Chamber and committees

Work is constantly undertaken to ensure that we have appropriate record keeping, which will vary across a range of interactions around individual cases.

There must be the most assiduous recording of decision making within Government at different levels, whether that is at official level or involving ministers. There will be decision making that has to be recorded through formal channels, such as Cabinet decision making and the processes that are involved in that.

We undertake work to ensure that officials are trained and experienced in the capturing of the processes of governance. That stretches beyond decision making to charting the different stages in the development of a policy. Policies will evolve over time, with extensive and detailed interaction on particular questions. It is important that we have an account of how such decisions have been arrived at that can be readily made available when required.

We will have to consider what communication will be undertaken based on any updates to the procedure. There would have to be an open process of communication. In fact, if there were to be any change to the process in the years to come, ministers would be under an obligation to advise this committee of exactly that, which puts it into the public domain immediately. We would have to reflect on that specific practical issue, but a change to the procedure would be a matter of public record. Such a development would be communicated to the committee and more widely as a consequence.

I am simply saying that that is terminology with which we are all familiar.

The exception was the First Minister, who was briefed separately. I essentially convened those briefings with the permanent secretary. We had input from specific members of staff who were involved in the formulation of the briefing. There was an explanation of the procedure, and written copies were provided to ministers in advance of the briefing session. There was an opportunity for ministers to raise questions about any issues relating to the procedure. I confirm that all ministers were party to that briefing and, as I said, the First Minister was briefed separately. All members of staff were made generally aware because it is important that they all hear the message.

I understand the distinction that Mr Johnson makes about staff who will be in the closest proximity to ministers. That is not always driven by seniority. It is driven by close proximity. I work closely with some staff who are more junior but I could not function without the excellent support that they provide for me. It is important that that is reflected in who is advised about the procedure.

That work is under way. Specific briefing sessions are being undertaken with private offices because there is a huge amount of interaction between ministers and private offices. That must be the area of most interaction between civil servants and ministers. There is a range of other interactions more generally across the specialisms in the Government. We must ensure that members of staff have access to the procedure. I am satisfied that that is available but, as the continuous improvement programme indicates, on-going dialogue will ensure that that is the case.

The selection process has been undertaken in the same way as we would normally undertake a public appointments process. There is a person specification and people are invited to apply. There is then a sifting process and a selection process, which is undertaken in accordance with the approach that we take to public appointments in general.

The individuals are essentially retained individuals and they will be paid a daily rate to reflect the work that they undertake. For example, should there be a case to be investigated or decided upon, a selection process would be undertaken to identify which person from the panel was suitable to undertake that investigation. In selecting the investigator, it will be crucial to make sure that there is no prior involvement with any aspect of the case or the individuals involved, and there will be a similar test in relation to the decision maker, who will be a different individual from the investigator. They will be remunerated for the time that is required to be spent on the task that they are allocated to undertake.

We have had preparatory discussions with those individuals through an induction process, and, as I reported to the committee, they have come through a selection process to be appointed to the roles in the same way as we undertake the public appointments process. I am not sure whether Ian Mitchell wants to add anything to that.

The best way to answer that question is to reference the point that I made in my opening statement about the values of the organisation and what we expect to see in that respect. The flipside of that is that the behaviour that has to change is any behaviour that is incompatible with those values. We have set out in a proactive and positive way what the values of the organisation are and what we expect to see from members of staff. That is openly communicated to members of staff, and any individual who believes that they are in a working environment that is not consistent with or conducive to those values is given a platform from which to raise their concerns through the internal processes of the Scottish Government.

I hope that members of staff will take a very clear signal from the communication of those values that that should be the norm of their experience and that, if it is not, there are channels for them to raise such concerns through and that those concerns will be addressed. It has been encouraging to see a positive response within the staff surveys in relation to the reduction of behaviours that we would all judge to be unacceptable.

I do not share that view, because extensive scrutiny of the process was undertaken by a specific parliamentary committee prior to the 2021 election. If my memory serves me right, the former permanent secretary made more than one appearance at that committee. The issues that pertained to all that went on in that period have been openly scrutinised by a parliamentary committee. I accept that that was not this parliamentary committee, but the issues certainly were scrutinised by a parliamentary committee in extensive and laborious detail—I do not think that any of us could say anything other than that—prior to the 2021 election. That is all on the record.

Essentially, the permanent secretary would make a contribution on behalf of the Scottish ministers. That is the only basis on which the permanent secretary, as a civil servant, can speak. Civil servants do not make individual appearances at committee: they represent ministers. It is crucial that, in all those cases, there is effective and open engagement with committees on the questions.

As I say, I am here to set out the lessons that have been learned from that process and how they have influenced the new complaints process that we have in place. I know that the permanent secretary will be happy to engage on any issues that the committee has on its mind.

I am trying to reassure Mr Lumsden that the complaints will come through a different channel, but they will have to be addressed, because we cannot have a situation where an agency worker is not able to raise their concerns. In exactly the fashion that Mr Lumsden has put to me, there could be two individuals sitting side by side, one of whom has certain rights because they are an SG employee, and another who has a different channel for raising concerns about their rights through an agency employment structure. However, I do not envision the investigators and decision makers being involved in handling an agency issue—we would have to handle that through proper management of contractual arrangements.

Yes, because the permanent secretary is also the principal accountable officer and, in the role of principal accountable officer, has particular obligations under other parts of legislation.

The information that the people survey gives us about attitudes of members of staff is published to give, I suppose, the committee the opportunity to scrutinise the progress that has been made in the general relationship between members of staff and the organisation and their experiences in that respect—hence, the importance of our looking at this from a variety of perspectives. As Michelle Thomson will know from her professional background, a people survey is a significant indicator of the health of an organisation and highlights the challenges to the leadership of the organisation to ensure that it is on an appropriate improvement journey.

However, although such measures are important in a general sense to assess an organisation’s performance, we need to be very careful about what we take forward as we chart progress on the continuous improvement journey. I certainly do not want that to be judged on whether the number of cases or complaints that we are getting is declining, because that is a rather negative way of looking at the issue. Instead, I want us to think very carefully about how we can demonstrably quantify progress in the organisation and how we are improving the experience and the capability of staff. All those different factors have to be reflected in the approach that we design as a consequence.

The people survey is published, isn’t it?