Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is right to say that, although the act itself was from very early on in the Parliament, it was a very—I will not say unique—unusual set of circumstances that led to it. Perhaps engagement at a later date about data and what can be deduced from it, the difference between complaints and cases, and the number of MSPs involved would be beneficial. I am grateful for your indication that you would be happy to have that engagement.

Thank you. With the usual fun and games as convener, I will go first and steal all the best questions.

Before we start, I say that the continuing honesty in the annual report about the challenges that you, as the commissioner, and your office have faced is very welcome. A number of external comments have pointed to failings in the commissioner’s office in the recent past. All the evidence that was given at the Public Audit Committee last week and the various reports on the issue contain comments to the effect that there has been great change, but there is still change to come and that it will be some time before confidence in your office—and, indeed, in you—is rebuilt.

What do you feel about seeing those comments, as commissioner? Do they resonate with you? Do you understand them, and are you committed to continue to reach for the higher standards that you have spoken about in your report?

Those are welcome comments. Rather than say, “I hope that they don’t come back to haunt you,” I will say that I hope that they give you and others around you the confidence to carry on and achieve that.

I want to get into some of the detail and in particular something that I know that you are aware has interested me significantly, which is the relationship with your staff when they have concerns. We have previously taken evidence, as have other committees, about the formalised whistleblowing provisions that exist. However, interestingly, in the evidence that was given to the Public Audit Committee last week—I will quote from it, as I would like your comments on it—Pat Kenny said:

“The routes that staff can use if they are concerned about the office holder in the future have been re-emphasised within the organisation. For example, one route that has been emphasised involves going to Audit Scotland to raise certain concerns. The accountable officer of the ethical standards commissioner can also go to the accountable officer of the corporate body, and it has been clarified that there is a reporting route to the chair of the audit advisory board if there are concerns within the organisation.”

He gave a little bit more evidence and then said:

“I would be keeping a very close eye on that process to ensure that it beds in and is implemented effectively, because it is key that that be put right. Progress has certainly been made in that respect, but it is very important that the audit function continues to look at that issue.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 2 March 2023; c 7.]

The issue is not just about financial audit; it is about the first green to amber warning signs that something is going wrong. Will you comment on that and, I hope, give confirmation to the committee that you agree with that evidence? Also, what are the challenges with regard to that issue going forward?

That is very helpful. My final question is, unfortunately, an incredibly specific one but, again, it is about something that I have had an interest in for a while.

The Deloitte audit report included a list of recommendations, which now sit in the public domain. One of them was:

“The Commissioner’s Office should engage with the SPCB and Parliament to determine the reporting route for concerns about a Commissioner”.

The management update on that is worrying in the sense that there is no revised target date because input seems to be required from the SPCB. Given that we are looking at the annual report for last year, can you bring the committee up to date on engagement with the SPCB, particularly on that point, with regard to the structures that you have already described?

Do you have confidence that the complainer will not misunderstand the different processes that are involved? I will turn that round. Do you have confidence that your website will show the route that will apply to the complainer, depending on who they are complaining about, and what is needed for their complaint to be registered, investigated and concluded?

That is helpful.

That is very helpful. I will obviously speak to Stuart McMillan, and, as a committee, we will write to him and suggest that we are anxious to hear his contribution when we look at the next stage of proxy voting.

For clarification, there are not 16 elements sitting at red on your risk register, are there?

There are 16 elements in total.

That is helpful. I can see the formal route that has been charted, but the reality is that all of this is based on relationships and confidence. Somebody who, to use a slightly archaic term, perceives that they have less power than the person whom they are concerned about and, indeed, less power than the person whom they are speaking to, needs to have strong relationships that allow them to raise issues. On a practical level, do you have confidence that such relationships exist, in the sense that someone could approach an individual and say, “Can I just have a word?”

You have spoken about the considerable change and increase in staffing. Such processes always present challenges in keeping the confidence or the identity, but they are also an opportunity to build the identity that you want.

Are you confident that the relationships are strong enough and exist for the process to work? Do you see the opportunity, with the changing personnel, to build an identity that you are happy with and that your staff are happy to be part of?