Equal Opportunities Committee, 15 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Official Report 254KB pdf

---

Public Appointments (Proposed Equal Opportunities Strategy)

Agenda item 4 is the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland's proposed equal opportunities strategy for Scotland, "Diversity Delivers", which is currently out for consultation. I am very pleased to welcome the commissioner, Karen Carlton, to the committee. Karen has kindly said that we should just press on with our questions to get to the nitty-gritty.

I was particularly taken with the statement on page 19, in section 2 of the introduction to the strategy:

"Creating equality is not about treating every person the same, nor just about removing unlawful discrimination, but is about valuing individuality and nurturing its development."

It goes on to say:

"an ‘equal opportunities' approach often implies a focus on policies and procedures driven by the need to keep within the law"

rather than looking at the diversity approach, which

"focuses on the sound reasons for having those policies."

Do you think that the definition of equality in the Scotland Act 1998 adequately encompasses that sentiment?

That is an interesting one. It certainly has not, in any way, constrained the work that I have done, because the Scotland Act 1998 not only looks at the different equality strands that were enshrined in legislation when the act was passed, but refers, as you know, to any current legislation or issues. I do not believe that there is a requirement—certainly from my perspective of looking at public appointments—to change the wording of the Scotland Act 1998.

The act that governs my role is the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003—of course, members know all that; I do not need to tell you which acts you have passed. It has two specific requirements, one of which is that I reflect the requirements of the Scotland Act 1998. However, there is also a more general requirement that I ensure that all categories of person are afforded the opportunity to be considered for appointment. That is where I can move outside the wording of the Scotland Act 1998 and look at the differences that people bring to the process and how they can all be accommodated.

That is helpful. I certainly found the strategy's opening statement to be a refreshing introduction and start to the process.

Your website lists 62 public bodies that are regulated by your office. To give us an idea of the numbers of people who go through the public appointments system that you are aiming to improve, can you tell us how many people sit on the boards of those bodies and will, therefore, come under the provisions of your new strategy? It would be helpful if you could break down that figure to show how many of those board members are appointed annually and how many are reappointed.

It would probably be better if I were to give a written response with full details, but I can give you some overarching figures.

If you are talking about the bodies that I regulate and which are covered by schedule 2 to the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003, there are around 900 posts. It is hard to be specific simply because there are many moves to merge bodies, while at the same time new bodies are being created that will be added to schedule 2. Some of those 900 posts might not currently be occupied and I do not know about it, or circumstances might have forced people to leave before the end of a term of appointment.

The appointment process usually looks at a three-year term of appointment. It is the norm for someone to be reappointed if their performance demonstrates that they meet the board's current and future requirements. As the Americans say, "You do the math." If there are 900 posts, there could be as many as 300 appointments each year. In fact, there are fewer than that. Last year, there were 197 appointments because there were also reappointments.

How widespread was the consultation process that informed the preparation of the strategy, and how long did it take to develop?

The strategy took two years to develop. We started in November 2005. An enormous number and quite a variety of people have been engaged in the consultation. The starting point was to look at everyone who was engaged in the public appointments process at that stage, from the junior officials, who would be the administrators, right through to the ministers who would make appointment decisions.

We moved from there to have a look at the applicants. Members will have seen from the research that more than 500 applicants who had direct experience of the process let us know what their experience had been and gave us advice about how the process might be improved.

We then moved to the larger number of people—more than 1,000—who had not been involved to find out what it was about the process that stopped them from being involved. We might describe them as people who have some knowledge or clear information about why people are not engaging with the process.

We talked to a total of 21 organisations at the pre-consultation stage. They were the equalities groups, including what was at the time the embryo of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Inter Faith Council, Stonewall Scotland, the Scottish Women's Convention and Women at Work. I wanted to ensure that any group that is currently clearly disadvantaged—the statistics show which groups those are—was actively engaged in telling us what the barriers are and what might help to attract applications from them.

It is important to reflect the convener's point and emphasise that the strategy is not just about ensuring that those people who have so far been disadvantaged are no longer disadvantaged. It is about encouraging a wider range of people—groups who would not traditionally be seen as underrepresented—to find the process attractive. I tried to ensure that the variety in the recommendations was reflected in every stage of consultation.

