The second item on our agenda is consideration of an Audit Scotland report, “The 2020/21 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig”. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. I introduce Stephen Boyle, who is the Auditor General for Scotland; Graeme Greenhill, who is a senior manager for performance audit and best value at Audit Scotland; and Pat Kenny, who is a director of audit at Deloitte PPE.
I invite the Auditor General to make an opening statement.
Good morning, convener and committee members. I am presenting this report on our 2020-21 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig under section 22 of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.
The previous Auditor General published a report on the 2018-19 audit of the board, which highlighted a number of areas for improvement in the board’s leadership and governance arrangements. My report on the 2020-21 audit has found that the board has responded well to the previous concerns. It has changed the structure of its leadership team and has introduced additional management capacity.
Now in place is a workforce plan that links to the board’s corporate plan and identifies future workforce requirements. The number of non-executive board members has reduced, and skills gaps that were previously identified have been addressed through recruitment of two new board members who have relevant financial experience.
Rules about and the responsibilities of the senior management team, its committees, the board and sponsor teams are now clearer, following additional training. The board’s framework document with the Scottish Government has been updated.
Openness and transparency have significantly improved. All committee and board meetings are now held in public, with meetings being advertised in advance on social media. There are also regular stakeholder engagement activities with the other Gaelic organisations.
The Bòrd na Gàidhlig of today is an improved organisation compared with the one that was the subject of “The 2018/19 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig: Governance and transparency”. The pace of improvement in addressing previous concerns is welcome. Given the long-term challenges, it is likely that the full benefits of the improvements that we are reporting will emerge over time. It therefore remains important for the board to monitor whether the changes are delivering long-term benefits with measurable impacts, and to make appropriate adjustments, where necessary.
As ever, Pat Kenny, Graeme Greenhill and I will do our best to answer the committee’s questions.
Thank you very much for the opening statement. I have a couple of questions to ask, before I invite questions from other members of the committee.
It is worth recapping where things were back in 2018-19. The conclusions of the 2018-19 report spoke about
“ineffective leadership, inadequate workforce planning, a lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities and poor relationships and organisational culture”,
which existed to such an extent that, in giving evidence to the Public Audit Committee’s predecessor committee, the auditor said:
“In terms of the findings and recommendations, I cannot think of another report that has raised such serious issues during my time in this role.”—[Official Report, Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, 16 January 2020; c 21.]
That is a pretty damning indictment of how things were.
When we turn to the report that has just been published, we see that there appears to have been a considerable turnaround. My first question is this: what has been the catalyst for such a transformative difference in the organisation?
I first agree with the convener and recognise that the report on the 2018-19 audit, which the predecessor committee considered, was incredibly significant and challenging, and was critical of a wide set of arrangements in the organisation. Pat Kenny will, no doubt, give his views on the various factors behind that over the course of the morning.
On what was the catalyst, there is no doubt that public scrutiny in and of itself—including the work of the Parliament and its committees, and section 22 reports—can be catalysts for improvements in performance. As we have said in our comments, it is really welcome that that has been the reaction to previous section 22 reports; we are pleased to see the progress that is being made.
That progress is not necessarily simply about a number of small or minor changes being made. When we look at the scale of the recommendations—there were more than 40 recommendations that translated into more than 70 actions to be taken—we see that considerable effort has been made by the board. It has used the audit findings and has worked in partnership with the Government and stakeholders, which has led to its being an organisation that we would say is now performing as it ought to perform. A range of factors—no doubt including the hard work of Bòrd na Gàidhlig and its board of governance—are behind that.
However, I will add a note of caution. The longer-term benefit—the board functioning well and delivering for the Gaelic-speaking community—of the impact in the short term is what matters. It has got itself to the position in which it ought to have been in the first place. It matters that it uses that momentum in delivering all that there is to do for the Gaelic-speaking community in the country.
If Graeme Greenhill or Pat Kenny want to come in at any point, they should put an R in the chat box—although I am sure that the Auditor General will bring them in.
Often, what is critical in an organisation is not simply that it makes a change, but that it keeps change going. One of the things that I note from the report is that the board appointed an external change management expert in 2021-22 to
“embed its developing approach to continuous improvement and maintain the pace of change”,
which really relates to my point. Is the appointment of that external change management expert permanent? If so, what should they prioritise in the months and years ahead?
I am happy to start on that. I will then invite Pat Kenny to come in to supplement my response.
