committee this morning, but a journey that would normally take me 90 minutes has taken me three hours this morning, so my apologies to the committee for detaining you. I'm grateful to the committee for the opportunity to give evidence this morning. Following our constructive session in January, I welcome this opportunity to discuss with the committee the progress of the updated procedure for handling complaints by civil servants about current or former ministers and the continuous improvement programme that arises from it. At the point of the last evidence session on 25 January, the draft procedure had been published. We were in the middle of a discussion period with staff, staff networks, ministers, trade unions, stakeholders and, of course, with this committee. This discussion period was constructive and respectful. It resulted in a small addition to the procedure's terms of reference, which I sent to the committee in my letter of the 24 February when the procedure came into operation. The feedback from the committee was also instrumental in helping us to develop guidance that accompanies the procedure. As pleased to inform the committee that the Government had appointed six external investigators and five external decision makers from a high-caliber pool of applicants to carry out investigations for the updated procedure, this group has since completed an induction session led by the propriety and ethics directorate. After the procedure became live, the proactive work that I identified when I last spoke to the committee is being so important to maintaining and improving a safe and respectful working environment is progressing as planned. While we hope that we never have to use the updated procedure, cabinet secretary and minister received a briefing on it after it came into operation to ensure that it is fully understood from the outset. Communications to all staff networks also accompanied its launch. Communications with staff have continued throughout March, in particular for the launch of the associated revised staff grievance policy and procedure that came into operation on 21 April. In addition to that, I am pleased to say that the independent advisers, Mr James Hamilton and Dame Elish Angelini, have been given final copies of the procedure and have been invited to consider updates to the Scottish Ministerial Code. We are now looking to the future and to the activities in the continuous improvement programme for the rest of the year. The programme promotes positive standards of behaviour, seeks to prevent unacceptable behaviours and continues to work to create a safe and supportive environment in which staff can speak up. The programme has already involved a range of actions beyond the development of a new complaints procedure. The programme's activities are helping to embed the Scottish Government's new vision in the service of Scotland and the five core values of integrity, inclusion, collaboration, innovation and kindness at the heart of its workplace. Those activities include the establishment of a propriety and ethics team to provide oversight and co-ordination and key issues. Another activity is the review of corporate information management to improve how information and records are used, stored and processed. In the last few months, we have held discussions with those who are most closely involved with the programme and are recognised trade unions in order to begin to establish measures of success for the programme. Those measures are intended not only to track the completion of the programme's activities but also to chart how well we are doing them. The measures will ensure that we are aware of what best practice is and that is what we adhere to at all times. They will also help us identify the areas where we can become more successful. The programme looks across the organisation at the systems and business practices that are designed to continue to build a positive working environment that people can thrive in. The activities planned until the end of this year consider different aspects of culture and behaviour and the ways of working that are in place. In particular, proactive outreach work that makes contact with network groups and satellite offices has already started and will be taken forward in earnest. Throughout this period, we will continue staff communications and our engagement with our recognised trade unions. I look forward to discussing matters with the committee today. Thank you very much for that opening statement. I will start off with some questions and will widen out the session to colleagues around the table. The report has talked a lot about updating the complaints procedure, not just in isolation but in a wider context that ffosters a culture of openness, transparency and inclusion. Can you advise us to what specific activities are taking place to foster that culture of openness, transparency and inclusion? As a range of measures that are taken forward, there is quite clearly the routine training and development of members of staff in the processes and procedures of the civil service to ensure that we have in place the appropriate support to ministers in the taking of decisions and in ensuring that there is a very clear and transparent process around that process of decision making. Obviously, that will vary across different parts of the organisation, ultimately coming to the decisions that are taken by Cabinet through the Cabinet decision making process. All of the elements of the decision making process are kept under constant review. Some of the wider issues around the procedure that I have set out in my opening statement, some of the steps that have been taken to ensure that staff and ministers are aware of all the details within the procedures around any issues of complaints so that they can be properly and fully handled as appropriately. Lastly, the Government focuses on its obligations to share widely