The consultation document notes that Government officials deal with advertising and other practical arrangements in relation to the appointments process. Are the officials given specific training for that work? How is the effectiveness of the advertising monitored?

As a result of work that was done in 2002-03 by the consultants Reid-Howie Associates, it was recommended that Government officials who were involved in the appointments process should be given training. I understand that they were given equal opportunities awareness training. However, our strategy reflects my view that that training was not sufficient, because equal opportunities awareness is not sufficiently or appropriately evidenced in how the process is being applied.

I have no evidence that the advertising was monitored sufficiently. More recently, all the health bodies have been engaged in diversity awareness at board level, but that is just finishing so it is too soon to say what impact it has had.

The evidence that you supplied to us indicates that there is a lack of diversity among applicants. You obviously considered the issue carefully, and I am sure that the committee will pick up on the fact that that has not been monitored properly.

Your document highlights the fact that the current arrangements are not effective in reaching the required level of diversity. Do you propose a different monitoring process as part of your new strategy, perhaps with regard to advertising and that type of thing?

The Scottish Government has done limited monitoring of the impact of different forms of advertising, but that monitoring is not detailed and depends on applicants informing the Government where they saw a particular advert. If they choose not to do that, the Government has not so far followed that up.

There will be mechanisms that will enable us to ensure that more information is collected from people about how they became aware of an appointment opportunity. In the strategy, you will see that I also recommend much more detailed monitoring generally, so that we start to pick up quickly which groups in society are affected by recommendations that are implemented and which groups might benefit from positive action in the slightly longer term.

So, the reporting and the monitoring are not proactive. You heard the evidence in our earlier session about older people and the internet. Obviously, we want to attract younger people, but that should not be a problem when we have the internet, with sites such as YouTube. However, I thank you for your observations.

My next question might be out of order, but the committee will pick it up. You said that it is up to applicants to tell the Government where they saw the advertisement. Could the committee do anything to turn that round so that the Government, rather than the applicant, would be proactive in that regard?

A number of the strategy's recommendations would automatically address some of that. If people are trained to have greater awareness, which is one of my recommendations, they will be more aware of the reason for monitoring, so some of the attitudinal shift will begin to happen. If the centre of expertise is created, it will be staffed by people with a real understanding of diversity who recognise that appointment is a two-way process. I think that their actions will translate into much more proactive monitoring. If the monitoring statistics are provided in the different ways that the strategy recommends, that would give a clearer picture.

In the previous session of Parliament we did a lot of work on equality training and differences. If you are talking about awareness training rather than equality training, that is a concern to me, because there is a substantial difference between the two.

On page 16 of the consultation document, you note that because diversity can bring challenges such as

"lower cohesion, less trust and higher turnover within groups",

board chairs must be capable of "counteracting such tendencies", and that

"their … performance in this area must be monitored and evaluated."

How is the performance of board chairs monitored and evaluated? Do you want managing diversity to be a critical factor in the evaluation process?

Let me go one step back. In order for managing diversity to be a critical factor in any form of performance assessment or evaluation, it must be enshrined in the person specifications of the people who will be expected to perform those roles. Whether we call it managing diversity or valuing difference does not matter, as long as there is a clear understanding among everyone who is engaged in the appointment process that we as a nation cannot improve the number and diversity of applicants without addressing the attitude that exists in some boardrooms at the moment, whereby such diversity is not sufficiently well accepted, embraced, valued, respected and used.

My understanding is that how board chairs are appraised can differ from directorate to directorate. A chair's performance is normally reviewed against the appointment criteria—which is why I think that diversity needs to be mentioned much earlier in the process—by the director general, the minister or a combination of both. The body's performance is also taken into account. It is a requirement that chairs and board members are appraised regularly, although that does not have to happen annually. It might be useful to strengthen the appraisal process for chairs and board members.

I was concerned about the idea of higher turnover being a challenge, because a higher turnover is necessary if we are to make any change at all.

That is an accurate picture of why we are in the position that we are in. Given that people sit on boards in most cases for six years and in some cases for four or five years, we face a situation that is historical and which will take some time to change. At present, the boards are not diverse, as you know, but the board members might not change all that frequently. That is another dimension to consider.

You are looking at using the same kind of process for the chair and the members of the board as is used for the appointment process. Both of those will be improved.

