Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, March 4, 2021

Official Report 560KB pdf

---

Section 22 Report

---

“The 2018/19 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig: Governance and transparency”

Agenda item 2 is the section 22 report on “The 2018-19 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig: Governance and transparency”. I welcome our witnesses from the Scottish Government: Paul Johnston, director general, education, communities and justice; and Graeme Logan, director of learning. I understand that Paul Johnston would like to make a brief opening statement.

Thank you for this opportunity to update the committee on the progress that has been made since the evidence session on 24 September 2020 on the 2018-19 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig.

Bòrd na Gàidhlig has faced challenges in its governance and operations over a number of years, and the 2018-19 audit focused on the need for significant improvement within the organisation. Clear evidence of that improvement was set out in the 2019-20 audit, and I have seen the determination shown by the chair and chief executive of Bòrd na Gàidhlig to pursue a wide-ranging improvement programme. They are the first to recognise that a continued focus on sustaining that improvement is vital. I understand that you will hear directly today from Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s auditors and I hope that they will confirm that they recognise that improving situation.

The 2018-19 audit recommended that work be done to clarify roles and responsibilities between the sponsor team and Bòrd na Gàidhlig. An internal review of the sponsorship function was completed in September 2020. That recommended greater clarity in the purpose and frequency of engagement between the Scottish Government team and Bòrd na Gàidhlig, and clarity on matters such as attendance at board meetings and scrutiny of performance. Those issues have now been addressed in the updated framework agreement that I sent to the committee on 26 February and that is included in the papers for today’s meeting.

I am joined today by Graeme Logan, who assumed the role of director of learning in the Scottish Government in summer 2019. As the portfolio accountable officer for the education portfolio, I formally delegate the responsibility for the oversight of the sponsorship relationship to Graeme Logan. He and the deputy director work closely with the sponsor team. The responsibilities of all parties, together with arrangements for regular engagement, are set out clearly in the framework agreement.

It is vital to have an effective system of escalation alongside any system of delegation. The issues identified in the 2018-19 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig were escalated to me. They have been considered as part of the director general audit and assurance arrangements alongside other sponsorship issues that the committee will consider later this morning. They have also been highlighted as part of the annual certificate of assurance process and there will be continued focus on improvement, with input from the Scottish Government’s internal auditors and non-executive directors.

In addition to addressing immediate issues, we must share learning from every audit. An event was held in December 2020 for sponsor leads across the Scottish Government, at which we shared key learning points from the 2018-19 audit. I held a meeting last week with the chair and chief executive of Bòrd na Gàidhlig and the director, deputy director and sponsor team in the Scottish Government to take stock of progress and ensure clarity around purpose and direction. I saw evidence of a shared commitment to work closely together with a view to supporting the promotion of Gaelic language and culture in Scotland.

Graeme Logan and I are happy to discuss the ways in which we will work to ensure continued improvement in relationships and performance in the days ahead.

Thank you very much. Colin Beattie will open the questioning for the committee.

I thank Paul Johnston for his letter to the committee, which clearly outlined the sponsor unit responsibilities and so forth. That was helpful. I will ask some basic questions. Was the person who was responsible for discharging the sponsorship responsibilities a Gaelic speaker?

Yes, the head of the sponsor team is a Gaelic speaker and members of the team are also speakers of the Gaelic language.

There was no barrier to understanding what was happening in the bòrd.

There were no issues there.

Since the section 22 report, there has been a review of responsibilities in terms of the relationship between the sponsor unit and Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Surely a standard process or a standard level of engagement was in place previously? Why was it necessary to revisit that and review what was happening? Were there deficiencies?

