Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think so, but I will reflect on that point. I agree with Mr Lumsden’s fundamental point that bad behaviour is bad behaviour in whatever circumstances it manifests itself, so I will take that point away and reflect on it. My view is that this is, in essence, an employment policy about our employees. Let us say for argument’s sake that a member of contracting staff who is temporarily in the organisation has an experience that they want to complain about. I suggest that that should be taken forward through their employment channel and by whoever manages their contractual relationship. The issue can be resolved in that way, because there might well be a contractual relationship between the Government and that external party. However, I will take that point away to consider it further.

Frankly, that is the dilemma. There are many legal considerations that we have to focus on, one of which is our duties in relation to the general data protection regulation, which obviously applies significant obligations on us in relation to how we handle information internally. In a sense, Mr Lumsden’s question airs the dilemmas on the issue. However, having looked at all the various obligations, I think that the way in which the policy sets out the position takes due account of them.

That is why, in my answer to John Mason, I indicated that a judgment has to be arrived at on a case-by-case basis. I am not, in any shape or form, saying that all matters must be referred to the police—I am expressly not saying that. I am expressly saying that we have to give consideration to that question on a case-by-case basis and that, in that judgment, we have to be aware of the particular obligations that Government carries to exercise its functions in a transparent and open fashion, given the information that comes into the Government’s possession.

Thank you, convener. I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee.

In June last year, the Scottish Government set out its response to the review by Laura Dunlop QC, the investigation by James Hamilton and the report by the Scottish Parliament Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints. At the heart of those reports were complaints from two women concerning the unacceptable behaviour that they experienced while carrying out their duties as civil servants. The Scottish Government apologises unreservedly to the two women we let down, and it is only right that we ensure that the lessons that we have learned are put into practice.

In the development of the updated procedure for making a formal complaint about the behaviour of a minister or former minister, we are determined to build a culture in Government in which concerns are addressed early and in which all those who are involved with a complaint have confidence and can engage constructively and fairly in the process.

Since the publication of our response, we have put significant effort into engagement and into updating the procedure. We have worked in partnership with our trade unions, and we have listened to those with lived experiences of bullying and harassment. Careful thought and detailed work have been put into the procedure’s development, and we have drawn on the three reports’ findings, professional perspectives and lessons that have been learned within the Scottish Government.

During this time, we have also made progress on the wider context in which the procedure fits. We have invested in the routes to support and the alternative resolutions that are available to staff where appropriate. I am deeply grateful to all the people who have worked on and contributed to the procedure that we will discuss today.

I believe that the procedure is fair and robust. It is crucial in helping us to build a positive and respectful culture in which there are the highest standards of behaviour, in which productive working relationships are valued and nurtured, in which bullying and harassment are not tolerated and, crucially, in which there is trust in how matters will be handled if things go wrong.

We have deliberately dedicated more time to engagement on the procedure. Having listened to stakeholder feedback, including external perspectives, we are publishing our progress to Parliament as a first phase of improvement and as part of a wider programme of work. We are presenting the procedure with a short period of time to offer a further phase of engagement with staff, trade unions and Parliament before it comes into operation in February.

Important as the updated procedure is, it will not in itself lead to the change in culture and behaviour that we want to see; it is a matter of continually improving. The necessary improvements go beyond the updated procedure. We have been responsive to that and have set out a comprehensive range of actions to apply the insights from the reports. The specific activities that are highlighted in the implementation plan have been completed, but the work does not stop there. We will continue to apply insights from the lessons that we have learned to ensure that we build a positive culture that values inclusion and supports staff wellbeing.

I assure the committee that ministers are committed to fulfilling our responsibilities in building a culture of mutual respect between ministers and officials. Such relationships require on-going care and attention, being clear on standards of behaviour, promoting the best relationships and being open and honest at an early stage when there is a sense that relationships might be strained and we might be in danger of falling below our high standards.

Above all, we must ensure that we have a safe and respectful working environment, and I believe that our work in the months since the conclusion of the inquiry and the reports has laid a strong foundation for that to happen.

It is important that there is proactive engagement with staff and ministers on the appropriate culture of mutual respect. I would address that question in a different fashion, convener, by referring to the proactive work that is being undertaken. We saw that with the ministerial induction programme that took place post-election to make sure that ministers were aware of what was expected of them in terms of their conduct and behaviour. We also saw that with the wider roll-out to staff of the culture of mutual respect that we believe is essential. That is undertaken in a way that promotes best practice rather than working by definition in the fashion that you put to me. My response to that point is to indicate that we need to invest our energy in ensuring that there is a culture of mutual respect between ministers and staff, in which productive working relationships are valued and nurtured and we are all aware of what good practice is and follow it at all times.

The comments that I have put on the record are a recognition of what everybody who is involved in the activity, whether they are a civil servant or a minister, should expect. The culture in which tasks in public office are undertaken must follow the style and approach that I talked about in my opening statement. That is the focus of our thinking and activity. My contention is that many such elements and foundations are deeply ingrained in the operation of the civil service and of Government, but we must ensure that it feels like that for absolutely everybody. In all circumstances, that must be the experience of individuals who work in that environment. We are committed to ensuring that that is the case.

It is carried out by civil servants in the Scottish Government.

It is about any aspects of working practice. That would be the best definition to use.

Lesley Fraser or Ian Mitchell will set out the process that is being undertaken to recruit the panel of five independent adjudicators and five independent investigators. Perhaps Ian can provide some detail on that.

Yes—of course.