Yes. An issue that is not made explicit in the strategy—it is an observation around the process—is that the Scottish Government appears to believe that reappointment is based on performance in post to date. I have been trying hard to persuade the Government that that is not the only criterion. How someone has performed against the selection criteria is clearly important, but I believe that on each occasion there should be a review of what the minister expects the body to deliver and of the person specification. The fact that someone has done something well in the past is not a guarantee of continuing performance.

I agree. We want a long-term strategy, but not such a long-term strategy.

Yes.

Section 4 of the consultation document discusses the challenges to achieving diversity and notes that many comprehensive studies have been done of equality and diversity in public appointments, but there is not much evidence that effective outcomes have resulted from them. Why do the previous research and recommendations seem to have had such little impact? If you accept that they have had little impact, how can we ensure that in future such studies will produce more effective outcomes?

You are right to say that there is little evidence that such studies have had effective outcomes. The very fact that monitoring has not been as good as it might have been means that there could be some pockets of good practice that people are not aware of. I certainly have not found any, but that does not mean that there are not any.

The reason why the strategies that have been adopted and the proposals and recommendations that have been made have not made a significant difference to the board populations is to do with the fact that, if one studies what has been said in the past, a number of them have been rather theoretical. I was in two minds about producing a strategy that included detailed implementation suggestions, because that is not what is normally expected. I was quite clear that the strategy had to be sufficiently detailed for people to pick it up and work with it. In the past, one of the problems has been that we have talked about increasing awareness, but we have not been specific about what that means in terms of training at each stage in the process.

Also—this comment reflects a question that you asked the previous witnesses—there has not been clarity about the ownership of implementation of various recommendations. That is certainly true of past equal opportunities strategies that have been written specifically for public appointments. Who will do what has never been all that clear.

I have a sense that the process has not been given the priority that it might have been. Please do not think for a moment that I am getting on my soapbox or taking the opportunity to complain, but the public appointments process has perhaps not been given the profile that it should have been, given that the boards of the public bodies collectively spend £11 billion of public funds.

If you want to get on your soapbox and make a complaint, I think that we would be interested to hear it.

At the moment, I am in the mode of cajoling, persuading and taking people with me rather than of complaining, but I have made that observation. That is why I have been clear that I believe that the recruitment of senior civil servants, which is probably the closest thing to the public appointments process, is a more rigorous and detailed process that has much more professionalism attached to it. I do not believe that that is appropriate.

Thank you for that comment. We certainly take it on board.

On page 30 of your consultation document, you mention contact with specific groups. You state:

"More than 80 groups from minority communities are informed of every appointment vacancy, but there is no evidence that this produces any applications."

There is no evidence of applications, let alone of appointments. Have you discussed with those groups what the perceived barriers might be and how the process could be modified to encourage more applications?

Again, it is important to stress that there is little evidence and that some applications might be coming through. The fact that the Scottish Government has not monitored in detail the source of applications means that there might have been some applications from the 80 groups. However, as a general statement, it is obvious that not many people from those groups come forward regularly.

To be frank, when I have spoken to them, I have found that the reason for the lack of applications is their lack of belief or trust in the fact that we all mean what we say. For example, there is a sense that statements about equal opportunities in advertisements are there because it is politically correct for them to be there. There is a sense that training is given because it is politically correct. Some of the attitudes are quite entrenched. People's view is primarily that public appointments are not for people like them. The difficulty that we face is that, if someone is from an Asian minority community, if they are a young person or if they do not have a traditional educational background, that view is absolutely right. If you look at the population of the boards of our public bodies, they do not reflect the diversity of Scotland. That, in itself, puts people off.

There is a general distrust. Do we really mean what we say? If we overcome the distrust, there is a lack of confidence. People do not believe that they are likely to be appointed because history suggests that they will not be. How can we address that? As with any attitude change, we need to be persistent. We need to show that we are serious. We need to work to highlight not only the visible differences, but all the non-visible aspects of diversity. The chair of one health board started his working life as a miner. How well known is that? He is currently a professor. When people look at Professor X, they do not see someone who might have the same background as them. A higher profile needs to be given to the non-visible diversity of board members. Again, I refer to that in the strategy. We need a lot more communication around those board members who are different—the role models, for example.

