 Good morning, colleagues. I welcome you to the 13th meeting in 2014 of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones as they effect the broadcasting system. We have received apologies today from Cara Hilton that Mark Griffin is here attending as substitute. First item today is for the committee to agree that its consideration of a paper on hybrid Bill and the Scotland Act 2012 finance changes should be taken in private at future meetings. Do you members agree to take these items in private? I agree. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is for the committee to agree to take agenda item 6 and 7 in private agenda. Item 6 is consideration of the committee's work programme. Agenda item 7 is a discussion on committees meeting at the same time as the chamber. Do you members agree to take these items in private? I agree. Thank you very much. That brings us neatly to agenda item 3, which is evidence on the annual report in 2013-14 of the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. I am pleased to welcome Bill Thomson, commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland, and Ian Bruce, commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. I am pleased to welcome Bill Thomson to his new role as commissioner. We will grow you mercilessly just as we would expect you to grow us mercilessly in other circumstances. I invite you to say a few words by way of introduction. Thank you, convener. I do not want to say too much by way of introduction. As you are aware, the report covers the period 2013-2014, which was the last year in office of my predecessor, Stuart Allan, and I have acknowledged in the forward, the substantial contribution that he has made to the development of ethical standards in public life in Scotland. I took up office on 1 April, just after the period covered by the report. Thankfully, Ian Bruce was involved throughout in all the public appointments activities that are reflected in it, including the consultation that led up to the issue of the revised code of practice in October 2013. There have been relatively few appointment rounds under that code in the period covered by the report, but there have been significantly more since then. We are both very happy to do our best to answer questions on the period covered by the report and, if you wish, on matters that have happened since then. That is all that I want to say by way of introduction. That is helpful. Thank you very much. The members have a number of questions, and we will see how we get on. Of course, the answers may lead us to other questions of which we have yet to think. Let me start with Margaret MacDonald. The commissioner states in the report that he received 21 complaints during the last year. 18 complaints were found to be inadmissible, and three complaints were withdrawn, so there was no breach to reports to the SPPA committee. Can you outline the reasons why all complaints about MSPs were found to be inadmissible in the last reporting year, resulting in no breach reports coming to this committee? I hope that the committee is not disappointed by the circumstances. I think that it is a good outcome. A lot of complaints cover conduct that is perceived by the person complaining to be a breach of the key principles. Of course, there is no report to you if the issue is simply a breach of the key principles, and that applies to the codes of conduct for councillors and members of public bodies. By the way, there were 311 complaints about conduct by councillors. Most of those complaints were inadmissible. Some are inadmissible simply because they are not within my jurisdiction at all. People complain about quite a wide range of things, some of which are not covered by the code in any way. I am happy to provide you with, in writing, if you would like, because I do not have it all in my head at the moment. The specific circumstances or reasons for treating those 18 complaints is inadmissible. I do not think that there is any secret to it. Most of them are just irrelevant or relate to an apparent breach of the key principles and are nothing specific under the code. That would be useful if you could. I do not have any further questions at this time. It might be worth just that you made reference to there being 311 complaints about councillors. It might be just useful to say that, of course, there are many more councillors than MSPs. Although my quick bank of the envelope suggests that there are 25% of councillors, I mean, numerically, and 15% of MSPs, I think that that is close enough to be in the same sort of territory. Indeed, there are over 2,000 councillors. Oh, there are 2,000, no? Over 2,000. That is right. 1,200, a big reward, yes. It is about 10 times. I am glad that we agreed that. Certainly, I had 1,222, I used just my sum. But there we are, not to worry. Mark Griffin. Can I ask you a supplementary? Just in that point, you said that the reason those complaints did not come to us because a lot of the complaints were out with your remit. Do you have a view on the nature of those complaints and whether that remit should be extended to allow you to cover those complaints that were discharged? I do. I cannot envisage a situation in which the Parliament would agree to a code which would cover all of the complaints which come into my office. I am not looking for any extension of the jurisdiction. There is already a pretty extensive code, as you well know, to be observed by members. I think that it is reasonably complicated, and I would not be looking to complicate it further. We have got you down for some... Oh, it is a bigger part than it is. You are at the top of my page and my eye is slipped. You produced a revised code of practice in 