Chamber and committees

That has to be part of our approach to ensuring, on an on-going basis, that we are a good employer, and that we follow best practice and put in place the arrangements that we have set out for all staff and ministers.

If a minister has concerns about the quality of a member of staff, they are clearly encouraged to raise those with the civil service contacts that ministers all have so that those questions can be considered.

There is a very clear, well-exercised delineation between, on one hand, the engagement between ministers and civil servants on policy matters and the business of government and, on the other, the employment status or performance of civil servants. If a minister has concerns about the conduct or performance of a member of staff, those need to be raised appropriately with the minister’s civil service contacts, who will have line management responsibility for addressing those issues.

I think that that issue is addressed. It is addressed at all stages of the procedure, but it is addressed at stage 4 in particular.

As a serving minister, I would be horrified and mortified—there are various other words that I would use—if I were to be involved in the procedure. Therefore, there is a necessity for ministers to operate in a respectful fashion at all times.

Stage 4 of the procedure clearly delineates the relationship between an outcome of the process, whereby a report finds fault with the conduct of a minister, and the ministerial code. At the moment, there is a lot of debate about the conduct of ministers and how that relates to the ministerial code, but as a serving minister, I constantly consider the necessity of my acting in a way that is consistent with the requirements of the ministerial code, because I know that that is the standard against which I will be judged. That is why the procedure that we are discussing must establish a relationship with the ministerial code.

I do not want to get into all the other debates that are going on elsewhere, but—this goes back to the point that Liz Smith made—there has to be accountability around the conduct of ministers, and that is driven by the ministerial code. Therefore, a complaints-handling process must have a relationship with the ministerial code when it comes to the conduct of ministers.

Essentially, it is to recognise that, in relation to issues of harassment, it may take longer to get to a position where an individual is able to address those issues and come forward to raise concerns. In relation to issues of bullying or any other behaviour that is judged to be unacceptable, my view is that it is possible to address those in a timeous fashion, because that will have a direct bearing on the ability for tasks and functions to be exercised appropriately and effectively.

We hope to be able to operate within the timescale that I set out, but I suppose that I have to insert the caveat that we are dependent on a lot of dialogue with external parties, which might not come in the timescale that we envisage. Obviously, I will keep the committee updated on progress on those questions.

Whistleblowing covers the entitlement of members of staff to raise their concerns without fear and favour, so that the concerns can be addressed. That is what the policy is designed to do, if necessary.

The requirement to maintain confidentiality is about creating an appropriate climate and a trusted and respectful environment in which genuine issues can be properly aired, addressed and resolved.

It is difficult to be precise, but the process is set out in a fashion to encourage the swiftest movement through each stage, while giving individual parties the appropriate time to formulate their views. For example, it is envisaged that the initial contact and assessment stage, in which the Government judges whether a complaint is within the scope of the policy, will be undertaken very timeously. An individual member of staff would not wait a long time to hear whether the issue that they were concerned about would be considered under the auspices of the policy.

Each stage is designed to move at pace, because it does not serve the interests of anybody for there to be anything other than a swift addressing of any issues that emerge.

That is crucial at every stage of the proceedings—not just at the appeal stage. The investigation stage, for example, will be carried out by an investigator, and their report will be passed at stage 3 to a decision maker, who will be a different person. If there is to be an appeal, it will be handled by another, entirely different, person. That fundamentally recognises the importance of ensuring that individuals have no prior involvement at any stage of proceedings as the issues are properly addressed—not only to address the issue of trust but to guarantee independence and transparency.

Ultimately, convener, there will be a judgment about the appropriate timescale. Three months feels to me to be a bit abrupt and a year feels a bit too long, so six months feels like an appropriate judgment to come to.

That is a fair point. I like to think that the procedure will never be used; I hope that we have a culture that avoids the necessity to use it.

However, if, as I hope, the procedure is seldom used, there is a risk that it will not be given the necessary focus of review. Therefore, we are building into the work that is undertaken a focus on continuous improvement. We want, through our dialogue with staff trade unions and staff representatives, to identify issues. Given the volume of open dialogue and communication on the policy approach that we are taking, it is appropriate for me to thank the staff trade unions, which have contributed a huge amount of time to helping us with development of the approach.

One of the lessons that we have learned is about how important a constant channel of open communication is to ensuring that we take the right policy approach. That will be the focus of our work to review the procedure.