Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure that it is my experience that people know that. They might know the name of the health board. In my area, they would know that it is Forth Valley NHS Board because the hospital is called Forth Valley hospital; that is probably why they would know that.

You said earlier—I forget how you termed it—that there is an attempt to make sure that the standard of service that people receive across the country is the same. That is often called for in relation to local government, which ignores the fact that there are 32 different mandates in local government but that is not the case in the health service. If you are trying to achieve, quite reasonably, a standard level of service for everybody across the country, is that not another negation of the idea that we need to have 22 health boards?

My last question is about comparative evidence. What comparisons do you carry out in various areas? The obvious comparisons would be with Wales, Northern Ireland and England. We have talked about it in relation to attracting the right number of candidates to go on to NHS boards. What are the lessons that could be drawn from what happens down south? Apparently, as we heard earlier, the lesson to be drawn in Wales is to do what Scotland does. What comparisons do you do with elsewhere in the UK to give yourself a sense check of the issues and how well you are dealing with them, particularly in relation to staffing and getting the right personnel in?

If it is not too much of a surprise, I will hand back to you, convener.

I am conscious of what you were saying earlier about the development of scrutiny of public appointments. Back in 2007, when I was first elected to the Parliament, a separate committee of the Parliament dealt with public appointments, and I think that I became the first convener of the then Standards and Public Appointments Committee, which joined the two functions together. Since then—I spent a decade of the intervening time making ministerial appointments—the role with regard to public appointments has hugely expanded, as has the role with regard to audit. It is a bit of a chimera that that is all down to ministers. Ministers’ freedom of choice is fundamentally limited, not least because of the code of conduct and the various things that you ask them to do and ensure are done. However, that is also due to the nature of civil servants who, perhaps naturally, will tend to focus on like-minded people. They are the ones who will draw up the shortlist by and large, although I concede the point that they will ask ministers for suggestions.

Given all the rules around appointments, to what extent is the environment in which ministers are being asked to operate in order to make appointments now counterproductive? As Jamie Greene mentioned, the freedom to take account of diversity is much more constrained now, because the candidate has to fit the model. Furthermore, we are operating in an environment in which the failure rate to appoint in the first round is 25 per cent.

Consideration of diversity in public appointments must include the ability to look from outside, to be objective about it and to think afresh. To what extent have you looked afresh at the impact of what you do in the appointments process?

The point that I am making is that civil servants are absolutely assiduous at making sure that they comply with the code and that that might be an issue in itself. I was not making the point that feedback from ministers might inform some further thinking. How have you sought to ensure that you have looked at the issue as much as you can from outside? If the environment is such that there is a 25 per cent failure rate—there are other challenges—we are not getting this right.

I should say that the view of ministers, certainly when I was in post, was that your office is co-operative and is pragmatic in applying the rules. However, is the environment such that the freedom to get less conventional candidates even on to a shortlist is being nullified?

If we are agreed on the fact that there is more than enough talent to fulfil all the roles, something is happening, given the failure rate and the inability to appoint to the positions as and when required. That would suggest that something in the system is not allowing us to tap into that talent.

On your point about our needing to step back and look more widely, have you drawn any comparisons with what happens in Wales, Northern Ireland or England in relation to those issues?

Thanks very much.

How would you justify the blurring as opposed to the elimination of boundaries? Why is blurring the right way to go?

Would you say that it is systematic?

I have quite a few questions, mainly for Rachael Browning. First, the notion that the Scottish Government has introduced the possibility of a visitor levy to hide cuts does not seem to fit with a £20 million increase this year and a £100 million increase up until 2028-29. You mention that £4 million is going into the new funding programme for museums: museum futures. You also say:

“We hope that museums will receive a fair share of the funding yet to be allocated”.

Would the £4 million come out of the £20 million? If not, do you want that further fair share of funding to come on top of the £20 million?