2013, which we scrutinised, including taking evidence from the former commissioner. The annual report says that the revised code of practice increased flexibility and encourages bureaucracy. These changes made a difference to that, increasing flexibility. Have they succeeded in increasing flexibility and reducing bureaucracy? Or encouraging bureaucracy? Encouraging reduced bureaucracy, sorry. I do not think that any of us wishes to encourage bureaucracy. I think that, in the period covered by the report, the number of appointment rounds which took place under the 2013 code was too small to draw any conclusions. But, as I said, I think that there have now been 46. I have got one figure wrong, but Ian will correct me. I think that there have now been in total 46 appointment rounds under the revised code issued in October 2013. There are signs of the process being, in some ways, less bureaucratic and more flexible. If you wish, I think that we can give you some specific examples. If you want me to... If one would be of interest, can you give me one? I think that I will refer to Ian for that, if you are happy. Yep, certainly. A few appointment rounds have been trying new approaches to the appointment process, which is one of the things that we are aware that the committee and other stakeholders were encouraging. Quite a few I can draw the committee's attention to. Most recently, we have an appointment round for Historic Environment Scotland. It is one of the ones on which one of our advisers has been invited to take part. There, the approach to assessment is very different to that which has traditionally been used. In terms of flexibility, we are encouraging panels to take on the opportunity to try new approaches to application and assessment. That is quite different to the traditional written application form, addressing all the criteria for selection, followed by an interview. In this particular case, and it is one of a few cases in which this approach has been tried, panels are looking to simulate the sorts of activities that board members will be involved in once appointed. It is a much better indicator of how effective they will be once that appointment is taken place. Again, we would be more than happy to provide written evidence after today's committee on the range of approaches that are now being tried and the success of those. Are you giving any example? That is probably enough. That is fine. Thank you very much. Not at all. No further questions. Thank you. In that case, I will invite Mark. Maybe I have answered some of this point already, but you were able to outline how the reduction in scrutiny, particularly the changes to the role of the assessor under the revised code, is operating in practice and what the impact of that approach has been. I am not sure if you are asking me to respond to that in terms of outcomes. I do not imagine that you are suggesting that the reduction in scrutiny will lead to different outcomes. What I am concerned about is that appointments continue to be made in accordance with the code and also where possible to encourage and support moves to encourage greater diversity on boards. Against that background, I have no evidence that the change has led to any departure from the code or made it more difficult for diversity to be achieved. I think that it is perhaps important to mention that we have changed the name and actually the nature of the role that is played by the people referred to as public appointments assessors in the report on 2013-14. As of early in this financial year, we have called them advisors. That might not seem much of a change, but it reflects a deliberate attempt to work more closely with the bureaucracy that is involved in conducting the appointment process both to monitor but principally to guide, advise and support. There have been a significant number of rounds that have been treated as falling into the high category, so the advisor has been involved. When we give you the examples of changes in practice, you will find that advisors have played a role in that. In terms of the way in which the resources are applied and the options for reducing the amount of bureaucracy, I think that the outcome is positive. I think that the question was based on a follow-on from Mr Bacon's question about reducing bureaucracy but still making sure that the assessor still has an appropriate role and that the role of scrutiny was not decreased because perhaps too much should be said, but as long as you are satisfied that there has been an adequate level of scrutiny in the process for the assessor. At the moment, I am. I should say that there are two caveats. One is a measure of satisfaction that is not the only one would be whether or not I receive complaints. There were no complaints under this revised code that led to any finding of a material breach, so that is a good thing in itself, but it is not a complete answer. We are about to conduct working with the Government staff who are involved in a thematic review of the rounds that took place. That will be selective, but we will not just be looking at those who had a public appointment, adviser or assessor involved, so we will sample some of the others as well. I am afraid that we will not have the answers until sometime early in the next financial year, but I might be able to come back to you on that if you are still interested in that point. Good morning, commissioners. Can I ask you in regards to the revised code of practice? The revised code of practice encourages ministers to appoint an independent panel member on the selection panel, particularly in cases where the commissioner has not assigned an assessor as a panel member. Are ministers appointing