the information that is available to the Government, which is undertaken through routine publication schedules, of which there is a very significant number. Responding to the more detailed and specific requests for information that come invariably through the freedom of information regime and other channels. You talked about the staff and staff training. I understand that 85 per cent of staff respondents say that they are familiar with the organisation's values in the people's survey 2022. The next phase of the vision implementation will shift from awareness raising to behaviour change. What behaviours do you believe need to change? I suppose that the best way to answer that question, convener, is to do so by reference to the point that I made in my opening statement about the values of the organisation and what we expect to see. In a sense, the flip side of that is that any behaviour that is incompatible with those values has to change. We are setting it out in a proactive and positive way about what are the values of the organisation and what we expect members of staff to see. That is openly communicated to members of staff. Any individual who believes that they are in a circumstance or working environment that is not consistent or conducive to those values is essentially invited to and given a platform to raise their concerns through the internal processes of the Scottish Government. I would hope that members of staff would take a very clear signal from the communication of those values that that should be the norm of their experience. If that is not the case, there are channels that enable them to raise those concerns and for those concerns to be addressed. What we have seen with encouragement has been a positive response within the staff's surveys about the reduction of behaviours that all of us would judge to be unacceptable. How have the staff received that? Generally, staff response has been good. The survey evidence that you highlighted indicates that staff are aware of the efforts that are being made to ensure that we have the appropriate culture in which staff can operate and that that can be reflected in their experience and that staff feel empowered to influence the process and to raise any concerns that they may have. Six external investigators and five external decision makers have been recruited to carry out investigations for the updated procedure and the reduction sessions have been carried out. How did you come to the figure of six and five and what were the criteria used for deciding who you would appoint? What is the nature of their appointment? I realise that they are giving on-going advice, etc, but are they on retainer? Can you be a bit more specific about who they are and what they are actually going to be doing as we move forward? The selection process has been undertaken through the way that we would normally undertake a public appointment process. There is a person's specification and people are invited to apply. There is then a sifting process and a selection process that is undertaken in accordance with the approach that we take to public appointments in general. The individuals will be retained individuals. They will be paid a daily rate to reflect the work that they undertake. For example, should there be a case to be investigated or decided upon, there would be a selection process undertaken to identify who, from the panel, was suitable to undertake that investigation. A crucial issue in that will be the selection first of the investigator. It is of no prior involvement with any aspect of the case of the individuals involved and a similar test in relation to the decision maker who would be a different individual to the investigator. They would be remunerated for the time that was required to be spent on the task that they were allocated to be undertaken. We have had preparatory discussions with those individuals through an induction process, but the individuals, as I reported to the committee, are individuals who have come through a selection process to be appointed to those roles in the way that we undertake the public appointment process. I am not sure if Iain wants to add anything to that. Only the part of the question that I asked about why the number that we have landed with 6 and 5 is so high. We advertised through the public appointments portal that there were not public appointments as such, and we had a really good level of interest. One of the criteria is that they are highly experienced in workplace investigations. We did not have a specific number in mind, but, as Mr Swinney has explained, because of the daily rate thing and not salaried, we thought that that number was good enough to cover things like, are they available? Also, if we have a case that goes to appeal, we have to have a different set of investigators and decision makers. We thought that 6 and 5 was a reasonable number, but there was no hard and fast rule around that. It is not because you anticipate myriad complaints or anything like that. In fact, there is no reason at present. Is that correct? It is to take into account the fact that there may be issues of conflict of interest, because people will have knowledge. It is to take into account the fact that we inserted into the procedure, the appeals procedure. If we have an individual to investigate a separate decision maker, if we then go to appeal, we have to have the same again, essentially to ensure that we can have no issues about prior involvement. As Ian Mitchell has said, there is no hard and fast judgment on that point about numbers, but it is simply to give us that range and that flexibility. Are there no cases at this time? Obviously, we do not comment on individual cases of this nature and the confidential matters that are undertaken to protect the interests of all involved, but we do hope not to be having to use the procedure. That is basically in terms of the governance