Good practice tells us that all framework agreements between the Scottish Government’s sponsor teams and public bodies should be kept under regular review. The 2018-19 audit that this committee has considered carefully also emphasised the need for further consideration to be given to the sponsor relationship. As such, it was important that we reviewed that. We sought the support of some experienced colleagues within the Scottish Government who were sponsoring other teams to come along to look at what our procedures and policies and relationships were like. They gave us some recommendations in late September 2020, among which were some suggested improvements for the framework document. I shared an updated version of that with the committee in February. There has been a framework document in existence, but some key clarifications and improvements are set out in the most recent document.

Are we saying that the arrangements for each unit that is being sponsored, or each organisation that has a sponsor attached to it, are different? There is not one common document?

Yes. There is a model framework document that the public bodies unit in the Scottish Government has and keeps up to date. In the later session, we will be joined by Catriona Maclean, who is responsible for that unit. We share the model document with all sponsor teams, but sponsor teams then need to look at the specific statutory arrangements for the body—you will appreciate they differ from body to body—and ensure that the particular framework document is quite specific about the roles and responsibilities, which may vary depending on the powers, duties and statutory set-up of the body in question.

Turning again to specifics with the bòrd, you stated that the Scottish Government became aware of issues with the organisation in early 2018. How did that physically happen? How was it raised? How was the problem uncovered?

As I sought to acknowledge in my opening statement, it is a matter of public record that there have been challenges with Bòrd na Gàidhlig for a number of years, and indeed there have been a number of chairs and chief executives, as was mentioned at the committee’s September evidence session.

The particular issues that gave rise to the 2018-19 audit by Deloitte were the ones that I focused on in my letter to the committee in November 2020. As you can see from the documentation that I have submitted, the first formal notification was the letter to the deputy director at the time, dated 20 June 2018. My understanding from speaking to the sponsor team is that it was known through discussions that there were some issues with engagement between Bòrd na Gàidhlig and other organisations, but the formal concerns were raised with us in June 2018.

You said that you were aware of a history of problems with the bòrd, involving things such as the turnover of the directors, the chief executive and so on. Would you not have had the bòrd under some special scrutiny?

There was engagement between the Scottish Government and the bòrd throughout its history and the Scottish Government has had responsibility for the appointment of the chairs and for the scrutiny of the performance of the chairs. Of course, one of my reflections is whether there needed to be earlier intervention, and I can see why the committee would conclude that there should have been. I think that is one of the key areas of learning from the work that has been done over recent times.

Frankly, somebody who is carrying out the sponsorship responsibilities should surely have been close enough to the bòrd to be aware of the difficulties that it was having and the concerns that there were internally, but nothing happened. Apparently nothing was reported back to indicate anything serious.

I would not say that nothing happened. That would not be an accurate description. As you can see from the correspondence, when concerns were raised in 2018—that is well before the audit was received—the deputy director was active in working with the chair to support Bòrd na Gàidhlig in resolving the issues.

It is important to emphasise that, when bodies such as Bòrd na Gàidhlig and other non-departmental public bodies are established, it is primarily their responsibility, with the governing legislation and the accountable officer framework, to ensure that they are operating effectively, and they are audited annually. Nonetheless, there is a responsibility for the Scottish Government, and what you can see happened is the work with the chair and, ultimately, the appointment of an external person to engage with staff with a view to resolving the issues that had been raised.

Did the person discharging the duty of sponsorship give advice, support or any help to the board members at any point?

Yes. The sponsor team and the deputy director have been active in seeking to provide advice and support to them and to the chief executive.

Was that prior to June 2018?

Yes. There has been engagement throughout the life of the body with the Scottish Government sponsor team and Bòrd na Gàidhlig. I think that it is important to recognise that, over the years, although there have been issues, we can also point to some real successes in the work of Bòrd na Gàidhlig in supporting the roll-out of Gaelic language plans and the promotion of Gaelic language and culture in Scotland. That has been a result of the work of the Bòrd na Gàidhlig and its staff, and there has been engagement between it and the Scottish Government through the years. However, I am here today recognising that there have also been issues and there is important learning from the audit and from the scrutiny of this committee. We must ensure real clarity of roles and responsibilities and we must ensure early escalation and resolution of any issues that arise.

