Chamber and committees

From the bulk of what we have seen to date as regards how complaints are raised, progressed and investigated, the application of the ministerial code will determine the outcomes of any such process, which will be judged by the code. I note that the independent advisers on the ministerial code will come back within three months of the procedure’s publication. Will the Deputy First Minister clarify when that is likely to happen, even in broad terms?

More importantly, given the sensitivity of the matter and given that, as we discussed previously, it comes down to ministerial discretion—especially from the First Minister—to decide whether the code has been broken, what are the parameters of the review that James Hamilton and Dame Elish Angiolini are undertaking? Will it simply be about the formulation and content of the code or will they also examine its operation?

I agree with all that, but there will always be a tension when the questions are centred on the person who is also responsible for deciding whether the code has been broken or whether to apply it. From our previous discussion, I recognise the democratic reasons for that—I do—but there is a tension nonetheless. Is that an area for reflection by the independent advisers, and has there been any dialogue on that?

I have two broad areas of questions. One is about progress and the other is about some of the content of future work, especially on the ministerial code.

On progress, I note that briefings with ministers have taken place, and I wonder if you could elaborate on the form that those briefings took, and whether every minister has received a briefing. I assume that the procedure will be most relevant to those civil servants who have the closest contact with ministers.

On the wider piece of work on information and training, has there been prioritisation among more senior civil servants, such as at director general or director level, and in private offices? If so, what progress has been made with that sort of targeted training?

I note that part of the recommendations is that an induction or training session should be put in place for ministers. Has that been put together? Is it in place? If not, when will it be in place?

I will delve into that a bit more. One of the reasons why we do not invoke the national performance framework in Parliament that much is that it is not referred to very often in the guidance that is set out by ministers, in the legislation when bodies are brought into being or, indeed, in the regular reporting by way of ministerial statements or the budget. Although I accept your point that the Parliament could use it, it is ultimately the Government that has set the framework and that invokes it. It is less likely that the rest of us will use it voluntarily. Do you agree with that assessment?

I have a final question. I take the broad view that, if things are useful, they get used. If, as you are saying, the national performance framework is not being used as much as it could be used, is that a reflection of the content of the framework? Does there need to be a re-examination of whether those are the right measures providing the right insights? If the framework was useful and insightful, surely your colleagues and our colleagues in the Parliament would be using it much more.

Thanks very much, Douglas. I believe that Alasdair Allan has a question.

I think that we all prefer carrots to sticks.

I do not believe that any members have any further questions, so I will ask one final question myself. I have listened with interest and reflected a little bit on some of the things that were raised by both John Mason and Douglas Lumsden about the structure of the performance framework. I think that John’s observation is that the first level is very broad, but when you step into it, you get into a very micro level very quickly. When you look at the individual indicators, you see that a lot of them are not just one measurement but several different measurements. They are presented in words and—thinking about what Douglas Lumsden was saying—they are largely outputs rather than inputs.

First, does there need to be more focus, particularly with interactions? It may be obvious where indicators are relevant for Anna Fowlie’s members, but there are very many different indicators that Registers of Scotland, for example, could touch on. It would not necessarily be helpful for an organisation such as Registers of Scotland to look at all of them all at once, so do we need almost to task individual organisations or bits of the Government with looking at particular measures and almost give them a mission?

Thinking about the inputs and outputs perspective, I wonder whether, rather than just thinking about outcomes, we need to think about how we measure change. I wonder whether there needs to be a focus on identifying measures that will change other things, or at least on having a prospectus that says, “We believe that we can change this area by doing X or Y.” For example, in health and wellbeing, it would be about measuring exercise or even the consumption of fruit and vegetables, because those are inputs that will result in the output.

Are those two thoughts ones that your group might consider or regard as welcome?

Yes. I guess that another analogy would be measuring acceleration rather than speed—one is a dynamic measure and one is static.

I have a question from Michelle Thomson, who is travelling, which is why I am relaying it to you. She asks:

“Why has the Scottish Government not mandated all organisations to state exactly how all organisational plans align to the NPF and where possible that funding settlements are predicated on that? Surely this would change behaviours.”