oversight and record keeping information management. There has been a number of reports suggesting that there are concerns in those areas. I am just wondering how they are being addressed. There is work that is constantly undertaken to ensure that we have the appropriate level of record keeping in place. That will vary across a range of interactions around individual cases. There must be the most assiduous recording of decision making within Government at different levels, whether that is at official level or with the involvement of ministers. There will be decision making that has to be recorded formally through the channels of cabinet decision making and the processes that are involved there. We undertake work to ensure that officials are trained and experienced in the capturing of the processes of Government. That stretches beyond decision making. That charts the different stages and the development of a policy. Policies will evolve over time with extensive and detailed interaction on particular questions. It is important that we have an account of how those decisions have been arrived at and that that can be readily made available when that is required to be the case. Thank you very much. I am now going to open out the session to colleagues around the table. The first member to ask a question will be Liz to be followed by Daniel. Thank you and good morning. The Deputy First Minister will be very aware of the fact that this committee requested the Presence Act Committee of the former permanent secretary and we were very disappointed that that request was declined. I know that the Deputy First Minister cannot comment on the specifics of that, but it has raised two issues for us as a committee. Firstly, as yet, the Parliament has not been able to scrutinise the previous permanent secretary about some of the issues that she felt had caused some difficulties within the administration process. Secondly, it has raised a concern about the accountability of the permanent secretary, whoever he or she may be, to the Scottish Government but also to Parliament. I raise those points because I think that they are extremely important in the context of public scrutiny here that we wanted specific questions answered about nothing to do with the events of the difficult trials that have taken place, nothing to do with that at all, but what procedures might have been organised better had we been able to question and get that evidence from the person who was right in the front line. Firstly, would you accept that that is a problem for this committee? Secondly, could you explain to us how you think the accountability to Parliament should rest with a permanent secretary? I think that the point that I would make, the fundamental point, and I think that this point is made in the letter that was sent by the current permanent secretary, John Paul Marx, to the convener some weeks ago in March, I think the 10th of March, I have in my mind, is essentially to make the point that the permanent secretary is an office holder. I do not want to make a sort of an obtuse remark or anything that sounds disrespectful, but the permanent secretary is not an individual. They are an office holder. Any of the questions that Liz Smith or the committee is interested in can be put to the permanent secretary, and I understand that the permanent secretary is coming to the committee very shortly. In that point of accountability to me is absolutely fundamental that the permanent secretary is the leading civil servant in the Scottish Government, and therefore, as that office holder, the permanent secretary must be available to come to committee and to answer for the issues that are relevant to the Scottish Government on an all-time basis. I view that as the same relationship that I have with the parliamentary committee. I am here to answer on the Government's behalf. The permanent secretary makes the point in the letter to the convener that the civil servants do not act in an individual capacity, they act on behalf of ministers, and their authority comes from that relationship in acting on behalf of ministers. I hope that that addresses the point that Liz Smith is interested in making. In relation to the questions about the difficulties that lay at the heart of the complaints procedure in 2018, I think that those issues have been really openly scrutinised in the process that was undertaken by a specific parliamentary committee prior to the 2021 election, and then also in the scrutiny that this committee has given to the procedure that has arisen from those events, which is designed to address the issues that emerged during that process. This is my second appearance at committee to address some of those questions. That is helpful. I still think that there are really two issues here, Mr Swinney. The first of them, you are quite right, is what happens in terms of the accountability and going forward to ensure that that process is as strong as it possibly can be. Our problem as a committee, given the non-appearance of the previous permanent secretary who was very much involved at the time when there were obviously serious issues, because we have not been able to have some of that feedback, it is much more difficult for us to scrutinise what the best way forward should be and to ask ministers about that. You are absolutely right that you have been very upfront about what is happening. Do you accept that our work has been slightly compromised by the fact that in a public session of committee it has been difficult for us to know exactly what went on in terms of the processes and how that could have been better? I do not share that view because of the fact that there was extensive scrutiny of that process undertaken by a specific parliamentary committee prior to the 2021 election at which the former permanent secretary made, if my memory serves me right, more than one appearance at that committee. The