09:15  

You will understand that there is some concern—certainly on my part, and probably on the part of other members of the committee—about the point at which the Scottish Government or the sponsor unit became aware of the seriousness of the problems at Bòrd na Gàidhlig and intervened in such a way as to, we hope, put it back on track. Clearly, that did not happen prior to 2018. There is no evidence that it happened prior to 2018. It was after it became generally known that there were serious problems that support and help were provided. Do you agree?

We are referring to a body that was formally established following the passage of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. Of course, with any body, issues will at times arise. I think that you will see that audit reports over the years did not raise anything like the issues that were surfaced in the 2018-19 audit. As with most sponsor teams, there is an on-going relationship between the sponsor body and the sponsor team, and most issues are resolved satisfactorily. What we saw in 2018 was an escalation of those issues, which led to the course of correspondence that I shared with the committee following my evidence session in September.

What advice was given to ministers at the time?

I have sought to set out the advice that we provided to ministers in the documentation that I shared with the committee on 6 November 2020. In the first instance, we ensured that ministers were kept up to date with the way in which we were seeking to support the board in handling the complaints; we also ensured that ministers were aware of the findings that emerged from the 2018-19 audit. You will see from the correspondence that ministers then wrote to the board to emphasise the need for it to focus on a clear plan of improvement. I was also asked by ministers, as the portfolio accountable officer, to visit Bòrd na Gàidhlig and ensure that I was satisfied that that plan of improvement was being pursued. I have shared the Deputy First Minister’s correspondence with Bòrd na Gàidhlig and the correspondence that I sent to Bòrd na Gàidhlig at the time.

Again, that seems to be post-2018—or, at least, post the problems becoming evident in 2018. Was any briefing or advice given to ministers prior to that?

Undoubtedly. The committee asked me for the correspondence with Bòrd na Gàidhlig relating to the issues that we discussed at the September session, but the sponsor team will have given advice given to ministers over the years of the body’s life.

Thank you.

What advice was given between early 2018 and June 2018?

From early 2018, primarily we advised ministers of the fact of the complaints and concerns that had been raised with us, and of the approach that we proposed to take on receipt of those concerns. Again, I have disclosed in my letter and the attachments a number of pieces of advice that we sent to ministers.

First and foremost, we assured them that we were seeking advice on handling from other areas in the Scottish Government, including human resources. We told them that our approach was to ask the chair to lead in handling the issues, since they related to the internal management of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, but that we had also asked the chair to ensure there was independent involvement in the resolution of the issues—hence the appointment of an independent person to work with the chair. They then spoke to a number of staff in Bòrd na Gàidhlig and came up with recommendations for improvement. We advised ministers of all those steps.

Were ministers satisfied with that?

Yes. Ministers indicated that they were content with the steps that we were taking.

There was never a direct intervention by a minister to find out what was going on or whether enough was being done to sort out the situation.

There were certainly discussions with ministers. I think that you can see from the correspondence that action was taken at a significant pace once the concerns were brought to our attention, with the full knowledge of ministers.

Those matters were being resolved at around the time that the wider audit that was done by Deloitte began, so the concerns were quite swiftly wrapped up in the wider issues that were captured in the audit that the committee has considered. As I have said, you can see that ministers were proactive in making clear the need for swift resolution of the issues that had been raised through the audit.

But if the sponsorship arrangement was working correctly, how was the situation allowed to get to such a point?

Unfortunately—I wish that this were not the case—issues arise around the relationships between particular bodies and stakeholders, as the committee will be well aware. Such issues were brought to our attention formally in June 2018 in the correspondence and we sought to address them. Should they have been addressed more speedily? I absolutely accept, as we look back on the situation, that we would much prefer the issues to have been nipped in the bud and addressed more rapidly. I acknowledge that there is learning for us to do there on the rapid escalation and resolution of issues, wherever that is possible. That is part of the learning from the audit that we are seeking to emphasise in the wider training that we are providing to other bodies and other sponsor teams.