independent panel members to selection panels where there is no assessor involved? How are independent panel members selected? Yes, they are appointing independent panel members. I mentioned before that there have been 46 rounds since the 2013 code came into effect. Independent panel members have been appointed to very nearly 50 per cent of those, including ones where there was no adviser directly involved. I will ask Ian to answer your more detailed question about how they are appointed. Yes, officials did seek advice on what they want to take into account when looking to identify independent panel members. We had suggested that most public bodies have key stakeholder groups, the people that one might consult with about proposals for change. In certain cases, they might have stakeholder groups who are perhaps critical of the activities that they engage in, but clearly that brings a challenge role when someone is involved as a selection panel member. We have been very heartened by the involvement of stakeholders in particular in selection panels. There is a round-on going for creative Scotland at the moment, and two of the independent panel members have been drawn from the artistic community. Other examples include the schools closure review panel, which is appointing a convener and the head of the National Parent Forum for Scotland, who has been involved as an independent selection panel member. Another particularly interesting one is the president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, who is a panel member for the Revenue Scotland appointment round. The National Confidential Forum was establishing a forum for victims of abuse to talk about their experiences, and it involved someone who suffered the historic abuse as a selection panel member. We think that there is a lot of thought, time and effort and consideration going into the selection of those people. Obviously, they are adding value to the activities of selection panels, so it is something that has been taken very seriously. I certainly welcome the comments and the fact that we are trying to involve people who, most of the times, criticise how people are appointed. If I can move on, in the report on the revised code, the committee had noted that the experience had been added to criteria used for making appointments. The previous commissioner explained that any selection panel would want to know what experience a person could bring to a post. Do you believe that there is a new commissioner who believes that adding the additional criteria of experience for making appointments has had an impact? Are you satisfied that it is not discouraging people from certain groups, for example, younger people for applying for public appointments? Younger people will not have experience, but they will have a knowledge and the point that has just been made earlier will bring something to the table. There are two questions in there. I know that this committee, albeit slightly differently constituted, had some concerns at the time about experience being added. I have no evidence, as of now, that it is causing problems. I appreciate Tyler the point that Mr Lyle is making about younger people finding it more difficult. There is a catch-22 if you do not get the experience. How can you demonstrate it? Theumatic review, which I mentioned in answer to one of Mr Griffin's questions, will test it. That is one of the things that we want to examine and see whether, including experience specifically, it has a detrimental impact on the range of people who are able to put themselves forward and therefore be available to get through the process. As I said, we do not have any evidence at the moment that it is. However, this drives at a cultural issue, which is really terribly important. I think that it is very easy and very human and normal to have confidence in people who appear to be like the people who have succeeded before. In attempting to improve the range of diversity on boards, which is widely recognised to be a good thing for a number of reasons, there is a barrier that has to be got over. One of those factors is how relevant or what sort of experience is relevant. I think that there are some examples in which Theumatic review can expand on where specific experience has been sought, not of the nature that we previously looked for in the paradigm. I am describing why you look for the sort of person who succeeded before, particularly in the health sphere. I will hand over to Theumatic review to give one example. It is probably worth saying that we have spoken to the committee in the past about using different application and assessment methods, but, as the commissioners pointed out, the criteria for selection can make the process more accessible. Ultimately, it is only ever going to deliver what is asked for in the first place. A recent example is that we are trying new things and our adviser is closely involved in that. Fife NHS at the moment is a very reasonable example. There, they are looking for experience, particularly as a service user or as a carer of overcoming barriers. That does not point to the typical picture that one may have in one's head of a non-executive, but it speaks directly to the driver co-location and the health and social care agenda. Depending on how one defines experience, one can find a more diverse people, a more diverse group of people, considered suitable for appointment at the end of that process. So, it is about ministers thinking differently about what they are looking for at the outset. You have actually picked on a group, which, on why I am smiling, I have attended various functions and many MSPs have attended various functions where there are many young people who are