issues that I think pertain about all that went on at that period have been openly scrutinised by a committee of Parliament. I accept that it is not by this committee of Parliament but it certainly was by a committee of Parliament in, I do not think that any of us could say anything other than very extensive and laborious detail prior to the 2021 election. I think that that is all on the record. The permanent secretary would be essentially making a contribution essentially on behalf of Scottish ministers. That is the only basis on which the permanent secretary as a civil servant can speak. Civil servants are not making individual appearances at committee, they represent ministers. What is crucial is that, in all those cases, there is effective and open engagement with committees on those questions. As I say, I am here to set out the licence that has been learned from that process and how it has influenced the new complaints process that we have in place. I know that the permanent secretary will be happy to engage in any issues that the committee has on its mind. It is just on exactly that point that the role of the two committees are actually different. You are absolutely right that the previous committee that investigated the issues surrounding the very extensive problems before the 2021 election had a very specific role. We have a different role, and that different role is about how public administration is made accountable. Our concern is that, in order to ensure that we are scrutinising ministers like yourself when you come to committee, it would have been helpful for us to have, from the officer's mouth as it were, exactly what some of the perceived challenges had been. There is nothing to do with all the events of what went on for the other committee to question, but what structures could be improved. I am just asking if you would accept that that has been difficult for us because we have not been able to hear that evidence. I do not take that view for the reason that I set out. I think that a lot of those questions about what went wrong with the process and procedure was very clearly and openly aired in the committee prior to the 2021 election. Indeed, one of the issues that the convener has just questioned me about was about the necessity. I went back to that point a couple of times in my responses about the fact that the necessity for there to be no prior involvement of individuals in a particular case was one of the significant flaws in the previous handling, which became very clear in the process of the parliamentary committee. I understand the point that Liz Smith is making to me that this committee has not undertaken that exercise. My contention would be that another parliamentary committee has done so and we are now in the process of learning the lessons from that and changing practice as a consequence, which I am very happy to engage with the committee about. I am certain that the permanent secretary will be likewise. Thank you for that. I just make the point that I think that the scrutiny is the important thing. I think that that is what this committee's role is. I would like to ask two broad areas of questions. One is just around progress. The other is about some of the content of the future work, especially around the ministerial code. On progress, I note that briefings have taken place with ministers. I am just wondering if you could elaborate on what form that briefing has taken and whether every minister has undertaken that briefing. Similarly, my assumption is that this procedure is going to be most relevant to those civil servants who have the closest contact with ministers. Therefore, in terms of that wider piece of work, information and training, has there been prioritisation among more senior civil servants such as director general and director level and private offices? If so, what progress has been made in that sort of targeted training? In relation to the briefing of ministers, the format, as with an awful lot of life in recent past, has been done online. There have been briefing sessions undertaken by teams. Paramentary colleagues will understand that there has been a three-line whip applied to those sessions. Mr Johnson will know what I am talking about there. No, I am simply saying that it is terminology with which we are all familiar. With the exception that the First Minister has been briefed separately, I have essentially convened those briefings with the permanent secretary. We have had input from specific members of staff who have been involved in the formulation of the briefing. There has been an explanation of the procedure that has been written. Copies have been provided to ministers in advance of the briefing session. There has been the opportunity for questions to be raised by ministers about any issues in relation to the procedure. I can confirm that all ministers have been partied to that briefing. As I said, the First Minister has been briefed separately. In relation to the awareness among members of staff, there has been general awareness to all members of staff, because it is important that all members of staff hear the message. I understand the distinction that Mr Johnson makes about staff who will be in closest proximity to ministers. That is not always driven by seniority. That is driven by close proximity. I work very closely with some staff who will be more junior members of staff, but I could not function without the excellent support that they provide for me. It is important that that is reflected in who is advised about the procedure. That work is underweight, and there have been specific briefing sessions undertaken with private office. Obviously, there is a huge amount of interaction between ministers and private office staff. I would probably say that that must be the area of most interaction between civil servants and ministers, and then there will be a range of other interactions more