It is our understanding that that is not a permanent appointment to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which is not an unreasonable situation, given the size of the organisation. Notwithstanding the challenges that we have previously reported, it remains a relatively small organisation in terms of the number of people it employs. When—as we anticipate and expect—it gets itself into the position of being a stable and high-performing organisation, it can take a view on its need to call for external support.
I understand that the service that the board is accessing is a consultancy service that has supported delivery of the recommendations that were identified from previous audits. The board is beginning to move forward with what that means for long-term plans in relation to—we talk about this in the report—its corporate plan, connections to its workforce and financial plans. Pat Kenny will say a little bit more about what he has seen and about his views on how the arrangement is working.
We made the initial recommendation that the board should consider the appointment of the external change management resource three years ago. We felt that it was very important for that to happen in order to deliver continuous improvement. The appointment has made a massive difference, particularly in how the organisation engages with its stakeholders and manages the change process. It has introduced very sound practice for ensuring that the benefits of change initiatives are delivered and realised in the organisation.
The resource is a consultancy resource; it is not permanent. I would expect the organisation to keep that under review; I know that it is doing that. It is very important that it does so in order to ensure that it continues on the journey towards being as close to its customers as possible. I see that as being the key imperative for the organisation in the next few years.
There is mention in the report of an “improvement plan steering group”. Is the expectation that it will continue for some time or is it also a time-limited part of the organisation’s work? I invite Pat to reply. We can then widen the question out, if other people have comments.
That group has transitioned to what is now called the continuous improvement steering group. That is important; again, it is about the process of embedding continuous improvement in the organisation. I definitely envisage that group continuing for the medium term. That transition to continuous improvement is very important in the change journey.
Again I point out that if anybody wants to come in, they should simply put an R in the chat box.
I will round off this section of questions. Is the continuous improvement plan in the public domain, available and accessible, in particular to members of the community who have an interest in the work of the board?
I will start with Pat again.
Yes. There is strong visibility of the improvement plan in various parts of the bòrd’s annual report. There is also very good monitoring of how it is doing on the improvement plan’s objective. The visibility, transparency and openness of the improvement plan are good.
Openness and transparency were previously identified as issues back in 2018-19, so that is a continuing area of interest for us.
My final question goes back to the 72 actions that came out of the recommendations, which the Auditor General mentioned. Of the 72, 71 have been implemented. However, the nature of the beast that is the Public Audit Committee being what it is, I want to ask about the 72nd action, which has not so far been implemented. Can someone explain why there has been a hold-up with it? Is it simply a matter of timing; is it contingent on other issues? What is the reason? I ask so that we have a better understanding of the outstanding action.
I am happy to start. I am sure that Pat will want to come in, as well.
If my memory is correct, the outstanding action is in respect of engagement with the Gaelic community on the board’s forward plans. It is not an insignificant action, although I think that it is within the timeframe in which it was intended that it would be completed, as part of the plan. It is not necessarily overdue, bearing in mind that Covid has had a bearing on the board’s and its stakeholders’ ability to engage.
As ever with our audit work, we will continue to monitor. Pat Kenny will do that during his audit of 2021-22, and we will continue to report publicly on progress.
I would acknowledge, convener, that 71 out of 72 actions is remarkable progress, given that, as you said in your scene-setting, there was a considerable job of work to do. The remaining action is important and it matters that it is followed through. Pat can confirm whether my understanding is correct.
09:30
Yes; the outstanding action is a timing issue, as the convener said. It is in relation to the multiyear funding agreements, which are for three or five years. We recommended that there should be clear key performance indicators and clear alignment with the corporate plan so that we could monitor the outcomes that the multiyear funding agreements deliver. In relation to timing, the recommendation will be actioned in line with the next negotiations on the multiyear funding arrangements, so it is perfectly reasonable that the action is outstanding.
We have more questions on engagement, which will come up later in the evidence session. Colin Beattie has questions about board scrutiny.
Auditor General, as a result of the 2018-19 report, the number of non-executive board members was reduced from 11 to seven. The 2020-21 section 22 report states that
“Consideration of the capacity of Board members is an ongoing issue for the Bòrd, given the workload associated with the position.”
Can you clarify what the workload involves? Does it derive from the fact that the number of non-executive board members was substantially reduced?
I am happy to start. I am sure that Pat Kenny will also want to respond.
You are right in your recollection that the 2018-19 report and evidence sessions highlighted concerns about the scrutiny that the board was undertaking. We and the board particularly focused on whether it had the right skills in place. Skills are clearly connected to the capacity of a board to discharge its scrutiny functions. We have seen improvements in scrutiny and in connections to the skills that it needed in order to discharge those functions well. The board has brought in new board members with the relevant financial skills to address the gap in scrutiny that was previously reported. While doing so, it has reduced the number of board members.