As you know, we will come on to a session on the general issue of sponsorship, but it strikes me that if I were a civil servant who had responsibility for a body such as Bòrd na Gàidhlig, I would want to check in with it every fortnight or so to check that everything was okay and to maintain at least a level of light-handed oversight. For things to get to the stage that they did, it is clear that that did not happen.

As I have said, there was such engagement, but I am clear about the fact that I recognise the need for real clarity and close engagement with Bòrd na Gàidhlig going forward. It may be that Graeme Logan could describe his role and what that will look like in terms of the close engagement between him and his team going forward, if that would be acceptable, convener.

Let us come on to the “going forward” in a minute because a lot of the time, as you know, our role is to look backwards and to scrutinise that first before we get the good news from you. I will pass over to Graham Simpson, who has a couple of questions.

I have more than a couple, in fact, convener.

Mr Johnston, do you ever contact stakeholders—in other words, the bodies that receive funding from Bòrd na Gàidhlig—to find out what their relationship is with the board and how that is working?

I know that one thing that the sponsor team does is maintain relationships with a number of bodies that are in receipt of funding from Bòrd na Gàidhlig and from the Scottish Government.

So that is a yes—you do contact them.

That is a yes as regards the work of the sponsor team. It is not something that I personally do or have done.

Right. I have heard anecdotally that the relationship between some of the bodies that receive funding and the board is—how shall I phrase this?—not what it should be. I will not put it any stronger than that.

As I recall, the 2018-19 audit by Deloitte, which the committee has considered, made clear the need for improvements in the relationship between Bòrd na Gàidhlig and its stakeholders. That has been taken very seriously by the body. I have sought and have received assurance that it is reaching out and seeking and receiving feedback on its performance and how that can be improved. In my letter to Bòrd na Gàidhlig around the time of the audit, I emphasised the need for it to be really proactive in engaging with its stakeholders and listening carefully to their perspectives and concerns. I think that the most recent audit has confirmed that it has better systems in place for engagement with key partners.

Clearly, there were a number of targets when the board was set up; we would not expect it to just receive Government money and do nothing with it. It has to deliver something. Originally, we had a set of targets that said that, by this year, there should be 4,000 entrants in first year Gaelic-medium primary education, 65,000 Gaelic speakers recorded in Scotland, and 40,000 Gaelic speakers who can read and write the language. Those were the original targets for this year. How are we doing against those targets?

I do not have the numbers in front of me on exactly where we are with those targets. I am very happy to take that away and write to the committee, if that would be acceptable. I know that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has been reporting on the progress that it has been making against its strategic priorities and against its key performance indicators and that progress is being made, but it may be that you have the numbers in front of you; I am sorry, but I do not.

I do not have the numbers. That is why I was asking you. Given that you put in several million pounds a year and you expect certain results, I would have thought that you might have known how the body is doing against those targets, but you do not.

In the discussions that I have had with Bòrd na Gàidhlig and with the sponsor team, I have heard about significant progress in the use of Gaelic and the increase, for example, in children who are being educated in Gaelic-medium education, so the situation is improving.

I will take that away and get back to the committee on specifically where we are against each of the targets that were originally set.

I have just found the answer on one of those targets, which was a target of 4,000 pupils entering primary 1 in Gaelic by this year. Last year, the figure was just 653, against a target of 4,000. That does not strike me as doing very well. Would you agree?

That indicates that we still have a lot of further progress to make.

Yes, so what are you doing about it?

That comes back to the importance of the work of Bòrd na Gàidhlig in seeking to ensure the promotion of the Gaelic language but, of course, there is also an important role for our partners in local government who provide Gaelic-medium education. That is absolutely something that requires continued focus.

Do we know how many Gaelic speakers there are in Scotland?