We also need to be persistent. If we give up, people will believe that it was all about political correctness. We need to keep on approaching the bodies and keep going back to them specifically to ask for applications. We might carry out positive action for groups of a particular gender or ethnic background. In the strategy, I mention providing help with applications through mentoring, guidance and support. If people see that mentioned in an advertisement as well as a statement about equal opportunities, we are more likely to overcome their distrust.

You referred to the quality of the Scottish Government's monitoring. Have you made, or are you making, any recommendations about how it should be improved to address those issues?

Yes, we are. We did not do so until I had the research data because it would not have been wise for me to say to the Government, "I want you to report on X, Y and Z" if, in fact, those did not prove to be the issues.

We are looking at much more comprehensive monitoring information, so we are including sexual orientation, religion and belief information, but we are also looking at much more detailed monitoring of applicant statistics and the impact of publicity strategies on changing the balance.

Let us return to ownership, which you mentioned earlier. The strategy document recommends that you and the Scottish Government work in partnership to implement the equal opportunities strategy, but where does the ultimate responsibility lie for its effectiveness? What powers do you have to intervene when clear failures have been identified?

The answer to your first question is that because the Scottish Government is responsible for the process from publicity through to appointment, ultimate responsibility must lie with the Scottish Government. Whichever recommendations are accepted, it will be up to the Government to implement them. Although the 2003 act does not give me any power to be involved in implementing the strategy, the fact that I am required to ensure that all categories of person are afforded the opportunity to apply gives me the power to monitor progress.

I can build some of the requirements into my code of practice, over which I have statutory power, and I can report ministers who do not comply with that code.

There was another aspect to your question that I might not have covered.

What powers do you have to intervene when clear failures have been identified? I am thinking of failures in effective representation on boards or in the recruitment process.

If I were to build something into my code of practice, that is where I would have the power to intervene. That is all that is open to me at the moment.

A huge amount of research was done before the strategy was published. It started off with over 60 recommendations, which I had to whittle down into a manageable amount; I recognised that when people read the strategy, at a time when resources might be slightly constrained, they might not take me seriously if I had 60 bright ideas. If, however, I had 11 ideas, along with practical ways of implementing them, there would be a chance that something might be done.

It is important that I continue to have some form of involvement, because I have the detail that underpins all the priorities and has already opened a number of doors. For example, I have created a public appointments hallmark. I persuaded Queen Margaret University to produce the education programme that would be necessary so that I can report on progress and, if there is interest in a particular area, we can get going quickly.

If the implementation group is agreed to, that will be the best way to report regularly on progress—and to the committee, if members agree.

You might want to get on your soapbox again, because my question is about costs and budgeting. It appears that you have not been able to provide any indication of the cost of implementing your strategy, although some of the recommendations—such as the communications campaign, and building and maintaining an accessible hub website—would clearly involve significant costs. How confident are you that a budget or budgets will be available to deliver your strategy?

I do not believe that the Government can ignore either the recommendations or the force of evidence that is coming through the consultation. I cannot say with certainty that there will be funding for all 11 recommendations, but I have provided genuinely low-cost options for each of the key recommendations.

For example, the centre of expertise on public appointments in the Scottish Government replaces the current public appointments team, so the budget already exists. I have created the public appointments hallmark, so that will not be a cost option; in fact, it will reduce the cost of annual audit. Therefore, I am confident that money will be available, certainly in the short term. You are right that the hub website will not be an inexpensive project, but a cost benefit analysis shows that it will reach many more people in much less time and have a much more diverse readership than advertising in the regular national newspapers. It costs millions to advertise in them each year.

And their circulation is declining every year.

Absolutely.

Have you had the opportunity to discuss your recommendations with the Scottish Government or has it commented on your strategy? Is it broadly supportive of the line that you are taking and, if it is less than broadly supportive, in what areas are there differences?

I have had that opportunity. When I present a strategy, I must present it first to Parliament, so I have not debated the strategy's content with any other body or group. However, round about March last year, I found out that the Scottish Executive was planning to restructure its public appointments team and I had some concerns about the plans because I did not believe that they would address any of the issues that were beginning to emerge from the research, so I took the opportunity to speak to the permanent secretary about what I believed the result of a restructuring of the team might be and what the creation of a centre of expertise could achieve.

