Chamber and committees

There are two different dimensions to take into account here. The first is the people survey which, as Lesley Fraser has said, is part of a UK civil service-wide proposition. It can give us some insight into these issues, but it is not exclusive.

That brings me on to the second dimension, which I think lies at the heart of Michelle Thomson’s question. How do we design an approach that enables us to be confident that the continuous improvement journey is having a positive effect in the organisation? That will require us to develop our thinking about the process, which will inevitably have to be much more qualitative than quantitative. We might, for example, have to think about how we formulate conversations with staff in order to inform that qualitative process, if that is the type of information that we are trying to extract from this experience. There will be quantitative indicators that we can identify, but I do not want it just to be a quantitative survey. It must begin to delve into the experience of members of staff in the working environment—how satisfactory is it and what can we do to strengthen and improve it?

I am happy to update the committee over time, in our periodic updates, on how that work is being undertaken to develop the framework and any thinking or expectations from the committee in that respect would be very welcome.

On the point about timescale, we indicated that, three months after the publication of the procedure, we would invite feedback from the independent advisers. That will be towards the end of May and I expect us to have feedback within that timescale. The First Minister will then reflect on that feedback to determine whether any changes will be made to the code as a consequence, given the responsibility that she carries for its formulation.

In relation to the scope, the advisers will consider any interaction of the complaints handling process with the ministerial code, and whether that flows through in a smooth fashion. I anticipate that their recommendations will be in that space. However, I would not want to constrain the reflections of the independent advisers. I know that the First Minister will be happy to hear any reflections that they have on that question or perhaps questions that stretch beyond that particular relationship, but that would be me prejudging what we will hear from the independent advisers. We will know that in the next month or so.

The final point that I will make is about the nature of the ministerial code. What I am going to say I do not say in any pejorative sense. The atmosphere around ministerial codes, particularly in relation to the position of the United Kingdom Government, raises a serious issue about the significance of the ministerial code and its implementation and application.

As a minister who is bound by the code but is not a decision maker in relation to the code, I view adherence to the code as my fundamental duty as a minister. It guides and shapes my conduct and actions. I would like to think that I do not need to a ministerial code to guide and shape my conduct and actions, but it is there is a backstop to make sure that I know what is expected of me. It has to be taken with that degree of seriousness and applied with that degree of seriousness, because without that, it is meaningless.

Mr Johnson’s question gives me the opportunity to put that on the record as a reflection of what I think is the view of ministers. The ministerial code is there to be complied with, and the last thing that a minister wants is there to be any speculation about whether his or her conduct or actions has in any way brought the code into question.

The fundamental point that I would make, which is made by the letter that the current permanent secretary, John-Paul Marks, sent to the convener some weeks ago—I have 10 March in my mind—is that the permanent secretary is an office holder. I do not want to make an obtuse remark or say anything that sounds disrespectful, but the permanent secretary is not an individual; they are an office holder. Any of the questions that Liz Smith or the committee is interested in can be put to the permanent secretary—and I understand that the permanent secretary is coming to the committee fairly shortly.

The point about accountability is absolutely fundamental. The permanent secretary is the leading civil servant in the Scottish Government and, as that office holder, they must be available to come to the committee and to answer questions on issues that are relevant to the Scottish Government at any time. I view the relationship as the same as that which I have with a parliamentary committee. I am here to answer on the Government’s behalf. In the letter to the convener, the permanent secretary made the point that civil servants do not act in an individual capacity; they act on behalf of ministers, and their authority comes from that relationship.

I hope that that addresses Liz Smith’s point.

On the questions about the difficulties that lay at the heart of the complaints procedure in 2018, those issues have been openly scrutinised in the process that was undertaken by a specific parliamentary committee prior to the 2021 election and in this committee’s scrutiny of the procedure that has arisen from those events, which is designed to address the issues that emerged during that process. This is my second appearance at committee to address some of those questions.

