Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to provide a short update on Covid-19.

We have now reached a stage at which all legal restrictions relating to protective measures have been lifted. Although Covid has not gone away, that is a positive and welcome step in the right direction.

Through guidance, the Scottish Government will continue to recommend that people take a proportionate and risk-based approach to reducing the likelihood of getting or transmitting the virus. For example, our advice remains that it is sensible to continue to wear a face covering in some public indoor spaces and on public transport.

Getting vaccinated and receiving a booster vaccine remain the most important things that any of us can do to protect ourselves and others. The vaccination programme is continuing at pace.

In line with our test and protect transition plan, and informed by advice from public health officials and clinicians, we are adapting our testing programme to support the effective management of the virus as it becomes endemic. For example, although regular lateral flow testing is no longer recommended for the general public, some groups will remain eligible for free lateral flow testing. That includes unpaid carers and people who are visiting a hospital or care home.

The Scottish Government’s revised strategic framework will continue to inform our approach to managing the virus in the longer term. The framework of threat levels and potential responses provides as much clarity as possible for planning purposes while retaining crucial flexibility to ensure that any necessary responses are effective and proportionate. We will continue to monitor the prevalence and risk of new variants to ensure that we can respond to outbreaks and future health threats.

As we welcome the proportionate changes to our pandemic response, the Scottish Government continues to focus its efforts on supporting Scotland’s recovery and creating a fairer future for everyone—especially for those who have been most disproportionately affected during the pandemic. Our Covid recovery strategy sets out an ambitious vision for recovery that is shared by local government. Alongside the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I am overseeing a programme of activity that will increase the financial security of low-income households, enhance the wellbeing of children and young people, and create good, green jobs and fair work.

I am very happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Mr Johnson is correct; there is a tension there. There is a fundamental democratic question that the First Minister appoints a minister and essentially judges conduct in relation to a tabulated expectation of how our ministers should conduct themselves. The First Minister takes the code seriously in that respect and has those expectations of ministers, and that is made clear by the First Minister to ministers.

In relation to the perspective of the independent advisers, I would be entering into speculation, because I do not know what will come back from them. However, what I would say is that when you have advisers with the track record and credentials of Dame Elish Angiolini and Mr Hamilton, being open to hearing their perspectives is a good idea.

The fundamental point that I would make, which is made by the letter that the current permanent secretary, John-Paul Marks, sent to the convener some weeks ago—I have 10 March in my mind—is that the permanent secretary is an office holder. I do not want to make an obtuse remark or say anything that sounds disrespectful, but the permanent secretary is not an individual; they are an office holder. Any of the questions that Liz Smith or the committee is interested in can be put to the permanent secretary—and I understand that the permanent secretary is coming to the committee fairly shortly.

The point about accountability is absolutely fundamental. The permanent secretary is the leading civil servant in the Scottish Government and, as that office holder, they must be available to come to the committee and to answer questions on issues that are relevant to the Scottish Government at any time. I view the relationship as the same as that which I have with a parliamentary committee. I am here to answer on the Government’s behalf. In the letter to the convener, the permanent secretary made the point that civil servants do not act in an individual capacity; they act on behalf of ministers, and their authority comes from that relationship.

I hope that that addresses Liz Smith’s point.

On the questions about the difficulties that lay at the heart of the complaints procedure in 2018, those issues have been openly scrutinised in the process that was undertaken by a specific parliamentary committee prior to the 2021 election and in this committee’s scrutiny of the procedure that has arisen from those events, which is designed to address the issues that emerged during that process. This is my second appearance at committee to address some of those questions.

I do not want it to be viewed as a final element, because propriety and ethics has been established as a distinctive directorate in the Scottish Government in response to a lot of the experiences that we have had, in order to underpin all the work that we are undertaking.

I do not want the committee to think that we are only getting around to thinking about propriety and ethics at the very end. We have actually been thinking about it from the very beginning—it runs through the whole process. The words that I would highlight in the last element of our schematic are “review of the processes”, as opposed to a review of the propriety and ethics function, because propriety and ethics is embedded in the process that we are undertaking.

It is to take into account possible conflict-of-interest issues if people already have knowledge of the individuals, for example, and the fact that we inserted the appeals procedure. If we have an individual to investigate and we then go to appeal, we will need a separate decision maker and so on, and we will need to again ensure that there is no prior involvement. As Ian Mitchell said, there is no hard and fast judgment on the numbers. The decision was made simply to give us that range and flexibility.

The people survey is published, isn’t it?

On the point about timescale, we indicated that, three months after the publication of the procedure, we would invite feedback from the independent advisers. That will be towards the end of May and I expect us to have feedback within that timescale. The First Minister will then reflect on that feedback to determine whether any changes will be made to the code as a consequence, given the responsibility that she carries for its formulation.

In relation to the scope, the advisers will consider any interaction of the complaints handling process with the ministerial code, and whether that flows through in a smooth fashion. I anticipate that their recommendations will be in that space. However, I would not want to constrain the reflections of the independent advisers. I know that the First Minister will be happy to hear any reflections that they have on that question or perhaps questions that stretch beyond that particular relationship, but that would be me prejudging what we will hear from the independent advisers. We will know that in the next month or so.

The final point that I will make is about the nature of the ministerial code. What I am going to say I do not say in any pejorative sense. The atmosphere around ministerial codes, particularly in relation to the position of the United Kingdom Government, raises a serious issue about the significance of the ministerial code and its implementation and application.

As a minister who is bound by the code but is not a decision maker in relation to the code, I view adherence to the code as my fundamental duty as a minister. It guides and shapes my conduct and actions. I would like to think that I do not need to a ministerial code to guide and shape my conduct and actions, but it is there is a backstop to make sure that I know what is expected of me. It has to be taken with that degree of seriousness and applied with that degree of seriousness, because without that, it is meaningless.

Mr Johnson’s question gives me the opportunity to put that on the record as a reflection of what I think is the view of ministers. The ministerial code is there to be complied with, and the last thing that a minister wants is there to be any speculation about whether his or her conduct or actions has in any way brought the code into question.

I do not take that view, for the reasons that I have set out. A lot of the questions about what went wrong with the process and procedure were clearly and openly aired at the committee prior to the 2021 election. Indeed, one of the issues that the convener has just questioned me about was the necessity for there to be no prior involvement of individuals in a particular case, and I went back to that point a couple of times in my responses. That was one of the significant flaws in the previous handling, which became very clear at the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints.

Although I understand the Liz Smith’s point that this committee did not undertake that exercise, my contention is that another parliamentary committee did so, and we are now in the process of learning the lessons from that and changing practice as a consequence. I am very happy to engage with the committee about that, and I am certain that the permanent secretary will be happy to do so, likewise.

Yes.

First, I accept Mr Lumsden’s point that there is a specific issue to do with agency workers. We took that away after it was raised with me at a previous evidence session. The judgment is difficult because the individual is not an employee of the Scottish Government but, essentially, they must be able to raise any concerns that they have through their own employment channels. Assuming that the organisation for which the individual works has appropriate human resources processes in place to enable that to be the case, the Scottish Government must have in place appropriate contractual relationships with a contractor in order to make sure that, should any issues be drawn to the contractor’s attention as an employer, those issues are addressed by the Scottish Government. That would have to be done under a contract management relationship, but if that involved any issues of ministerial interaction, we would have to address that through our own processes as an organisation.

It would not necessarily be through that process, which is available to members of staff, but we would have an obligation to address those issues because of our obligations under contract. You cannot have contractual relationships that do not work in an appropriate fashion; we would have a contractual obligation to address any issues.