Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am, as always, conscious of the time and the contribution necessary to get these things over the line.

My amendments relate to the reporting duty by which the use of multi-agency approaches will be held to account. The fact is that no one solution will help any individual young person; what is required is the coming together of different areas of support. There is an obligation on the Scottish ministers to ensure that those different areas can come together, are recognised and can have a say in supporting our young people. Amendment 188 requires the steps that have been taken and approaches that have been pursued to be set out, to allow us to hold to account the Scottish Government or the Scottish ministers as those responsible for such approaches.

I have a question for clarification. Has the minister considered a situation in which there might be disagreement between the provider and the senior social worker, and whether the senior social worker’s decision would prevail in that case?

I am very supportive of the proposals that are set out here, but the minister will be aware that one of the challenges is how that information is disseminated, particularly by people who are close to a young person in the system. Given that the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 makes reference to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which is obviously reserved, is the minister content that there is sufficient control and coverage of social media—say, TikTok or Facebook—so that that would amount to a broadcast that would allow a potential breach to be investigated and pursued?

Item 2 concerns a report that we have received from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland on a public appointment. The report examines the methods and practices that the appointing minister used in making appointments to the Scottish Local Authority Remuneration Committee. The purpose of the commissioner’s examination was to determine whether there had been a change of policy during the appointment process that precluded serving councillors from sitting on SLARC due to their having an unmanageable conflict of interest.

During the examination, the commissioner established that the “Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland” had not been complied with and that the principles of merit and integrity had been breached. A serving councillor who applied in good faith and was found to be suitable for appointment by the selection panel was not appointed by the appointing minister. The commissioner found that the appointment process was not fair and transparent.

The commissioner engaged with the Scottish Government officials during and after the appointment process. His recommendations are listed in paragraph 17 of the report, which was laid before Parliament with the reference CES/2023/02.

The committee is invited to agree what action—if any—it wishes to take in relation to the commissioner’s report. The committee may wish to consider writing to the Scottish Government to confirm its response on the points that are raised in the report and to inquire about the extent to which the recommendations in it have been addressed.

I invite comments from members, who have had a chance to look at the report. Is there anything that you would like to raise?

Excellent. The committee will write to the Scottish Government to ask about the extent to which the recommendations have been implemented.

Is the committee also content to write to the commissioner about his report?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome, everyone, to the first meeting in 2024 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received apologies from Stephen Kerr MSP.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Item 3 is consideration of a complaint that has been made against the cross-party group on drug and alcohol misuse, and item 4 is consideration of the committee’s work programme.

Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful to members for that.

Excellent. I close the public part of the meeting.

Excellent. Is the rest of the committee happy with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

That is helpful.

Ivan, did you want to comment?