In relation to the briefing of ministers, the format—as with an awful lot of life in the recent past—was online. Briefing sessions were undertaken via Teams. Parliamentary colleagues will understand that a three-line whip was applied to those sessions. Mr Johnson will know what I am talking about there.

Thank you, convener. First, I apologise for detaining the committee this morning. A journey that normally takes me 90 minutes took me three hours.

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to give evidence this morning. Following our constructive session in January, I welcome the opportunity to discuss with the committee progress on the updated procedure for handling complaints by civil servants about current or former ministers and the continuous improvement programme that arises from it.

At the point of the previous evidence session on 25 January, the draft procedure had been published. We were in the middle of a discussion period with staff, staff networks, ministers, trade unions, stakeholders and, of course, the committee. The discussion period was constructive and respectful, and it resulted in a small addition to the procedure’s terms of reference, which I sent to the committee in my letter of 24 February, when the procedure came into operation. The feedback from the committee was instrumental in helping us to develop the guidance that accompanies the procedure.

I was pleased to inform the committee that the Government had appointed six external investigators and five external decision makers from a high-calibre pool of applicants to carry out investigations under the updated procedure. The group has since completed an induction session, which was led by the propriety and ethics directorate.

After the procedure became live, the proactive work that, when I previously spoke to the committee, I identified as being important to maintaining and improving a safe and respectful working environment is progressing as planned. Although we hope never to have to use the updated procedure, cabinet secretaries and ministers received a briefing on it after it came into operation, to ensure that it is fully understood from the outset. Communications to all-staff networks accompanied the procedure’s launch, and communications with staff have continued throughout March—in particular, for the launch of the associated revised staff grievance policy and procedure, which came into operation on 21 April.

In addition, I am pleased to say that the independent advisers, Mr James Hamilton and Dame Elish Angiolini, have been given final copies of the procedure and have been invited to consider updates to the Scottish ministerial code.

We are now looking to the future and to the activities in the continuous improvement programme for the rest of the year. The programme promotes positive standards of behaviour, seeks to prevent unacceptable behaviours and continues the work to create a safe and supportive environment in which staff can speak up.

The programme has already involved a range of actions beyond the development of a new complaints procedure. The programme’s activities are helping to embed the Scottish Government’s new vision “In the service of Scotland” and its five core values—integrity, inclusion, collaboration, innovation and kindness—at the heart of the workplace. Activities include the establishment of a propriety and ethics team to provide oversight and co-ordination on key issues and a review of corporate information management to improve how information and records are used, stored and processed.

In the past few months, we have held discussions with those who are most closely involved with the programme and our recognised trade unions in order to begin to establish measures of success for the programme. Those measures are intended not only to track the completion of the programme’s activities, but to chart how well we are doing them. The measures of success will ensure that we are aware of what best practice is and that we adhere to it at all times. They will also help us to identify the areas where we can become more successful.

The programme looks across the organisation at the systems and business practices that are designed to continue to build a positive working environment that people can thrive in. The activities that are planned until the end of this year consider different aspects of culture and behaviour and look at the ways of working that are in place. In particular, proactive outreach work that makes contact with network groups and satellite offices has already started and will be taken forward in earnest. Throughout this period, we will continue staff communications and our engagement with our recognised trade unions.

I look forward to discussing matters with the committee.

After the 2021 election, there was a formal induction programme for ministers. That covered a range of topics from administrative and process type issues such as the one that we are discussing—the expectations of interaction with private offices—to some of the wider, policy-specific areas. For example, all ministers were briefed on some of the policy objectives on climate change, recognising that that policy objective transcends individual portfolios.

A mixture of policy and process induction has been undertaken since the 2021 election. Should there be any change to ministerial appointments, a similar programme will be put in place to ensure that any incoming minister who does not have previous experience will be suitably briefed.

Obviously, we do not comment on individual cases of this nature. Those matters are kept confidential, to protect the interests of all involved. We hope not to have to use the procedure.

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.