We are neutral on the question of the number of members that ought to be on a particular board; ultimately, that is a matter for the public body to discuss with the Scottish Government and the relevant sponsor teams. Mr Beattie will have seen over the years that the number of members on a board is not necessarily indicative of its success in discharging its scrutiny functions.
That plays into the final comment that I made in my opening statement. It is perhaps too soon to draw definitive conclusions about governance and scrutiny in the longer term. We welcome the progress that has been made on governance and scrutiny, and actions have been taken on self-assessment and external assessment of the board’s work and its committees. We are getting positive signals on all those, but I would hesitate before drawing definitive conclusions that all will be well in the longer term. It is important that the situation is regularly checked and monitored. The board now has a platform from which to proceed with more effective governance than you saw in 2018-19.
You flag in the latest report the fact that
“the capacity of Board members is an ongoing issue for the Bòrd, given the workload associated with the position.”
What is the overwhelming workload that they have?
The workload of any board member of any public body will always include considering papers, attending meetings, contributing appropriately to board strategy and finding the right balance and position for board members relative to executives.
As the committee will have seen—in relation to both this organisation and others—if there is a lack of clarity about the boundaries of executive members relative to non-executive members, that can sometimes skew the workload of the non-executive members. It matters that the exec and non-exec members and the sponsor team are all clear about who is responsible for what.
Although there might be on-going capacity or workload challenges, in the report we are not raising that as a red flag to the committee. Our overall impression is that, having invested in additional skills and capacity—in particular, the finance skills that were lacking, as was noted in previous reports—the board now has a stronger foundation from which to proceed. Clearly it still needs to monitor the capacity issues, but we are not saying that that overrides the overall improvements that we are commenting on.
The board reduced from 11 to seven. Five of the current board members were there in 2018-19, so there has been no change to the skills base. All that has happened is that two people—with “relevant financial experience,” it says in the report—have been brought in. How does that balance the skills across the piece with those of the other five members?
That is one component of it. Bringing in new skills has made a big difference. Pat Kenny can come in in a moment and talk about some of the detail, and he can say more about the background of the new members. Having any new members with relevant skills changes the dynamic of a board, giving its members the opportunity to learn from one another. We expect that that is part of the component that we are seeing here.
The other factor that I would mention is that the board has changed the nature of its committees. It has evaluated the committees, which are now operating with a revised framework document, and members have received training on their roles and responsibilities. In our assessment, those are building blocks of opportunities for improved governance. The number of board members and their skills are part of the story. When we add in the evaluation of how the board’s governance and committees have been operating, with some external assessment of that, along with the new framework document, we all feel that, rather than there being one moving part, there is a combination of factors that have contributed to the improvement that we are seeing.
I will bring in Pat Kenny, so that he can describe his own interaction with the board and his assessment of the conclusions that he made.
A good example would be the financial background of the new chair of the audit and assurance committee, who is a qualified accountant who has made a big difference in the overall governance and financial stewardship of the organisation. That has been really impressive, and it has made a big difference in terms of overall governance in the organisation.
The overriding point that I would make, in backing up the Auditor General’s comments, is that the reduction from 11 to seven board members was a significant material reduction, and the report’s overriding comment is that it is important for the board to keep the workload of board members under constant review, given that material change. As Stephen Boyle says, we are not raising any red flags at this point, and I will keep the matter under constant review in the audit going forward.
You have emphasised that you are not raising a red flag but, in a way, you have, by mentioning in the report that this matter is an issue for the board. Can you confirm that the capacity of the board is not a risk factor at this time?
Pat Kenny can come in on this as well. We are not identifying that, given the overarching changes that have been made, through clarification on roles and responsibilities, board training, self-assessment and the revised framework document that we have mentioned, and there are now sufficient steps in place for the board’s governance to operate effectively.
Our comment on the reduction in the number of board members and the associated workload is appropriate as a scene setter. It would be appropriate for all public bodies to monitor and review that continually. However—to continue with the same phraseology—we are not assessing that as a red flag regarding the ability of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s governance to operate effectively.
To put it more simply, do you consider the board’s capacity to be a risk to it?
No, we are not saying that there is a direct capacity threat to the board. I am trying my best to keep this simple. With 11 board members, Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s governance was weaker than it is with the seven board members that it now has. Its governance is stronger, albeit that it has a smaller board, and it has a stronger platform for effective good governance going forward.
That is encouraging.