I am pleased to say that everything that I recommended was taken on board. The public appointments team in its old form no longer exists and the new centre of expertise is being developed—in fact, this afternoon, I am doing some of the induction for the first member of the new team, who was appointed to lead it. Therefore, I believe that there is support within the Government for expertise and for reducing the newspaper advertising and building much more interactivity and e-communication into the public appointments process. That suggests that at least part of the hub website is already being considered.

I might have a difference of opinion with some of the Government officials on the point that I made about the priority that should be given to the public appointments process. I am not entirely convinced that it is yet being given the priority that it needs. However, some of the work in the strategy will make the process much more straightforward to implement. The process as the Scottish Executive introduced and implemented it probably was not as streamlined and smooth as it might have been. Because the Executive introduced a number of stages with no real benefit, people were a little reluctant to give the process the time that it needed, but some of my recommendations should remove that problem.

One of the questions that we need to ask is what ministers need. If the strategy gives them a much more diverse pool of talent from which to make appointments, it is hard to believe that they will say that it is a waste of time and refuse to support it.

Your observations about streamlining have been made in another place in a similar context, so I was aware of that point. Bearing in mind the fact that we are talking about restructuring and the centre of expertise, is there existing expertise on diversity in the Scottish Government's now defunct team or in the new team, or do you look for the Government to draw on wider expertise and, if so, from what sources?

The question whether the expertise sat in the previous team is probably answered in my strategy. We would not be where we are if it had. It is hard to predict whether it will sit in the new team, because not all the members have been appointed. However, a member of my team was on the appointment panel specifically to consider such issues when the lady who has been employed was appointed. She has come from a non-regulated public body in which she did a lot of relevant things, including creating role models to attract interest, so I am confident about that.

There was another question. I am sorry, I should have made a note of the multiple questions so that I could answer the other bit. What was it?

Do you have any ideas about where other expertise may be found that could be drawn upon if required?

Judging by the few discussions that I have had with the central human resources team in the Scottish Government, there is real expertise in diversity there. A lot of expertise is also evident in the work of the equality unit in the Scottish Government. I am trying to break down the previous silo thinking whereby only the public appointments team knew about public appointments. Yvonne Strachan has a wealth of information that she has shared with me, which can be used now to benefit the public appointments process.

It is not about bringing in expensive consultants; I do not think that we need to do that. However, if there is a need for some external benchmarking or a review of what other organisations do, I always find the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development very helpful. Its executive chairman is one of my assessors in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland, so I probably have a hotline to the latest research that comes out. I am also a fellow of the CIPD, so I am provided with a lot of the information anyway. That would be a good measure of effectiveness. In fact, Dianah Worman, the CIPD's diversity adviser, is commenting on our strategy. That gives us a perspective that we might not have if we continued to work with people within the Government.

The clock is ticking, so we will move swiftly onward.

Under "Education and Experience", you recommend that a specific public appointments development and shadowing programme be attached to existing management development schemes. However, you also note that that programme would, at least initially, draw from fairly senior ranks in organisations where diversity is still limited and would, therefore, be unlikely to make much impact on diversity. Would it not be more effective to widen the shadowing programme to include more diverse groups of people from the outset?

If I had not made that observation, other people would have done so. There are a couple of things to think about. Let us get it right before we start spending huge amounts of public money. The reason that I am proposing a pilot with the sort of organisations that we are talking about is twofold. First, they are a low-cost option because they already have sophisticated management development programmes, so there would be no need for any kind of education input, which may cost. Secondly, because of the work that they have already done, organisations such as Lloyds TSB are at the forefront in promoting diversity and equality within their own organisations, so they will be slightly less likely to suffer from all their senior directors and managers being of a certain age, gender and ethnicity. However, it is primarily because we need to pilot the programme and we have a group of people who are willing to pilot it. After the programme has been piloted, we can start to include the voluntary sector and a raft of different bodies with specific, tailored education to support them.

I am not convinced that such a programme will provide the quick fix that you want from it. I can see that it will add some people, but I do not see that it will add to diversity all that much.

Another problem that I meant to raise before is the fact that I do not see much of a geographical spread of members in the document. I was under the impression that the United Kingdom public appointments commissioner had set up a pilot scheme of shadowing for the Welsh commission around four years ago. I was surprised to see that that is not mentioned in the document, although perhaps that pilot scheme did not get off the ground.

That may be the shadow boards, which are mentioned in the document as an example of what I recommend that we could do in the medium term.