I do not have the figure in front of me for the precise number of Gaelic speakers at this time.

The ultimate target for 2041—we have another 20 years to go—was 100,000 Gaelic speakers. I imagine that we are nowhere near that, are we? You do not know.

Again, I think that we have some way to go, but I am sorry—I do not have those numbers in front of me.

Do you have any further questions, Mr Simpson?

No. I think that Mr Johnston is unable to answer the questions that I have, so I will leave it there. Thank you.

09:30  

I will pick up on the point about stakeholders. Although I recognise that the Scottish Government is making more effort to scrutinise Bòrd na Gàidhlig, including improvements in its internal workings, what worries me is that in the feedback that I have had from the Gaelic community there is a very strong feeling that Bòrd na Gàidhlig is not speaking for them. As the sole shareholder in Bòrd na Gàidhlig, what is the Scottish Government doing or going to do to find out what the end users of its services think of the performance? I heard you say that you have asked Bòrd na Gàidhlig to make sure that it has more robust engagement with its stakeholders and all the rest of it, but the shareholder does not always take what the board of directors says as gospel. What is the Scottish Government going to do to reach out to the Gaelic community to ensure that Bòrd na Gàidhlig is working at a satisfactory pace and satisfactory quality for its customers, if I can put it that way?

I understand the point. There is engagement between Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s sponsor team and stakeholders, given that there is sometimes shared responsibility for funding. I know that the Deputy First Minister has held a number of meetings with Gaelic stakeholders. You are raising an important point and I can see that there is scope for the Government to perhaps engage more formally with key stakeholders to gauge their views on the relationship now, given the steps that we have taken to seek to build improvement. I am happy to take away that there should be an exercise in which we formally contact stakeholders to obtain their views on the relationship, then work together with Bòrd na Gàidhlig to pick up any issues that arise from that.

I think that there are two levels of stakeholders. There are formal organisations, such as local authorities and others, and it is absolutely right that you talk to them. However, as a result of the work that the committee did on this last year, I had a lot of feedback—I think that other members did as well—from ordinary members of the Gaelic-speaking community, from all over Scotland, who were extremely dissatisfied with the role of Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Many of them thought that it was almost a self-appointed little club whose members were looking after each other rather than serving the wider interests of the Gaelic-speaking community. I cannot comment on whether that is true, because I am not a member of that community. The Government could perhaps use modern techniques to test opinion among the Gaelic-speaking community, as opposed to the formal stakeholders who all have their own agendas.

I am interested in whether the money that the Government is putting into Gaelic speaking and Gaelic-medium education—which is welcome money—is providing a satisfactory service to the end user. I do not know why the Government does not use modern methods of public opinion surveying—focus groups and the like—to get to those people and understand their concerns about Bòrd na Gàidhlig, and, indeed, the wider issues around promoting the Gaelic language.

That is an entirely reasonable step that we could take. I take some assurance from the fact that Bòrd na Gàidhlig is reaching out more actively to its stakeholders and can provide us with data on the feedback that it is getting about the impact that it is having. The committee will recall that it has also made real strides in openness and transparency. It is, therefore, now much easier for stakeholders and members of the public to engage with Bòrd na Gàidhlig, hear all that is going on in its board meetings and raise any issues or concerns directly with it. However, none of that negates the fact that I can see the merit in further engagement between the Scottish Government and formal stakeholders and Gaelic speakers to see what we can do to improve matters further.

Although you could not give the up-to-date figure, we know that there are roughly 65,000 Gaelic speakers in Scotland, and they are not entirely concentrated in the Highlands. Many of them are in Glasgow; in my area we have an excellent Gaelic-medium education facility in Cumbernauld.