In the 2018-19 section 22 report, concerns were raised that the previous chair did not carry out annual performance appraisals of board members. Will you confirm whether that now happens?
I will turn to Pat Kenny to update the committee on that point.
Yes, I can give you that assurance, Mr Beattie. It now happens.
That is good.
The normal term of office for a non-executive board member is four years, but the length of appointments can be varied for continuity purposes. When is the recruitment process for new members likely to commence?
I am not sure that I have that information, but you are right that the normal term is four years and, as you suggest, there is the opportunity for existing board members to be reappointed for continuity purposes if that suits the member and the public appointments arrangements.
I ask Pat Kenny whether he has that information. If he does not, we can come back to the committee with it.
No, I do not have that detail, Auditor General.
Okay. If you could come back to us with that information, it would be good.
Of course.
We will move on to questions about leadership, which the previous section 22 report identified as an issue.
Bòrd na Gàidhlig is the principal public body for promoting Gaelic development. We note that the leadership team role of head of communications and promotions, which was previously vacant, has not been incorporated into the new leadership team structure. That is an important function, so who is now responsible for that work at a senior level? Are you comfortable with that decision, Auditor General?
Ultimately, the chief executive of the board is the accountable officer and responsible for the board’s discharge of its functions, public reporting and reporting to Parliament.
At exhibit 1 of the section 22 report, we set out the revised structure. We have reported on a smaller executive team structure that is headed by the chief executive and includes the director of Gaelic education and director of language planning and community developments, along with the head of finance and corporate services.
You asked whether I was comfortable with that structure. Ultimately, it is for the organisation to determine its own structure and how best to discharge its responsibilities. Bòrd na Gàidhlig has reviewed its structure and, in part, addressed the findings of previous audit reports that there was a lack of capacity and cohesion at management level. The organisation has invested not only in a changed top team but in more capacity at the tier below. The communication responsibilities are ultimately the chief executive’s and I assume—I will check with Pat Kenny again—that the direct responsibilities at executive team level now sit with the director of language planning.
As ever, Mr Hoy, it will depend on the success of those arrangements. The board will need to demonstrate that it effectively meets the Gaelic-speaking community’s requirements and that its structure keeps that under close and continuous review.
Pat Kenny might want to comment on his interaction with the executive team.
A communication officer has been newly appointed at the next layer of management, which has made a big difference to how the organisation communicates with its staff and stakeholders. We noted a big improvement in staff engagement, for example, which is now at 87 per cent and significantly higher than it was—I think that that is above the civil service average. Since the new communications officer came in, communication with external stakeholders has improved considerably, as has the use of social media. Much of the focus has been driven by the new appointment, which has made quite a big difference.
09:45
That is reassuring. I wanted to get reassurance that the organisation was not looking inwards and was engaging externally—I take reassurance from your answer.
The 2018-19 section 22 report highlighted leadership issues and identified that they
“led to a lack of confidence and a culture of mistrust throughout the organisation.”
As we know from other recent inquiries, organisational culture does not change overnight. That change requires hard work and a lot of effort. What work has the board undertaken to build back trust and regain the confidence of its staff?
I agree with your analysis, Mr Hoy. I will say a few words, which Pat Kenny might want to supplement with his own assessment.
It is incredibly difficult to recover trust in organisations once it has been exposed to challenge and been shown to have deficiencies. In the 2018-19 audit report, we reported that Bòrd na Gàidhlig had miscommunicated with its staff and experienced deficiencies in the extent to which staff were engaged. As Pat Kenny rightly mentioned, it was not confined to being an internal matter, as there were trust concerns about the board’s activities in the view of its key stakeholders.
As Pat touched on a moment or two ago, we have seen that the board is assessing the level of its staff engagement through survey activity and it is reporting significant improvements. We are two years on from the previous report and we are seeing progress across a range of fronts, which is all really welcome.
However, continuing with a slight note of caveat, I note that two years is not an incredibly long time. It matters that the board functions well into the medium and longer term and that it sustains the momentum that it has built up over the past two years. Although staff survey results have improved and engagement has increased, it matters that that continues—[Inaudible.]—works well and staff feel engaged—[Inaudible.]—loss of trust that was previously reported is not sustained in the experience that they have as employees of this public body.
I turn to Pat Kenny to see whether there is anything that he wishes to add about his own—[Inaudible.]—with the staff of the organisation.
I have nothing much to add to the Auditor General’s comments in that regard. The context is that it is almost three years since my audit team picked up on the issues, and those three years have given the organisation the time to make changes in engagement and communication. There were always good people in the organisation—good and committed individuals. In the past, there was a lack of organisation or a clear definition of roles and responsibilities. All the ingredients were there three years ago for the organisation to perform as it should have been performing, and the systematic changes that it has made has allowed it to perform in the way in which it always should have done.