caring for their parents, aunties, uncles, grannies, whatever, quite young people. Even though they are young, as they keep reminding me, they have that life experience of caring. They also have a situation that they have views. We all were young once. We all had views and many of us have not changed those views over the years. I like the section that you selected, because there is an example that a young person could be involved in that. I think that it is covered. Right, it has been covered. That is great. That is fine, Margaret. Moving on to delivering diversity, in the annual report it states that there has been limited progress other than in the case of applicants and appointees who declare that they are disabled. Significant progress will have to be made if the equality outcome of public appointments is going to be achieved. That will depend on generating higher numbers of good quality applications from currently underrepresented groups and ensuring that the appointment process itself is free from bias and other barriers. The example that you gave to the earlier question was a good one, along those lines, in that it is bringing someone who is an end-user of a service. What progress has been made towards meeting the targets that are set out in the diversity delivers, and are there plans to revise the strategy of the targets? I think that it is fair to say that progress has been slow. I would not pretend otherwise. I think that it is disappointingly slow, and I think that ministers share that view, and I am probably quite frustrated by it. On the question of whether the strategy should be revised, I am a little bit hesitant. I know that diversity delivers dates from 2008, and therefore might be seen by some to be quite old. I think that it was based on sound analysis, and I think that any further analysis that has happened since then tends to reinforce the position that was adopted in diversity delivers. Some of the recommendations that it makes are pretty straightforward. I think that if there is the political will there, and I believe that there is, I think that it is a question of sufficient resources being made available to allow both some fairly simple things to be done in terms of process, and also, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, to keep working on changing the culture. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the boards who are currently appointed are generally doing anything other than a good job. There may be issues, of course, but generally the process has delivered people who are capable of performing. Increasing diversity involves, for some people, taking a risk on appointing people who are different from those who have been there up to now, and trusting that those people will be able to demonstrate through the appointment process that they have got what it takes in terms of skills, ability and experience, and then be able to deliver it. Delivering it, of course, will require the chairs of the boards, which become more diverse, to have the skills to exploit that diversity to good effect. It is not a simple process. It is not something that will change just by adjusting the pressure on a nut here or moving a pipe somewhere else. There is quite a lot that has to happen. Although progress is disappointingly slow, if what is happening involves change on a number of fronts that will all lead to the outcome that I think everybody agrees is desirable, it is probably worth allowing a little bit more time for all that to happen. In answer to your question about changing the strategy, I happily listened to views, but I do not think that the strategy needs to change. What steps should be taken to generate higher numbers of good-quality applications from currently unrepresented groups? You mentioned risk, but surely that should not be why people should be eliminated if they are applying, because there is a training factor required for new board members, particularly of a certain underrepresented group. Absolutely not. I did not mean to imply or argue that the risks that have to be taken at some point are a reason for shying away from looking for more diverse appointments far from it. The simple answer is that there are already steps set out in diversity delivers. They are set out very clearly under three different categories. Some of those have been taken, some have not. I think that taking the others would move us a long way. I am quite encouraged by some of the things that have happened even in the short period since I took up office, as one of the committee knows very well. I did have a meeting with ministers last month to discuss how they might use their role in defining merit to greater effect in seeking to encourage more diverse people to be brought forward and get through the process. I am due to have a meeting towards the end of this month with some of the senior civil servants who are involved generally in chairing appointment panels. I, Ian and the very small number of other people in my office are working with the civil servants in what used to be called PACE, the Public Appointment Centre of Expertise, now called PAWD. We are working with them on a number of actions that will address some of the process changes that need to take effect. When will that actually… Could I just invite, before we move on from what has been said, you referred to steps not yet being taken. Could you be specific and perhaps put on the record what steps have not been taken or would you require to write to us on that? I think that it would be fairer all round if I were to send you that in writing. I will move on because there are a couple of examples of diversity in the report where significant progress in the case of applicants