Do individual members have a shadow on the boards? Is that what you mean?

Well, no. There are two different shadowing schemes. In the shadowing scheme that is run more widely than just in Wales—it has been run in Scotland—potential board members will shadow a board member. However, the evidence from the evaluation that is being done of that scheme is that it has not been particularly successful. The shadowing lasts for a maximum of two days and the board members have not always been as committed as they might have been to the education that is required to support the shadowing. That is why I believe that the programme needs to last for a year. I am not recommending a repetition of the shadowing programme that has run to date.

The other scheme is the shadow boards, whereby people at any level in an organisation, public or private, operate as a shadow board. They perform the role of the board: they read the papers, meet to discuss board issues and meet the full board after board meetings to say what they would have agreed, give their opinion and find out what the full board thinks. That is a longer-term development programme to get people experienced in behaving as board members by considering different perspectives, as we would expect a board member to do. I am not recommending the short shadowing programme, but I am recommending the shadow board programme and the longer programme.

I did not realise that the programme was only two days, which is nothing at all. I thought that the intention was for individuals to do shadowing for a whole year. Does the shadow board idea not increase the time commitment and the general commitment needed from board members? You want people to be aware and to be trained, but is there not a huge expectation of the people who are there already?

Yes, there is. One of the things that I was very clear about when I took over as commissioner was that the estimate of time commitment provided in the publicity was woefully inaccurate. My code requires that an accurate assessment of the time commitment is stated clearly in the publicity; otherwise, we are wasting everyone's time. I cannot say exactly how well that is being introduced, but I have a team of OCPAS assessors who challenge the assessment on every occasion to ensure that it is as accurate as it can be.

People are now aware that it is not just a case of turning up once a month or every couple of months and chatting over a cup of coffee. However, if we want boards to be more active, perhaps through the meet-the-board programme or the board shadowing programme, we are going to require more time. We have talked generally about attitudes and priorities. You will not turn a policy or strategy into everyday good habits without commitment from senior people. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect such commitment.

I call Bill Wilson and ask him to be succinct.

I will be sort of succinct.

You have suggested as an aspirational target an increase in black or minority ethnic applicants from 2 to 8 per cent. How did you arrive at that figure? Is the target 8 per cent across the board or 8 per cent per board? If it is 8 per cent overall, some boards would not have any such applicants. Do you think that BME applicants are one group or are specific ethnic groups particularly poorly represented? If you feel that there should be separate groups, some of which would be very small, how would you monitor them, given that there would be inherent statistical problems?

I will try to remember all those points. Please tell me if I do not cover them all.

I arrived at the figure of 8 per cent by looking at the anticipated trends in the Scottish population. I used information from the Scottish Government website, the one Scotland campaign and the CEHR, which is now called the EHRC. I also bore in mind the fact that the current BME percentage is based purely on black and minority ethnic people; it takes no account of white minority ethnic people, in which there is a significant population increase.

Although I recommend an overall figure of 8 per cent, I also make it clear that I expect boards to reflect the demographics of the community served. For example, I see no reason why Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, which has a 40 per cent BME population in some parts of its community, should not be aiming to achieve a much higher figure than 8 per cent.

You asked about monitoring different categories of people. That is a difficult question to answer. The best recommendation that I can give is that we follow the census data—as you know, the census questions are currently being considered—because we cannot know whether we are reflecting the population if we do not have the population measures. You tell me whether "other white" includes "half Irish and half Welsh", which is not a category. Are such people "other white"? If so, are they being confused with Poles or Australians? Are Australians a minority? The information does not exist. On the revised monitoring form, which I am recommending, as far as I can see the "please specify" question is ignored at the moment—you either tick a box or specify in your words. No one has yet captured what people specify in their own words. That is a rich seam of data that we need to obtain if we are to answer questions in the longer term about how many subcategories we need and, ultimately, which subcategories of people are being disadvantaged.

I freely admit that my previous question was rather long, but I am worried about what happens with the smaller ethnic groups. According to the census data, a small ethnic group might represent less than 1 per cent of the Scottish population. There are quite a few small groups like that. However, if a post attracts 30 applicants, 1 per cent of that is 0.3 applicants—in effect, zero applicants. If we strictly follow the census data, certain groups could end up being excluded because they would never rise high enough to register as an underrepresented group. Given that statistical problem, how do we monitor the situation to ensure that that does not happen?

