³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

At different stages in the procedure, we have tried to put in time factors to suggest pace and momentum around the process. Fundamentally, the issue that Mr Lumsden raises is a matter for stage 1, which I view to be a pretty routine administrative exercise to determine whether a complaint is within the scope of the policy as defined. If it is, it will proceed. If not, there is a designated process, which again is quite swift, for engagement with the complainer to set out why the matter is judged not to be in the scope of the policy.

I suppose that that is the moment at which, if the Government has missed something in the administrative process, the individual will be able to raise that. That is a sort of appeal. At the very beginning, if an individual has been told that we do not judge the complaint to be within the scope of the policy, they will have an opportunity to have an early conversation and to say that they disagree, and why. Obviously, there is the opportunity to revisit those questions, which could perhaps lead to consideration.

We have put in certain timescales depending on the nature of complaints. The convener raised with me the question of having a time limit for some matters and no time limit for others. That is simply to try to ensure that we are respectful to members of staff and the issues that they may wish to raise, but also that issues are resolved as quickly as possible.

If the matter is not proceeded with following stage 1, the person will not find out about that.

We are happy to give Mr Greer and the committee a definitive list of the dialogue that has taken place.

Again, it is difficult for me to be precise. I refer back to the desire to create a mutually respectful environment in which ministers and staff work. Specific and appropriate steps to ensure that that approach was being applied in all circumstances would be at the heart of any remedial action that was required under the policy.

I will highlight the crucial lessons that have been learned. First, there is a need for a clearly articulated policy approach for the handling of any complaints that arise. A great deal of thought and care has gone into consideration of the relevant issues and how they should be handled and expressed. That information is in front of the committee. As I stressed in my opening remarks, we have shared it with Parliament at this stage, but it is not the final product. There is still space for us to reflect on any points that the committee raises with me, and there is on-going discussion with recognised trade unions and with staff.

The second lesson that we have learned is the importance of ensuring that, should any issues arise, they are addressed promptly and early. That might be by means of informal resolution, which is one option in the handling of such matters. However, if that is not practical or possible, as I have just expressed, there will be a policy through which we can refer the matter and have it handled.

Thirdly, it is necessary for there to be independent decision making at every stage of the process.

The final lesson is that we must all dedicate our energies to creating a respectful working environment in which relationships between ministers and officials are appropriate for all circumstances.

Those are essential elements of the character and nature of any policy approach. It is critical that both those tests or maxims are properly followed in how the policy is exercised. To achieve that, we have sought detailed advice on employment and public law.

There is not always a neat compatibility between the requirements of employment law and the requirements of public law, so there is a need to essentially reflect on those streams of thinking in arriving at a rounded policy approach. In my judgment, I have presented to the committee an approach that takes due account of protecting the employment rights of individuals and ensures that those are handled in the appropriate public law environment that allows natural justice to be properly taken into account in any aspect of the decision making. For example, there is an appeals mechanism in the policy that might not be present to the extent that it is present in this policy in an employment law situation, but to take due account of the public law issues, I consider it to be safer to have that appeals mechanism to the degree that it is in the policy, to address the fundamental issue that you put to me, convener.

That decision would be made within the management function in the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has to handle the administration—if I can use that term—of the complaint, and that aspect is literally an administrative handling function. It would be done within Ian Mitchell’s propriety and ethics team, which would apportion a case to a panel of external investigators and adjudicators.

We are currently recruiting—my officials will correct me if I am wrong—five external investigators and five external adjudicators. From that panel, the Scottish Government propriety and ethics team will select individuals. Crucially, at each stage in the process, the same person cannot revisit detail of the previous stages. If the case came to appeal, the individual who was selected to handle the appeal would be a different individual from the one who had taken an earlier decision in the case.

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

When we published the proposals, the trade unions made clear their public support for the policy, as it has been developed. However, I have other accountability, such as to the Parliament, to think about. It is important that the Parliament is able to express any views that it wishes to express. Were the Parliament to provide us, through the committee, with other issues that it judged should be addressed, we would obviously discuss those issues further with the trade unions.

The decision would be taken at that early stage of considering whether the complaint is within the scope of the policy. However, the member of staff would have the ability to challenge that in a subsequent follow-up discussion.