and appointees who declared that they are disabled with a rise from 2.4 per cent to 13.1 representation on boards of public bodies. What factors might have contributed to that increase in representation? Why is that not being replicated elsewhere? That is quite a tricky question. I am not in favour of hospital passes but, given that I was not involved at the time, I think that I will have to ask Ian if he has anything that would help to elucidate. I am sorry that I cannot answer that question. I think that the thematic review that we are about to undertake might answer some of those questions. Originally what we had anticipated was that the Government itself would look at all of the processes that it runs to see where the barriers arise and how to address them. The particular focus of the thematic review that we are about to run is to assist the Government in that particular respect. Why are people falling out at different stages in the process? Why are some appointment rounds more successful than bringing people forward? Why are others not? I can say that we saw a significant rise in application numbers and appointment numbers after we changed all the monitoring information that we gathered. It may be a matter of awareness on the part of applicants but I do not know that that is the case. I cannot give you an explicit definite answer as to why that has happened. Is the thematic review going to give us answers to those? Yes, not just in relation to disabled applicants but all underrepresented groups. That is the particular purpose of this thematic review. As I said, we had anticipated that the Government would do this on a rolling basis, so to learn from round to round. What we are hoping to do with the review is to make some recommendations about how that learning can be embedded because there are clearly pockets of good practice. You can see that from the report. Some directorates are good at attracting people but not particularly good when it comes to appointments. Others are better at conversion rates. What we are looking to do is identify what enables directorates to do well in some areas and what inhibits them and make some recommendations on the back of that. When will we know the results of that review? We intend to have all the work completed by the time that the next annual report is due to be finished. In this financial year, if you would like a copy of the report and advance that, I am sure that we would be very happy to provide that to the committee. I have one more question on the same subject. The annual report highlights that the percentage of women on boards has barely risen from 34.5 per cent over a period of almost 10 years. The commissioner said that he welcomes the priority being given by the Scottish Government to addressing the imbalance. What factors have contributed towards the lack of progress in recruiting more women to boards? What steps have been taken to address that? I am sure that that is one that has brought to your attention quite a lot. I am sure that you are trying to rectify it. Perhaps you can tell us what it is that you have been trying to do to overcome that, and why it has not been successful? I think that ministers are acutely aware of this and are also very keen to see what can be done. As I understand it, the research that is available suggests in part that it is down to women generally—I am sorry, I hate generalising, it is a very dangerous thing to do—but there is research evidence that women generally are less likely to put themselves forward for something where they are not sure that they meet all of the criteria. It seems that the male gender is less worried about having a go in these circumstances. That is really dangerous and simplistic, but it seems to be a factor, which is why it is very important to put the effort in early on in the appointment process to identify clearly the merit that was identified and the basis of which appointment will be made and what is being looked for. To make sure that that is clearly set out in the way that appointment is advertised in a way that makes it accessible to people, it sounds simple when you put it like that. It requires a fair amount of thought and learning from experience, which is precisely what we hope to identify through the thematic review. So what work has been done around improving how you make the application and the advert for the board place more attractive and more, you know— Ian is actually involved in a subgroup of the programme board, which the Government has set up to look at diversity, so I think I will ask him if you answer that specific question. As the commissioners already identified, there were a number of recommendations in diversity delivers, and I think that being reasonable to Government, they have done quite a lot, but it is a very complex picture. Unless you implement everything, it is very difficult to say, well, it has not worked, we need to try a new approach. Things that have been done, every advert now does include a positive action statement, so we believe that that is helpful and it ought to encourage more people to apply. The brand of the public body itself is being used on more occasions than it has been previously, and that makes the advert more attractive. Things that have not perhaps been done is more targeted attraction strategies, and we anticipate that, with the programme board having been established, more time will be taken to target the groups that are underrepresented. The programme board's particular aim, the strand that we are working to, is to have boards reflective of society in relation to gender, so that 51.5 per cent of the make-up of the boards of our public bodies are made up of women. Gender