We might become more attuned to that through the development that we provide to BME groups. We can ask bodies such as the Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations and interfaith groups for feedback on how many of their members have applied for posts. Another challenge is that, in order to increase diversity, the appointment process is anonymous. Going down that route can increase the number of applicants significantly because people have a little bit more trust that they will not be ruled out automatically just because, for example, they have an Asian name. However, at the same time, that can make it a little harder to detect some of the trends that have been highlighted. I think that we will deal with that issue not through statistical analysis but through the qualitative feedback that we receive from the groups with which we work.

My last, short question is similar to my previous question on the target for BME applicants. How did you arrive at the aspirational target of increasing the proportion of female applicants from 30 to 40 per cent? Clearly, females make up somewhat more than 40 per cent of the population. Also, why is the aspirational target to increase the proportion of disabled applicants from 7 to only 10 per cent?

The aspirational target for applications from disabled people represents 50 per cent of what we believe is the current percentage of disabled people in the population. I looked at the current figures and considered what could reasonably be achieved over a three-year period. Disabled people are quite a hard group to access and to convince that they are likely to be appointed. I know that through work with the European Union of Supported Employment, which encourages disabled people to go into employment. Given that that is particularly hard, I see no reason to assume that encouraging disabled people to take up a public appointment will be different. The aspirational target equates to about 50 per cent of that population.

On gender, the qualitative research—all of which can be made available if committee members want to review it—makes it plain that women are less confident than men and are less likely to apply, even if they are overqualified. From talking to large groups of women, we know that a specific concern is caring responsibilities, which still tend to fall more on women than on men. As was mentioned before, these are aspirational targets and it is hard to be absolutely specific. However, if we could increase numbers and achieve 40 per cent—even though women account for 52 per cent of the population—that would give us a starting point in the short term and would start to make a difference.

If the reason that fewer women apply is not because they do not see the advertisements or are unaware of the opportunities that exist but because they are carers, does that mean that board members need to be provided with better caring facilities?

That may be the case. I should perhaps mention some detail that has been excluded. I wonder whether we need to have non-traditional meeting times for boards. For example, a woman who is a single parent—I do not mean to sound exclusive but I want to make a general point—might not be able to attend a board meeting during the day because she is working or she might not be able to attend a board meeting during the evening because of her parenting responsibilities. Do we perhaps need a different pattern of board meetings? Do we need to provide crèche facilities? However, women tend to have caring responsibilities not only for younger people but—as we spent time considering this morning—for older people such as aged parents and relatives. That is not an easy one to crack.

I think that awareness raising will make more people interested overall. I doubt that within the next two or three years we will be able to take care of all the issues that prevent women from applying, but if we can make some inroads, create role models, change the structure of board meetings and provide support for women who have caring responsibilities, we will start to make a difference.

From listening to you this morning, I think that we can be confident that you mean business and that you have ideas for how to make gains and improvements. Do you have a timescale in mind for how soon we can reasonably expect the strategy to begin to make a difference? If we do not see an improvement, do you have a plan?

At the moment, other than commissioning more research, I do not have a plan for what should be done if we do not see improvements. However, the strategy is divided into short, medium and long-term actions. I genuinely believe that, if we implement some of the short-term actions such as those that relate to the communications campaign, the centre of expertise and the hub website, we will start to see a difference in applications within two years. We will see larger numbers of underrepresented groups and perhaps a better balance. That will not immediately feed into board positions because people hold such posts for six or more years, but I expect that, by the end of year 3, we will see the beginnings of a change to the board population. By year 5, I would expect to see a significant difference in the figures.

That is the end of our questioning. I thank the commissioner for her evidence, which has been particularly worth while. I know that the committee will be very encouraged both by the interactive and proactive approach that she is taking and by the level of scrutiny and analysis that she is bringing to her role. As she said, given that £11 billion of the public's money is spent on appointments, the role of board members cannot be underestimated.

I should explain that the £11 billion is spent by boards that are appointed. Therefore, let us get the right people there to spend that money.

Absolutely. We have taken that point, which has been made very forcibly in the evidence that we have heard this morning. Thank you very much.

I remind broadcasting and any members of the public that the committee will now go into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 13:08.