It was encouraging and reassuring to read that performance appraisals have been introduced across the organisation. What proportion of the workforce has received a performance appraisal? Have you had any opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the process?
I think that the performance appraisal process is embedded throughout the organisation for all staff members and board members. We have not yet picked up on any issues or concerns about that, but we will keep it under review.
The big thing that we have always been pushing in the appraisals is a clear linkage to the organisational outcomes and KPIs, particularly for board members. The KPIs journey to maximise performance is work in progress, and the organisation recognises that it still has work to do in delivering its outcomes and KPIs. The performance appraisals have a clear linkage into achieving that.
On recruitment challenges, the first bullet point in the report highlights that
“The Bòrd has amended its policy regarding the recruitment of Gaelic speakers. A post will be advertised twice before the essential skill of Gaelic is reviewed.”
However, the board still includes a requirement for any new staff joining the organisation to commit to learning Gaelic if they are not already Gaelic speakers. That sounds to me to be a very reasonable approach. Do you know whether that has led to any tangible improvements in the board’s recruitment process?
I will start; as ever, Pat Kenny can come in.
I am not sure that we know that detail—how many staff that relates to, or how many Gaelic learners the board has recruited to posts that they were not able to fill or that were hard to fill. Pat can perhaps supplement that, but I will first add that there has been welcome clarity on that point, and it has been possible to report publicly on how the board engages with recruitment.
In previous conversations, we heard that, for some of the posts that were reserved for Gaelic speakers, there was a lack of clarity on who was responsible for awarding them. It is most welcome that it is now clear how the board will recruit. As ever, Pat may have the detail on how many new employees that covers.
I do not have the detail, but I can come back to the committee on that. As the Auditor General states, there is now welcome clarity, which was not there in the past. It is early days, however, and we have to keep the future impact on the organisation under review. As I say, I am happy to come back to the committee on the detail.
I will hand back to Richard Leonard.
Thanks, Craig. Pat, it would be useful if we could get that information, which would aid us in our consideration of the report.
Before I move on, I have something else to raise in this area. The Auditor General mentioned exhibit 1—the organisational chart—as something for us to have a look at. Mention has been made of the important additional resource that has now been put into the organisation through the appointment of a head of communications and promotions. When I look at the organisational chart, however, I see a chief executive, below which is a director of Gaelic education, a director of language planning and community developments, and a head of finance and corporate services. I do not see a head of communications and promotions. Are they not at the same level? Are they not part of that more senior executive management team?
Our understanding is that there is a smaller senior management team in the organisation, which is supported by an enhanced tier below it to deliver organisational priorities. Ultimately, it is for the board itself to decide on how it best structures itself and on the rules and responsibilities of staff. It is for the chief executive, as accountable officer, to determine how best to deliver the board’s structure.
As auditors, we have seen that the board has made changes to its structure, bringing in additional capacity at the tier below the executive team to deliver organisational objectives. At a relatively early stage, it looks like that is working well, as we have seen in feedback from external stakeholders, which shows an improvement in their views of the board, and in higher staff satisfaction.
Although the post that you mention is not part of the executive team, it is still clearly a very significant role in the organisation, with input through reporting lines to the senior executive team. I would not necessarily say that that feels like the wrong structure, or that there are deficiencies in it. It is for the board itself to take a view on where roles and responsibilities should best lie.
It might be worth giving some reflection to that.
Sharon Dowey has a number of questions on roles and responsibilities stemming from the previous report and the latest report.
The 2018-19 section 22 report highlighted issues with
“a lack of clarity over the respective roles and responsibilities of the”
leadership
“team, committees, the Scottish Government’s sponsor team and the board”,
and with
“board members”
being
“too involved in operational matters.”
That sounds a bit familiar, given another report that we have read. What evidence have you seen that the updated framework document has addressed that lack of clarity?
Lack of clarity was a significant theme in the 2018-19 report, and in the evidence that the predecessor committee took from the board and the Scottish Government sponsor team. At the heart of many of the issues that we reported on previously was a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities, excessive involvement of non-executives in decision making, and a framework document that did not support what the Government sponsor team should be doing.
We comment in the latest report that a number of steps have now been taken, all of which are equally important. Those include training for board members and the executive team, a change in the committee structure, and the establishment of a policy and resources committee alongside an audit and assurance committee. Evaluation of those arrangements is really important, and there has been some self-assessment evaluation, supported by external assessors, in addition to the arrangements featuring in the internal audit programme. Those are all signs of progress with regard to how the board is reworking its internal arrangements.