generally across the specialisms in the Government. We have to make sure that members of staff have access to the procedure. I am satisfied that that is available, but it will be the source as the continuous improvement programme indicates of on-going dialogue to ensure that that is the case. I note that, as part of the recommendations, an induction session or training is meant to be put in place for ministers. Has that been put together? Is that in place? If not, when will that be in place? After the 2021 election, there was a formal induction programme for ministers, and that has taken place. That covered a whole range of different topics from the administrative and process-type issues such as that, or the expectations of interaction with private offices, and then about some of the wider policy-specific areas, so that all ministers, for example, are briefed around some of the policy objectives on climate change, for example recognising that that is a policy objective that transcends individual portfolios. There has been a mixture of policy and process induction since the 2021 election. Should there be any changes to ministerial appointments, a similar programme will be put in place to ensure that any incoming minister who does not have previous experience will be suitably briefed. The bulk of what we have seen to date is regard to how complaints may be raised, progressed, investigated and so on. Ultimately, it is the ministerial code that will be applied that will see the outcomes of any such process and be judged by it now. I note that the independent advisers will be coming back within three months of the published procedure. I was wondering whether the Deputy First Minister could just clarify what the expectation is, even in broad terms, when it is likely to come back. More important, given the sensitivity and ultimately, as we discussed last time, it comes down to ministerial discretion, especially from the First Minister, as to whether or not the code is broken or not. What is the parameters of that review that is being undertaken by James Hamilton, Dame Eilish and Janine Eilish? Is it simply going to be about the formulation and content of the code or are they going to be examining the operation of the code itself? On the first point about timescale, we indicated that three months after the publication of the policy, we would invite feedback from the independent advisers. That will be towards the end of May and I would expect us to have that feedback within that timescale. Obviously, the First Minister will then need to reflect on that feedback to determine if there are to be any changes to the code that will be made as a consequence of that, given the responsibility that the First Minister carries for the formulation of the code. In relation to the scope, the advisers will be looking at essentially the interaction of the complaints handling process and any interaction with the ministerial code and whether that flows through in a smooth fashion. The recommendations that I would anticipate would be in that space. However, I would not want to constrain the reflections of the independent advisers and I know that the First Minister will be happy to hear any reflections that the independent advisers have on that question or perhaps questions that stretch beyond that particular relationship. However, that would be me prejudging what we will hear from the independent advisers and we will know that over the course of the next month or so. The final point is really about the nature of the ministerial code. What I am going to say just now, I do not say any pejorative sense, but the current atmosphere around ministerial codes, particularly in relation to the position of the United Kingdom Government, raises a serious issue about the significance of the ministerial code and its implementation and application. As a minister who is bound by the code, but who is not a decision maker in relation to the code, I view that adherence to that code as my fundamental duty as a minister. It guides in shapes. I would like to think that I do not need a ministerial code to tell me how to guide in shape, but it is there as a backstop to make sure that I know what is expected of me. It has to be taken with that degree of seriousness and it has to be applied with that degree of seriousness, because without it it is meaningless. Mr Johnson's question gives me the opportunity to put that on the record as a reflection of what I think is the view of ministers that the ministerial code is there to be complied with. The last thing a minister wants is to have any speculation about whether his or her conduct or actions has in any way brought the code into question. I would quite agree with all that, but there will always be attention when the questions are centred on the person who is also responsible for deciding whether or not ultimately the code has been broken or whether to apply. From our previous discussion, I recognise the reasons for that, the democratic reasons. I mean, I do, but it is attention nonetheless. I was just wondering whether or not that might be an area for some reflection by the independent advisers and whether or not there has been any dialogue in that regard. There is attention there, Mr Johnson is absolutely correct, but there is a fundamental democratic question that the First Minister appoints a minister and the First Minister is essentially judging conduct in relation to a tabulated expectation of how a minister should conduct themselves. The First Minister takes that code seriously in that respect and has those expectations of ministers, and that is made clear by the First Minister to ministers. In relation to the perspective of independent advisers, I would be entering into speculation because I just don't know what will come back from independent advisers, but what I would say is that when you have advisers of the track record and credentials