parity is a particular aim, and there are a set of actions that we plan to undertake in order to hit that target, but until all the recommendations that have been made by the office have been implemented, I do not think that we are in a position to say that we have tried everything that we can. The reality is that we have not collectively tried everything that we can. To small, quick questions, if you will, I am convener, I am convener. In regard to the point that you just made there, Mr Bruce, female 35 per cent to 51 per cent of the Scottish population, but the answer is not lying. In page 29, table 25, the answer is not lying. Age 49 and under, the Scottish population is 54.3 per cent, but only 17.4 per cent are on board. Is it not the fact that, with the greatest respect to all, we are looking at the wrong age range that might bring women on, which I agree with and support, to encourage them to come along? There are more younger women councillors now in Scotland than ever there has been, because all parties have encouraged women to stand. Are we not advertising in the wrong papers? What papers are we advertising, with the greatest respect to the Scotsman, the Herald or whatever fashionable paper you read? Most of the population do not read, with the greatest respect to those newspapers. Very few positions are advertised in the Herald and the Scotsman, so that has not been the case for some time. Again, we anticipate that the Government will look at the strategy that is used for publicising opportunities and learn from that. That is absolutely the purpose of this thematic review, is to assist them with it. Most of the newspaper advertising is either for the likes of territorial health boards and local newspapers, because we know that they have a better reach for national positions that are advertised in the press. It tends to be the metro more than any other newspaper, to be honest with you, but just advertising is only a very small part of the story. Publicity has to be targeted, and it does not have to be targeted on a round-to-round basis, so there really has to be a communications campaign, and that has to be around targeting the groups that are currently under represented. I would suggest that you are absolutely right, yes, we should be looking to attract younger people, and that is about visiting workplaces. There are blue chips on the edge of Edinburgh, and we should be going there and encouraging the employers to let people time off to engage in that activity. It is certainly good in terms of social responsibility for employers, it increases the skillset. Those are the things that still have to be done. I spoke earlier about the things that had not been implemented, and I think that those are the things that do have to be done. Just quickly, if you allow me, very briefly, councillors are on time off by their work, by statute. Are ordinary people? Do you agree with me that they are not allowed time off? If they were on a board, they would have a problem with their work? There is no statutory right, which is why this is a complex picture. I do not think that diversity will be achieved fully just by taking people, for example, from blue chip companies, and there is nothing against them at all. They are a very good source of well-qualified people, but in terms of diversity, the whole socioeconomic issue has to be considered. What people have to give up in order to be on a board is a factor that has to be born in mind. It will inhibit some people, and it will be less inhibiting to others. You make a fair point, but there is no statutory right. We are moving to the end, but we still have some questions to do, but let's try and just keep them very, very tight. I will try really hard. First, in the forward to your annual report, you said that the code is supported by a handbook of statutory guidance. Can we get a copy of that? I should have done it before today. Start with good bits. I was pleased to hear about HES and using simulations rather than just straightforward interviews. Experience is not about experience being on a board, it is about experience that you bring to the board. I am pleased to hear about that. If diversity delivers works, if it is okay when we wrote it in 2008, then why are we looking at the figures on table 26? If it has had six years to deliver diversity, why is it only delivered for the group entitled disabled? You talked about women being a particular problem. Can you split down your rise for disabled representation from 2.4 to 13 per cent? Can you give us that split into gender as well? Because if women are the problem, how have we got through to one group, we have not got through to women and we have not got through to black and minority ethnic groups? That would be one of my first questions. I hope that you will be prepared to give us the opportunity to write to you with that split, because I do not think that we have that with us this morning. I think that your question, if I may paraphrase, is if diversity delivers works, which I am arguing it could do or should do, why has it not done so up to now? I have two answers to that. One is that it has only been passionately implemented and there has been some progress. The second answer is that it requires resources to be applied. I think that some of these are simply not available or have not been available up to now. To come back to where we started, the process is run by a bureaucracy. Government is a bureaucracy, I think, as far as I know. All Governments that I have encountered are bureaucracies. There is a tendency in any bureaucracy for things to be standardised, for processes to be established, because it is more cost-effective to do things that way. What diversity