I will say a word about the Scottish Government sponsor team and the framework document. At the beginning of last year, as I recall, the Scottish Government director general wrote to the predecessor committee about some of the steps that the Government was taking regarding the adequacy of its sponsorship arrangements for Bòrd na Gàidhlig. The director general highlighted that there had been some training and evaluation, and peer-review assessment from other sponsor teams in Government of how sponsorship was working for Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Again, there are welcome signs that the board is taking the matter seriously and responding appropriately.
All those factors have been translated into a revised framework document, and the signs are that it is working well. The sponsorship team has reduced its physical presence at board meetings and, although it still has access to reports and minutes and has appropriate conversations with the chair of the board and the chief executive, all the signs are that the required steps that the previous report highlighted have been taken.
Our conclusion today is that that gives the board the right foundation on which to move forward with effective governance and sponsorship arrangements. As Pat Kenny mentioned, we will continue to monitor and report on progress. However, Bòrd na Gàidhlig, in its governance arrangements and its relationship with the Scottish Government, is now back where it really ought to have been before the audit report in 2018-19.
Colin Beattie asked when recruitment for the new board would take place, and he mentioned that five of the current board members were on the board at the time of the previous audit. How long have those board members been in position? Were you aware of how long they had been in position prior to the audit in 2018-19?
Yes—that information is publicly available. I do not have it at my fingertips just now, but I am sure that it will be set out in the board’s annual report and accounts and on its website, which usually states when individual board members were appointed, the term of their appointment and on what date it will end. We will come back to the committee in writing after the meeting to confirm exactly which members were appointed on which dates and when they will be up for reappointment.
10:00
Further to that, depending on when the board members were appointed, why had those issues not been raised earlier in a previous audit? There were quite a lot of issues in the 2018-19 audit, so why had they not been raised before? I wonder whether there were quite a lot of new members on the board, and whether that was why the issues had not been highlighted previously.
In our audit work—Pat Kenny might want to comment on this too—we report on events that come to our attention during the audit. With regard to the 2018-19 audit, significant events became clear during that year, and the audit approach was extended to enable us to report publicly on many of the issues.
Bòrd na Gàidhlig is a small organisation, albeit a very important one, given the role that it has. Typically, in auditing a small organisation, our approach is to look at its financial statements and aspects of its governance. Pat Kenny, in discussion with Audit Scotland, took the view that we needed a much wider, enhanced audit approach during 2018-19 in the light of the issues that were coming to our attention.
Matters change—an organisation can have very stable governance that operates effectively without a change in board members or the executive team, but events happen that can lead to change. Although a change in board members can be a catalyst, that need not always be the case. As ever, as we touched on, we will continue to report on progress.
I invite Pat Kenny to say a word or two, if it would be helpful, about his own experience of the 2018-19 audit and how it relates to this year’s audit report.
We had some concerns in previous years and they were reported in our annual audit report, but when we reached the 2018-19 audit, our risk-assessment procedures raised significant red flags—“red flags” seems to be the phrase of the morning. That was why, as Stephen Boyle mentioned, we undertook a much more in-depth audit in that particular year.
I do not think that there was any direct correlation with the tenure or length of service of the board members, or with how long they had been in the organisation. There were other factors at play, which brings us back to the fundamental lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities as the key driving force. As I said, that caused us to undertake a much more extensive audit in 2018-19.
The committee notes that although the Scottish Government sponsor division is not required to attend board meetings, it receives an invitation. Going by what I read in the report, it would seem that, although the division received an invitation to the meetings and received the minutes from them, it did not read those minutes.
Based on the serious issues that were identified two years ago, would there be merit in the sponsor division attending at least some, if not all, of the meetings in order to demonstrate its commitment to supporting the board and to maintain the pace of change?
In my judgment, a balance is needed when considering whether the sponsor team should be visible at board meetings or otherwise. A judgment should be reached in discussions between the public body and the sponsor team.
As we have seen in other cases, there can be too much involvement from a sponsor team, or not enough. Ensuring that the balance is right should rest on an iterative decision, depending on the scale of the issues in the public body, and that should be kept under regular review. One can gauge an organisation’s processes and challenges from its minutes and board papers only to an extent, so attending some board meetings would bring benefits. However, for a sponsor team to be a permanent fixture at board meetings can lead to a blurring of responsibilities, if it is seen that the accountable officer and the chair of the board are not able to discharge their responsibilities without being under the watch of the sponsor team. There is a bit of horses for courses, and there is a need to take an iterative approach to support the development of the organisation.