of Dame Elish Angiolini and Mr Hamilton, then being open to hearing their perspectives is something that I think would be a good idea. Good morning. It took me quite a long time to get into Edinburgh today, so I have every sympathy with you. I wanted to ask three broad areas. First of all, you have indicated that you are developing measures of success for the programme, but I wanted to understand a little more flavour of how those measures of success would feed into the latest iterations of people's survey results, and of the back of that, what would then be put in the public domain? In other words, not how you will know the measures or test the measures of success, but how we will be able to test the measures of success in our responsibility for public administration. I think that the people's survey is published, isn't it? We publish certain aspects of the people's survey, and we do that in tandem with our colleagues in the UK Government. We are part of a wider UK people's survey process, so we do that in tandem each year. In a sense, the information that the people's survey gives us about attitudes of members of staff is published to give, I suppose, the opportunity for committee to scrutinise what is the degree of progress that has been made in the general relationship of members of staff to the organisation and their experiences, hence the importance of us looking at, from a variety of different perspectives, people's survey, as Michelle Thomson will know from her own professional background, is a significant indicator of the health of an organisation and what are the challenges to the leadership of the organisation to ensure that its improvement journey is appropriate. The measures of that type are important in a general sense to assess the performance of the organisation. I think that we will be very careful about what we take forward here in terms of charting progress on the continuous improvement journey. I certainly do not want that to be judged by whether we have a declining number of cases of complaints. That is a rather negative way of looking at it. I want us to think very carefully about how we can demonstrably quantify how we are making progress within the organisation, how we are improving staff's experiences and the capability of staff. All those different factors have to be reflected in the approach that we design as a consequence. I completely agree with that. Going back to your point, Leslie, if it is done through the remit of a UK civil service approach, how will that be reflected in what is a different and more nuanced approach here? I would also like to understand a bit more about to what extent is it quantitative data that is published and to what extent is it qualitative, because the biggest change in that will be about culture and behaviours. It is always the hardest thing to change and it is the qualitative insights that give that flavour. Perhaps the question then is how will you reflect the new, or updated, because I am thinking about the next version of people's surveys and how we can measure success. Will you then plan to add on additional Scottish Parliament elements? Have you thought about that to get this sense? There are two different dimensions here. One is about the people's survey, which is part of a UK civil service wide proposition, which can give us some insight into those issues, but it is not exclusive. That brings me on to the second point, which I think is the heart of the points that Michelle Thomson put to me, about how we design an approach that enables us to be confident that the continuous improvement journey is actually having a positive effect within the organisation. That will require us to develop our thinking about what will inevitably have to be much more qualitative than quantitative, which we may have to think about how we formulate conversation with staff to try to inform that qualitative process, if that is the type of information that we are trying to extract from this experience. There will be quantitative indicators that we can identify, but I do not want it just to be a quantitative survey. It must begin to delve into what is the experience of staff in the working environment and how satisfactory it is that what we can do to strengthen and improve that. I will happily update the committee over time in our periodic updates about how that work is being undertaken to develop the framework, and any thinking from the committee or expectations from the committee in that respect would be very welcome. I will move on to my second question. I have seen a lot of this kind of development in my previous career, and sometimes the risk is that the process becomes the absolute and that does become a real risk. In that respect, I was just a bit surprised to note that the review of bringing in propriety and ethics is the last step in the process. The risk is that the ethical approach is applied in a deontological perspective rather than a consequentialist perspective. I want to understand what you are thinking about, being the last step in the chain, and how you can look at it backwards from a consequentialist, ethical, outcome basis, because all of that is about outcome and not just about process. I think that what I would say at the outset is that I would want to explain the final element. I am using the terminology that rather makes that point. I do not want it to be viewed as a final element because propriety and ethics has been established as a distinctive directorate within the Scottish Government in response to a lot of the experiences that we have had to essentially underpin all of the work that we are undertaking. I would not want the committee to think that we are only getting around to thinking about propriety and ethics at the very end. We have actually been thinking about it from the very beginning. It is absolutely running through the whole process. The words that I would like to