delivers argues for is a variation in approach. That is fairly difficult for a bureaucracy to take on board. It requires time to be set aside because thought is required for all the things that we have been discussing already. That means that the whole process has to start earlier, which means that it has to compete with other things that are more immediate. Unless you, as politicians, know that it is difficult to ignore the immediate problem in order to concentrate on one that is not yet a problem but might become one if you do not address it now. There is a balancing of resources that I do not think has been achieved sufficiently to allow the recommendations to be fully implemented. Can I ask for another piece of information? On table 26, you have the comparison figures of 2004-5, 2013-14. Can we get the figures from 2008, just the transition between before diversity delivers and afterwards? Yes, we will request these and provide them to you. I am wondering whether you said that ministers in almost 50 per cent of the rounds recently had appointed individual panel members. Do you think that that is evidence that the ministers realise that they are not getting the diversity of appointments for them to go ahead and actually appoint them? That is why, in 50 per cent of the cases, the ministers are saying, let us put an individual panel member on there. You talked about where they were being selected from and it was really quite creative and interesting. Again, I will come back to whether diversity delivers is not working and that is an example of what the ministers are saying. In 50 per cent of the cases, we have to put an independent panel member on there. Obviously, we are guessing here, but that is a reasonable presumption. Would it be worth asking them? By all means. Thank you. Finally, on applications, as I said when I started, it is great to hear things changing. I know that you gave us a couple of examples, Ian. I would like to hear more of those examples about the interview process, etc. Is there any interesting ways that people are advertising the applications? I am thinking of the children's panel, where it is on bus shelters, radio, TV. It is adverts saying that I am a panel member rather than be a panel member. I would like to hear more of that. We were talking about young people and trying to get them involved. About social media, have you looked at that? Again, it is worth saying that it is not as though nothing has been implemented, but it has been piecemeal. The PAAWD did open a Twitter account just recently, and it is dedicated to public appointments. We have a dedicated public appointment website. Within the last six months. It is a dedicated Twitter account. Those boards that operate Twitter accounts are meant to be following that one. They follow them. It is not my area of expertise, but there is someone dedicated. New positions, whenever they come up, tweets go out about that. Yes, things are gradually being implemented, and we expect to see changes. The key thing is learning from them as well. We have tried advertising in this way, but it has not made a difference. I would be very happy to provide you with some examples of what has been done differently, particularly in the last year. I think that there is some momentum now that perhaps there has not been. Thank you. Can I clarify whether you are happy that these are submitted after this meeting? We never expect every answer to be given at the meeting. Thank you. There has been a recent improvement in timescales for making public appointments. What factors do you think have led to this? They were criticized for making appointments that you felt were far too long originally. Now that there seems to be an improvement in that, what factors do you think have led to that improvement? I think that part of it is a willingness to improve the position. I hope that part of it has been the reduction in the extent of the supervision and the need to report on things. I think that that assists a little. I think that there are further improvements that could be made to the process. We are particularly pleased that the time at which re-appointments have been made has, if you like, been extended. In other words, people who have been re-appointed have found that out sooner than they previously did. Obviously, that is very beneficial to the individuals involved and probably to the organisations as well. That involves thinking ahead and planning sooner. Your budget for 2013-14 was £797,000, but your total expenditure was £811, and there are various reasons within the report, because of the increase of complaints, etc. Now that you are getting additional 12 boards that will be brought into your remit, and a further two boards that will likely come into your remit in the forthcoming year, do you consider that that increase in appointments regulated by your office will lead to an increased work for your office and therefore increase the expenditure? Also, if you get more complaints, where do you see your expenditure going to be? The short answer is no. I do not think that change will in itself put pressure on the budget. Obviously, it sounds like a cop-out. It depends what else happens. Most of the pressure last year came on the conduct complaints side. Those additional 12 boards have been made without blowing the budget. If you are asking about complaints about public appointments, and I am not wholly clear that you are, but those only come to us once the Government itself has investigated. The exercise that we would be left with if the person who complained is still dissatisfied does involve a reasonable amount of investigating. That is quite demanding in terms of resources, but up to now there