Willie Coffey has some questions that explore some of those areas further, in the context of openness and transparency. Over to you, Willie.
Madainn mhath, a h-uile duine—good morning, everyone.
First, I want to say well done to the board. I remember our predecessor committee’s session with Bòrd na Gàidhlig; it was a difficult session for those who were board members at that time. It is important to recognise the progress that has been made, as has been reflected in the Auditor General’s report, so I say well done to the cathraiche, or chair, and to the ceannard, or chief executive.
I have a couple of questions on the theme of openness and transparency. Auditor General, you will recall that, only a couple of years ago, those basic principles were not being met at all. We are still wondering why the sponsor division did not pick up on those issues. Nevertheless, can you say whether the sponsor division has played an active role in addressing those issues and has made a contribution to achieving the progress that we have seen?
We, too, welcome the progress that has been made, specifically on openness and transparency. I will ask Graeme Greenhill to say a bit more about the sponsor team’s role and the extent to which that has influenced some of the steps on openness and transparency that we have seen.
This morning, we are reporting that there has been a step change in the openness and transparency of this public body, which were not qualities evident in the feedback that it previously got from its key stakeholders. That may be down to a combination of reasons. For example, it may be because, during the pandemic, we have all been operating more visibly through using technology to stream public meetings, as we are doing this morning, or it may be more of a conscious response to the previous audit report. Graeme Greenhill and Pat Kenny may want to express a view on that.
As we have seen, Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s committee meetings and board meetings are now publicly available; we welcome the board’s progress and commend it for that change. Having been an organisation that did not conduct its affairs openly and transparently, it has moved on to be one of the most open and transparent public bodies in Scotland in how it discharges its responsibilities, so there is a real sense of progress.
I invite Graeme Greenhill to share any insights that he has on the influence that the Government has brought to bear in that regard.
As Stephen Boyle said earlier, it is important that the sponsorship division acts in a proportionate and risk-based way. The division’s involvement—along with Bòrd na Gàidhlig itself—in reviewing the framework document has been a key step in allowing it to reconsider the way in which it contributes to the activities of the board.
Subsequent to your predecessor committee’s examination of the 2018-19 section 22 report, the division has fully engaged with the board. On the whole, I think that we can say that the sponsor division has played a full part in supporting the board to take forward its improvement agenda.
Auditor General, you might remember from the evidence session with our predecessor committee that the director general for education, communities and justice said that there might be greater
“scope for the Government to ... engage more”
directly with the Gaelic community
“to gauge their views on”—[Official Report, Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, 4 March 2021; c 11.]
the board and their relationship with it. Did that happen? Has that been picked up naturally as a result of the work in the action plan that the board has recently been working through?
I am not sure that I know the specifics of the Government’s interaction, over and above the board’s own activity. I invite Graeme Greenhill and Pat Kenny to come in if they have anything to add on that aspect and where it sat in the action plan.
With regard to the board’s work, engaging with stakeholders has been a key part of the progress that we have seen. Earlier this morning, Pat Kenny mentioned that some of the feedback and survey results that the board has received in relation to its interaction with its key stakeholders has changed for the better during the past two and a half to three years. That is welcome, because you are right to say that a key theme of the previous evidence sessions on this topic was the disconnect or breakdown in the relationship with key stakeholders. Another clear sign of progress is the confidence and improving trust between the board and its key stakeholders.
Such progress matters, because the organisation spends around £5.5 million or £6 million a year, with just over £1 million of that on staff costs. It is predominantly a grant-giving organisation that supports other organisations that discharge activities to support the Gaelic language. The relationships that the board has with those organisations are essential for it to discharge its purpose and there are signs of progress in that regard.
Does Graeme Greenhill or Pat Kenny have anything to add on the specifics of what the Government has done in that regard?
I do not think that I can give specific examples. Pat, is there anything that you can add?
I do not have anything to add on the specifics of the Government or the sponsor role. However, I can give the committee the assurance that we have picked up big improvements in relation to how the organisation engages with external stakeholders. I will give some examples: monthly meetings are held with the major Gaelic organisations such as MG Alba; there has been good consultation on how Gaelic impacts in early years and in relation to the young people of Scotland; and, as I mentioned earlier, the use of social media has improved dramatically.
The organisation carried out an external stakeholder survey, and the results were positive. Notwithstanding the specifics with regard to the sponsor division, the organisation as a whole has driven forward the agenda in relation to how it consults its stakeholders and there has been a significant improvement in that regard.
