Chamber and committees

Is that different from how the process used to operate?

Thank you, Mr Bruce—I wanted you to put that on record for completeness in your evidence this morning.

I was going to ask about workforce planning. You have probably covered most of my questions, but I will ask them in case you want to fill in any gaps.

Can you say a bit more about the workforce planning that you are undertaking to address the high staff turnover? You mentioned the lack of corporate memory. You have said a lot about stabilisation and recovery, but resilience is a key issue. As with any small organisation, it only takes one or two people not to be there to present a significant challenge.

You mentioned workforce planning. Can you link that to future resilience?

That will chime with MSPs, as we employ staff for one thing but, in reality, the demands of the office mean that we deploy them as necessary for other business needs. I think that MSP staffers would recognise that, too.

I will move on. The auditor found that,

“based on legal advice”

that you obtained,

“the ... operation of the investigation process (as amended in August 2020) and the assessment process does not comply with the required legislation.”

What confidence do you have that the MSP complaints that were handled during that period were assessed properly? You have spoken a lot about getting continuity and consistency for the future, but, looking back slightly, what confidence do you have that investigations were assessed appropriately?

Good morning, Mr Bruce. I have a specific question. I get that there is a degree of uncertainty because you are currently in an acting position and a member of your team is currently backfilling your previous post in an acting position. You outlined the difficulties in being able to fill that post because of all the uncertainties. However, the organisation does not strike me as being awash with staff and it seems that additional staff members would be of value for it. I get that such staff might have to be on a temporary position, but for how many years could a temporary post be put in place for that unfilled position?

If matters resolve themselves for the acting positions that you and your colleague are in, it does not sound as if it would be difficult to redeploy any surplus staff to other jobs and tasks in the organisation. Have you made a bid to the corporate body to say that you could do with a three-year temporary post in the unfilled position and that, although it is specialist and training would be required, should the other matters resolve themselves, you could find a particularly important job for that person in the wider office, given the constraints that you have on your time?

I want to ask a few questions, although you have perhaps partly answered some of them in the course of your evidence. However, this is an opportunity for you to put on the record anything else that you feel is required.

From reading the annual report and from your comments, it is clear that there has been a lack of continuity regarding responsibility for the handling of MSP complaints. You refer to that in your statement in your annual report and accounts. You have already alluded to why that might be the case, but it might be helpful for you to put on record this morning why you think there has been such a lack of continuity.

Are you suggesting that issues with continuity existed with the previous team and the previous commissioner, and that those have not been replicated with the new staff? Common sense can be a dangerous thing, Mr Bruce. You referred to corporate memory. If you had people with experience in investigating complaints, even if there were issues with consistency, and you subsequently have a whole new set of people, who are new to the organisation, to investigate complaints, you might think that inconsistency becomes more, rather than less, likely.

When we are talking about a lack of continuity in investigating MSP complaints, are we talking historically about the situation under a previous set of staff? Can you say a bit more about what you have done with the current team to ensure that there is consistency and continuity in how investigations take place?

Are you leading on every case now? Are you not delegating any of that work?

I am not really sure how to interrogate that—well, “interrogate” is the wrong word; I do not mean it in that way. I am not sure how to probe further in that regard, because of course you would give us that reassurance. You have put on the record today that, wherever you thought that there was a lack of clarity or you were not sure, you sought external legal advice as you went along. I suppose that there is a degree of reassurance in that.

Convener, some of my colleagues might want to expand on that point, so I will not hog this line of questioning. I anticipate that there might be some further questions in this area.

That is helpful, but let me broaden it out and ask the other witnesses. The reason for asking the question was that we do not know the reason for the progress that has been made. It could be to do with exceptional careers advice for young people or teachers prepping young people for their exit exams, but it could also be to do with successes three, four or five years ago, because that is how long the attainment challenge has been going for and how long significant amounts of PEF money have been in the system.

Earlier in the meeting, we spoke about early learning. I want to give one example, then ask about how we measure the success of that. I will also widen the question out to other witnesses.

A few years ago, one of my local primary schools encountered significant issues with what they thought of as physical literacy and the health and wellbeing of young people. The school used PEF money to bring in a third sector local organisation to do physical exercises—not physical education but physical workshops—with the young people over a period of time. The school told me that that led to pupils showing much greater confidence in the classroom and there being better interaction between the young people. Spending that money led to success. That was done with pupils in primary 1, P2 and P3. Those kids are now going through the education system. The point is: we do not know our successes until we achieve them.

That takes me back to the question about measurement. How do we know the successes that we are baking into the system for the future? Is there a longitudinal study going on? Is there a cohort of young people who were there at the start of the attainment challenge and who have been monitored as they have gone through that over the years? That is an open question. I am conscious that schools will say that they are already doing all the things that we are talking about here today. They will say, “There’s great work going on. Just let us get on with it.” How do we measure that in a way that is not bureaucratic but that will build an evidence base for doing more?

Perhaps Emma Congreve could answer first.