Two things have to happen if the language is going to live. First, there are wider issues in Gaelic communities, such as housing issues, that need to be addressed in order to retain people, the language and local skills. Also, we need to get that number up from 65,000 to nearer the original target of 100,000 Gaelic speakers. I do not see any plan to do that. I do not see anything in what the Scottish Government or the board are saying or doing to get us from 65,000 to anywhere near 100,000. I do not see how that target is fitting into a wider strategy for regenerating the Gaelic communities in a way that not only is economically and socially sustainable, but ensures that the Gaelic language lives on. I do not see any strategy big enough to do that.

Sorry, shall I reply to that?

Yes, please. That is my last question, so make it a good answer. [Laughter.]

I hope that the best answer is to say that I recognise that we need to be doing that work. Thank you for making that point. Forgive me, but I am here specifically to focus on the issues around governance between Bòrd na Gàidhlig and the Scottish Government. However, I accept that there are really important wider issues about the strategy for the promotion of Gaelic in Scotland and for meeting the targets that have originally been set. I will take those matters away and update the committee about where we have got to.

Crucially, we need to consider very carefully the points that the committee has made on how we can accelerate progress. I know that the Deputy First Minister has been leading on work that is seeking to accelerate the progress, and I will certainly provide an update on that work.

To follow on from Alex Neil’s questions, I have had conversations with people, constituents and schools—one school in particular—on the north coast that are having difficulties recruiting Gaelic teachers. I am talking not about Gaelic-medium education teachers, but about teachers of Gaelic. We are going for the joined-up approach, and as Alex Neil said, if you get a teacher, it is very difficult to get a house for them. I wanted to put that on record.

I also want to ask what the strategy is for rural communities in particular. Teachers go to rural communities to teach Gaelic to the pupils, and they become proficient. They might stay for their probationary year or for a couple of years, and then, once they have got some teaching experience, they tend to move on to bigger schools in bigger communities. What can we do to attract teachers to rural areas and keep them there?

That is an excellent point, and I will turn to Graeme Logan as director of learning to say a bit more on it in a moment.

I know that there have been challenges in attracting and retaining teachers, as you said. We have seen Gaelic educators lead in some phenomenal ways recently. The e-Sgoil programme, which has been piloted in Western Isles and seeks to ensure top-quality remote teaching of Gaelic, has served as a model for remote learning across Scotland through Covid-19. I want to highlight that real positive. When I visited the Western Isles a couple of years ago and saw the work of e-Sgoil, I did not imagine for a moment that it was something that we would seek to use for learners across Scotland. It is a model that can continue to be developed to ensure that high-quality Gaelic education can reach every young person in Scotland, regardless of where they are located. Maybe Graeme Logan could say a little bit more about the issues that you raised around the teaching profession.

Good morning, colleagues. We are certainly acutely aware of the need to pursue a number of routes for teaching for rural communities. We have been working with, for example, the University of the Highlands and Islands to develop a flexible route into teaching that enables people to remain in their communities. We know that a big barrier for a lot of citizens has been having to relocate to Aberdeen, Edinburgh, or Glasgow to do, for example, the professional graduate diploma in education. There are alternative routes that enable people to remain in their communities and we want to continue to promote those opportunities. We are also looking for other innovative ways of doing things. Paul Johnston mentioned the work of the faster rate of progress initiative, which is a really important forum in which we bring together public bodies and local authorities to try to improve the rate of progress on the Gaelic language.

As a result of that work, the General Teaching Council for Scotland has been surveying teachers who are working in Gaelic-medium education or would like to move into the sector or learn more Gaelic language. I believe that, to date, about 600 people who are registered to teach in Scotland have responded to say that they would like to do that. The General Teaching Council for Scotland is following up with opportunities to learn the language and potentially move into the sector. The numbers for the UHI’s flexible route are quite low—about 30 teachers each year—and we are obviously looking to expand that further. We are acutely aware of the issues that Ms Ross has raised.