It is positive to hear that. My questions are about how we engage with the wider Gaelic community, which is a key part of making progress. I think that everybody recognises that, and it sounds as though there has been great progress.
With regard to the recent continuous improvement plan, was there direct reach-out to Gaelic stakeholders and the Gaelic community, or did the board go through the process on its own to deliver the plan? It is important that the board reaches out to, engages with and works alongside the wider community, and gets its agreement to the plan. Was there evidence that such engagement took place?
I am happy to start, and I will ask Pat Kenny to come in.
As has been mentioned, progress has been made on 71 out of the 72 recommendations. That is real evidence of regular meaningful engagement with Gaelic-speaking organisations, including the recipients of funding from the board. Those are signs of progress. However, how that engagement translates into getting the views of people who are perhaps not represented, or who are not members of organisations, also matters.
This is not a note of caution as such, but I would mention that the appendix to the report on the board’s KPIs shows that they were not all met during 2020-21. The pandemic has clearly played a part—it will have changed the way in which the board engages directly with the Gaelic-speaking community, because the restrictions will have impeded the board’s ability to do some of that work. As and when it is able to do so, perhaps by using alternative engagement mechanisms, it will be for the board to decide how it gets feedback and expands its reach to ensure that the grants and funding that it provides are having the most significant impact.
I will pause for a moment to see whether Pat Kenny can supplement that answer on whether the board has been able to speak directly to the Gaelic-speaking community beyond its interaction with MG Alba and other grant-receiving organisations.
10:15
I will return to Mr Coffey’s initial question. There was a dual process in the improvement plan. The improvement plan and the initial audit identified an issue with consultation with external stakeholders and that the organisation had to improve its approach. The organisation accepted that, took it on board and really tried to improve its approach significantly. The initial improvement plan was a driver for that but all credit to the organisation for rolling up its sleeves and working hard to make big changes in how it engages with external stakeholders.
We now have no concerns. Bòrd na Gàidhlig is doing what it should be doing, but, to be fair, that is what it should have been doing all along.
Has the board regained the confidence of its stakeholders as a result of the good work that has been done?
The feedback that the board has received from its staff and the key stakeholders with which it interacts certainly indicates that. Its approval ratings are far better than they were.
It is never a given, Mr Coffey. The board must continue to work hard with its colleagues internally and with the organisations that it funds to ensure that it does all that it ought to and meets their expectations. Although it has recovered to where it perhaps ought to have been, as Pat Kenny suggested, we can never take that for granted. We must continue to work hard, engage and ensure that the board delivers on its performance indicators and what it exists to do to support the Gaelic-speaking community.
That is a good answer and the usual wise words from the Auditor General. I say a big well done to the board.
Before we finish up this evidence session, there is one other area that I want to touch on very briefly. One of the recurring themes in the work of the committee and its predecessor committees is a regular acquaintance with organisations that are not meeting the standards that we expect because of a failure to plan their workforce requirements for the present and the future.
I recall that the 2018-19 report on Bòrd na Gàidhlig identified insufficient workforce planning and an excess of vacancies as issues that were seen to be part of the fundamental problems that the organisation faced. Where are things with workforce planning now? Have there been improvements? Are there any other workforce priorities that the board needs to consider?
Yes, there have been improvements. The board now has a workforce plan that is connected a corporate plan.
As was mentioned earlier, the organisation will evolve from the improvement plan, which was a response to the previous audits, into a continuous form of improvement. Workforce is a component of that. Alongside a dedicated workforce plan, we have also talked about the organisation taking a revised approach to the hard-to-fill vacancies and broadening out those roles to Gaelic learners as opposed to fluent Gaelic speakers only.
Any organisation must keep its workforce plan under continuous review so that its response to events and its planning for the future are connected to how it delivers services and how it will deliver them in future. Bòrd na Gàidhlig is not a big organisation and, because of the nature of how it delivers services, it is inevitable that it will have dependencies on key personnel. Succession planning is a key component of workforce planning. Where it is able to, the board should look to the future, consider the age profile and career ambitions of its people and marry up all those factors so that the workforce plan supports development and delivery.
In short, convener, there are real signs of progress in that the board has a workforce plan, which is a central part of its future decision making.
That positive note concludes the committee’s questions. I thank the Auditor General, Graeme Greenhill and Pat Kenny for joining us to give their evidence and insights into the progress that has been made with Bòrd na Gàidhlig.
I draw the item to a close and suspend the meeting briefly.
10:21 Meeting suspended.