have not been a lot, and I am touching with this. I hope that that remains in position. The point that I was only making was that you have all this extra pressure on you. There are additional complaints possibly by councillors complaining about councillors, members of public complaining about everybody, and also the other pressures that the situation of looking at the appointments and all the questions that you have been asked. Do you feel that you have sufficient funding? That is a matter that I have to discuss with the corporate body. My initial answer to your question was on the specific point of the additional boards coming within our remit, and I do not think that that in itself will cause a problem. There is no sign of the overall increase in pressure reducing at the moment, and I have to give consideration to how I deal with that within the resources that are available to me, obviously. I am sure that you will do it well, and I compliment Neil on your appointment. Can I bring in one final question? Minister has also got involved in appointments that are joint with other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. Sometimes there has been different views taken by different jurisdictions as to who should be appointed. Do you learn from and work with the appointments process that applies at UK level? That is generally the process that applies to such appointments. I am not quite sure how to answer that. There is contact. It is fairly occasional. We do, obviously, try and learn from experience elsewhere. We are actually quite encouraged by some of the developments that have taken place fairly recently in both Northern Ireland and Wales in terms of trying to encourage greater diversity. So, yes, short answers, we learn where we can. That is fine. I just, in closing, talking about priorities and how we have not implemented everything in 2008, I just remembered that one of my project managers said to me about 20 years ago that we only had three kinds of priorities for our projects, top priority, urgent and desperate. I thought that that was very opposite, but what was particularly opposite is that the name of the person who gave me that was Teresa, not Terence. At least we were doing a little bit 20 years ago in the domain that I worked in. Is there anything more that you would wish to say to us before we bring this to a close that we have not otherwise covered? Nothing other than thank you. Well, let me warmly reciprocate the thanks for your time and contribution. There's quite a number of things I think we've seen resulting in a commitment that you will provide us with further information. I'll get the clerks to just check with you to make sure we've a shared understanding of what that is and we look forward to hearing from you in writing at a later date. Thank you very much indeed. I briefly suspend when we get ourselves organised for the next bit. Agenda item 4 is an update on CPGs. Members will note from the monitoring report the continued improvements in the overall level of compliance from the code, and I'd like to put on record an update on the CPGs on Russian and the Scottish language. The last monitoring report considered in May this year highlighted that those two groups were not compliant with the code in relation to membership. The committee raised concerns with the community or both these groups. Rob Gibson in an evidence session and agreed to allow the groups until after the October recess to address the committee's concerns. Rob Gibson has since informed the clerks that the group in the Scottish language has decided to disband and that the group on Russia has recruited a new MSP member and so is now compliant with the rules on membership. Does anyone wish to add any comments on that factual report? Nope, nobody's indeed. Sorry. On those two? Yeah, just that specific one at the moment. And then whether the committee wishes to take action on any non-compliant groups or indeed make any other remarks on the reports we've had, bearing in mind we have something more covered specifically under the next agenda item. Anybody got anything more to say? Fionna? Can I just say a bit about more groups doing joint working? I think it's really good to hear overall the compliance that's looking really good. Can I just ask us to keep an eye on construction and human trafficking? Because of construction's first attempt at an AGM was in Corey, I think we should be keeping an eye on that. And on human trafficking, are we working to the secretary? You can't agree your AGM and then go and have a joint meeting with someone else on the date of your AGM and let your AGM flow. So just to remind us to those two. But overall I think it's good to see. Okay, anyone else got any comments on this agenda item? Right, that's fine. Moving to agenda item 5, this is for the committee to consider a change of name and purpose for the cross-party group on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The convener of the CPG, Dave Thompson, has stated that the reason for the change is to give a platform to all skin conditions rather than just those associated with psoriasis. There are many such conditions which can be very debilitating. Does anyone wish to make any comments? I'm just first to say, convener, that I'm a member of this cross-party group. Okay, that's duly noted, as good-ordered said that. No? Right, well in that case let me invite the committee to consider whether to approve the proposed name and purpose change the cross-party group on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. I agree. Right, okay, in that case I will not. Does anyone else write that? Appused end the public part of our meeting. We'll now move into private session.