Good morning. Paul Johnston, can I ask you about leadership at the board? The chief executive officer told us in correspondence that the board was about to recruit three new members and was seeking skills in change management, corporate governance, financial scrutiny, strategic planning, as well as corporate communications, and that the closing date was 18 December, with the appointments to take effect from 1 April this year. Was the planned recruitment successful and do the new appointments take effect from 1 April? What role has the Scottish Government had in the appointment of these new members?

I can confirm that there has been recruitment, which has been partly successful but not wholly successful. You will appreciate that we will set and maintain a high standard for all board-level appointments. My understanding is that we are expecting one new board member to come on to the board very soon but that some gaps remain. There are two things that need to happen. One is that there will be a further appointment round, which the Scottish Government will work with Bòrd na Gàidhlig to support. We are also working with Bòrd na Gàidhlig on ways in which we can strengthen it and fill some of the gaps that it has in the organisation. We are in receipt of a formal request from Bòrd na Gàidhlig for gaps to be filled, and we are giving attention to that because, obviously, that requires additional funding.

09:45  

Do you know why only one of the three has been appointed? Did you have the applications but they were not suitable, or you did not get applications?

We got applications. The recruitment was taken forward by the chair of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, with involvement from the sponsor team. The briefing that I have had since then confirmed that there were a number of applications. You will appreciate that there is a detailed interview and recruitment process in which all applicants are tested to ensure that they have the required competences and skills. One person has been appointed from that recruitment round.

Who makes the decision? Is it the board or is it the Government?

Ultimately, it is for ministers to appoint the members of the board. A sponsor team member and the chair are on the recruitment panel. That panel comes up with recommendations, and it is ultimately for ministers to make the appointments.

Accepting that you may have some gaps still to fill, is the Government now satisfied with the quality of the leadership in both senior management and the board?

We are determined to maintain high expectations of the board. As I set out in the framework document, there is on-going close engagement between the director and the deputy director. That includes an annual appraisal process of the chair and an annual scrutiny of performance. Ultimately, as I hope you will hear clearly from the Deloitte auditors, we have seen determined work to ensure improvement. That has been led by the chair and the chief executive, and I welcome the efforts that they have made. They have shown determination in responding to the challenges and in securing improvements and, of course, they recognise that that must continue. The job is not done. There are still some elements of the improvement plan outstanding and there is a need to secure continued progress.

I am looking for something slightly more specific. Are you satisfied or are you not satisfied?

I am satisfied that good progress has been made.

With the quality of the leadership?

I am satisfied that the chair is leading the body with energy and determination.

As Alex Neil said, you are the sole shareholder here, so if you are not satisfied, who would be? How will you monitor this so that we do not get into the situation that we were in in the past and so that the changes that are being made are successful?

The framework document sets out the range of ways in which we will be monitoring progress. That includes regular meetings between the sponsor team and the executive team in Bòrd na Gàidhlig. It includes quarterly meetings between the deputy director and the chair. We are also inserting some extra engagement and, in particular, Graeme Logan will now be meeting the chair regularly to ensure that there is progress against the key strategic priorities. My expectation, of course, is that all these actions will be undertaken and that, should there be issues, they will be escalated to the portfolio accountable officer.

That is a sort of internal process but, to pick up on what Gail Ross and Alex Neil were saying, if your customers—your stakeholders—are not happy, the whole thing is not really working. How will you make sure that you have a direct knowledge of what is happening out in the field—I will not call it the marketplace—and on the front line?

I take that as an important point that has been raised this morning. The sponsor team and the Deputy First Minister have regular engagement with a range of stakeholders. As you can see from the correspondence that I have shared, stakeholders can come to us with particular concerns, and we have acted to address those. I hear the point about the proactivity of that engagement and the reach beyond particular organisations. That is a good point and we should ensure that that happens regularly in future.

I think that “proactivity” and “reach” are the key words there. Thank you.

If members have no further points for the panel on the Bòrd na Gàidhlig report, I thank both Graeme Logan and Paul Johnston for their evidence on the report this morning.

09:51 Meeting suspended.  

09:54 On resuming—