Item 4 is consideration of the report “Diversity Delivers—three years on”. Members have received a copy of the report and a briefing paper.
I will ask an entirely speculative question, to which I do not know the answer—clearly. A lot of public concern about aspects of the valuable work that the committee does centres on some long-standing prejudice that people have in respect of gender, race and other issues. It is therefore hugely important that everything that we put together is robust and stands up to scrutiny. As I have already said, I represent the Highlands and Islands, where we have a welcome and growing ethnic minority population. Are we content with all the information in the report? Are there significantly large samples for the percentages to be relevant?
That is a fair point. From my reading of the report, I have concerns that, although there is a lot of good stuff in place, we are not making a huge amount of headway. We do not have significant outcomes from the report, and I would like the committee to follow up on that.
I am concerned that, as paragraph 24 of the report notes, a short-term action was recommended for the Scottish Government but not implemented. The Scottish Government communicated why that decision was taken, but there seems to be some dubiety. If we agree to write to the Scottish Government, the point highlighted in paragraph 24 should be a focus.
Does anyone else want to comment? Do we agree that we should write to the Scottish Government and ask for clarification on the point that Siobhan McMahon has raised?
Thank you. The second aspect relates to the position of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland that her role in the work has now ceased. The suggestion is to seek a separate view on that from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Do we wish to pursue that? Do members have any comments?
It is important that we follow up on that point and get more information. As I am coming at the issue afresh, I am unclear about something. I would like clarification on the reference to “successors” throughout the document. Who will take up the work? It is valuable and should continue. Successors are specifically mentioned throughout the document. What does that imply? Should we be writing for clarification, or does someone know about that?
We can certainly take that point forward. If no other members wish to comment, do we agree that we will write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its view?
Next
Petitions