Seòmar agus comataidhean

It seems like some time ago that Louise Goodlad was talking about good examples of working with families and young people in secondary schools on employability, linking with businesses, CVs, interview experience and so on. It is worth noting that figures that came out yesterday showed a record level—more than 95 per cent—of young people in Scotland reaching a positive destination, so we must be doing something right in schools. I am sure that the third sector is a key partner in making sure that we get it right. Good things are happening, convener.

I cannot help but say that, in Glasgow, attainment levels are well above the national average and the city has met the significant challenge of young people in deprived communities reaching positive destinations. I have got that out of the way, convener. I wanted to say that I am very proud of my local authority.

How do we map the role of the third sector within that and maximise the benefit of the third sector? In 2021, analysis of PEF showed that 43 per cent of headteachers said that they were collaborating with the third sector, which means that more than half were not collaborating with the third sector. There is a contradiction and a tension, because we want headteachers and school communities to have the flexibility to spend the PEF money as they see fit, but I would want to assure myself that they are maximising the wider opportunities that are out there, including by contracting with the third sector.

I would welcome comments on whether there is a need for a more formal role in how schools engage with the third sector. There is no guarantee that the third sector would necessarily get funding from PEF, but should a more formal process be gone through in spending PEF? Given that I mentioned Louise Goodlad, it is only right that I ask her to respond first.

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 sorry to get hung up on the process, Mr Bruce. You lead on all MSP complaints, but you delegate the day-to-day investigatory responsibilities to one of a team of five. They are all fully trained in a new and refreshed investigations manual and encouraged to talk to each other and draw on each other for support. All that is in place.

When you get a final report from the investigating officer on your desk, it makes a recommendation about the complaint, which will almost certainly be admissible because it has got to that point. The report will show the investigating officer’s working and lay out the evidence. You, as commissioner, have to decide whether you will agree the recommendation and ratify or sanction it as the way forward or change the decision.

When you agree with the investigating officer and the recommendation moves forward, that is fine. However, there must be situations in which you do not agree with the recommendation that the investigating officer makes. That is okay; it is an important check and balance in the system. However, when that happens, what is the process for supporting your investigating officer with continuing professional development or a review of the case? What happens at that point? Is there a supportive learning experience for your investigating officer?

I am not asking for the numbers, but do you keep track of the number of times when you agree with the investigating officer’s conclusion and when you do not agree? Clearly, if there was an increasing number of situations in which the commissioner—any commissioner, not just you as acting commissioner—did not agree with the investigating officer’s conclusion, that might point to issues, weaknesses or challenges in the investigatory process.

I thought that that was going to be a straightforward question, but it might be a little bit more complicated now. However, it would be helpful for the committee to know the answers.

I just wanted to make sure that the committee was not missing any barrier to filling that post. I thank Mr Bruce for clarifying the position.

This is quite important because, clearly, your team will be watching this evidence session and our exchange. If I were a member of your team, I would absolutely be watching it—get back to your work if you are watching it right now; watch it later. I was not casting aspersions on your team. My questions were more about checks and balances in the system and whether, if the data flagged up something that needed to be attended to, that might be due to a lack of clarity in the investigations manual or a lack of clarity in processes more generally. Therefore, for staff who are watching this, it is important to say that I was not casting aspersions on them. I am looking at checks and balances in the system and the processes that underpin it.

I think that you are saying that it is not the case that the investigating officer goes away for three months and comes back with a conclusion to put on your desk. There is a weekly review process, so no one is going to go down a tangential path in an investigation that you are unaware of. You take a more collegiate approach to investigations. Have I captured that properly?

Thank you.

These last couple of questions from me are Covid related, and they concern the need for change in working practices. You will want to know what the level of satisfaction has been with appointment rounds on the part of panel and body chairs, as maintained through new ways of working during the pandemic. Your office is heavily involved in those appointments, and the processes had to be tweaked because of the pandemic. What has the level of satisfaction been among those panel and body chairs who have had to engage in that appointments process? What are their views on how it has been handled?

I will not explore that further, but thank you for putting that on the record.

I turn to my final question. Your annual report and accounts refer to planned activity that was suspended or postponed due to prioritisation of other work—understandably so. Can you explain more about what work was delayed and when you envisage that the delays will be addressed? I would imagine that that was unavoidable delay, but can you say a bit more about where those delays have been and when you think that the office will be able to catch up?