highlight in the last element of the schematic that we have provided are the words review of the processes as opposed to reviewing the propriety and ethics, because the propriety and ethics are absolutely embedded in the process that we are undertaking. Thank you. My last question is, obviously, that new process applies to former ministers. So what consideration have you given for how iterations of the process will be communicated to them and over what timescale? I am both thinking at the moment, looking back, but also looking forward, five years down the line, the ministers that are in post at the moment, how they will be communicated with and not necessarily, I do not mean the detail of the process, but for them to understand that they have a responsibility to be across the process at a given point of time and as it evolves. It is just to get a sense of where you are thinking, is not it? Obviously, we will have to consider what communication will be undertaken based on any updates to the procedure. My view would be that any changes to the process has to be an open and communicated process. In fact, if there was to be any change to the process in the years to come, ministers would be under an obligation to advise the finance committee of exactly that, which puts it into the public domain immediately. We would obviously have to reflect on that very specific practical issue, but it would be a matter of public record that there had been a change or development should that take place to the procedure, and that would obviously be communicated to this committee and more widely as a consequence. Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I had a question around agency workers. I think that I asked last time about it. I still have a concern around agency workers, and I get that they are not employees but their own employer, so things would have to be different. The new procedure says that proprietary and ethics will take steps to assure that any agency worker with a concern about a minister's behaviour can have that issue addressed. Is there a separate procedure that that will follow, and will the decision makers and investigators get involved at all in that process? The first thing is that I accept the point that Mr Lumsden is making to me, that there is a specific issue about agency workers. We did take that away after it was raised at a previous evidence session with me. The judgment is difficult because that individual is not an employee of the Scottish Government, but essentially that individual must be able to raise any concerns that they have through their own employment channels. Assuming that the organisation for which that individual works has appropriate HR processes in place to enable that to be the case, the Scottish Government must have in place appropriate contractual relationships with a contractor to make sure that, should any issues be drawn to the contractor's attention as an employer, those are addressed by the Scottish Government. It would have to be in a contract management purpose or contract management relationship, but, if that involved any issues about ministerial interaction, we would have to address that through our own processes as an organisation. It would not necessarily be through that process that is available to our members and staff, but we would have an obligation to address those issues because of our obligations under contract, because you cannot have contractual relationships that are not working in an appropriate fashion, so we would have a contractual obligation to address that issue. Do you see the decision makers and investigators taking part of that process or do you think that it would be—my concern is that there could be two individuals, one's agency and one's staff, both with an identical complaint, and one would be handled completely differently from the other, and we have explained some of the reasons behind that. I guess that there could be a criticism for ministers that one was not being dealt with effectively because they were an agency worker. What I am trying to reassure Mr Lumson about is that it will be a different channel, but it will have to be addressed because we cannot have a situation where an agency worker is not able to raise their concerns in exactly the fashion that Mr Lumson puts to me of two individuals sitting side by side, one of whom has certain rights because they are an SG employee and another individual who has a different channel for raising the concerns about their rights through an agency employment structure. However, I do not envisage the investigators and decision makers being involved in the handling of an agency issue. We would have to handle that through our proper management of contractual arrangements. I guess that a minister will still be aware that there was a potential complaint being made from an agency worker. Thank you, convener. I was just going to follow up when you were, Liz Smith, asking questions about the permanent secretary. I think that you made the point, which was my understanding as well, that civil servants do speak for ministers. However, on top of that, we had advised that, under section 14 of the Public Finance and Accountability Scotland Act, that the permanent secretary is also answerable to Parliament, and specifically around the areas that resources are used economically, efficiently and effectively? Yes, because the permanent secretary is also the principal accountable officer. The principal accountable officer brings with that aspect of the role particular obligations in other parts of legislation for which the permanent secretary fulfills those functions. That appears to have concluded questions from the committee. I thank the Deputy First Minister for coming here to give evidence this morning. As the second session has been cancelled due to a Covid outbreak among Skills Development Scotland, that concludes our meeting this morning.