³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

From your experience of Government, do you think that all boards are held equally accountable by ministers? There are a substantial number of public bodies and some ministers are responsible for a substantial proportion of them. Boards such as Scottish Enterprise, SQA and Creative Scotland are the high-profile public bodies—a large section of the population will have some interaction with them—but a number of other bodies fall a little bit into the background. At ministerial level, is there sufficiently consistent scrutiny of the performance of boards?

That would certainly be the case. It is my view that Parliament has not been as effective as we could have been in scrutiny of the boards of public bodies. That said, Parliament could always do more than it will ever have capacity for.

I will take the example that you gave of Scottish Enterprise and the letter of guidance. Is it core to the board’s purpose—separate from the senior management team and the people who deliver for and operate the organisation—to scrutinise how effectively the organisation, through its senior management team, have delivered what is in your letter of guidance in terms of strategic priorities? Perhaps it is the board’s purpose to scrutinise the internal governance of the organisation—it is almost divorced from the purpose of the organisation—as would be the case for any other public body.

I have a final question. Is there sufficient turnover on the boards of public bodies? I refer to people who have active experience on boards. I am aware that a number of individuals move from the board of one public body to the board of another and will be involved in corporate governance of public sector bodies over a continuous period. Is there high enough turnover in Scotland as a whole for us to bring in people who have direct experience of the sector in which the board works, or who have other relevant experience? Could we do with a little bit more scrutiny of an individual’s length of service across public sector governance, rather than just the individual board on which they might be serving at any given time?

I want to return to accountability. I am interested specifically in the Government’s position on the role of boards of public bodies and of non-departmental public bodies. It seems to me that the board of a public body could play a variety of roles. There is a bog-standard corporate governance role—whereby the board focuses on issues such as human resources practices—or it can look more at the operational policy decisions of the body for which it is responsible.

I will give an example that I used in a previous evidence session. The board of Creative Scotland is largely made up of professionals from the creative industries who understand that area of public policy. By contrast, the board of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, with which the cabinet secretary will be familiar, has a teacher on it, but it also has three management consultants. That would be entirely legitimate if the purpose of the board of a public body was to focus on corporate governance issues such as HR, but it seems to me that there is inconsistency in how the boards of public bodies in Scotland understand their functions and purpose. What is the Government’s position on the purpose of those boards?

Convener, I think that John Dickie is looking to come in with a word on Bob Doris’s final question.

We will probably want to return to that issue.

I go back to the deputy convener’s line of questioning on the positive interventions that have been made over the past 18 months. Last week, the committee heard evidence from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. He made the point that the pandemic—perversely, given its overwhelmingly negative consequences—did allow for some breakthroughs and positive developments. For example, in some cases, remote learning gave schools an opportunity to connect with young people who were already disengaged from school, and with their families, in a way that they had not been able to do successfully before.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on whether there have been any positive interventions or developments caused by the pandemic that we are now in danger of losing as we return to normal, whatever that means. Are there any particular changes in practice that, although they were caused by a change of circumstances that was overwhelmingly outwith our control, we should look to preserve because of the benefits that they brought about? I am thinking about developments beyond the stuff that John Dickie mentioned, such as additional funding and free school meals. I am interested in changes in practice, in particular. Perhaps John can start on that.

Before I go on to my main line of questioning, I will pick up on Colin Morrison’s point about the UNCRC. During the bill process and since the bill was passed, everyone in the public sector and politics that I have encountered has broadly been speaking the same language about the UNCRC, but I am concerned that there is inconsistency in understanding how it will change the practice of service providers and so on. Colin Morrison made a valid point about the difference between local flexibility and inconsistency in compliance with rights. Do you think that there is a broad and consistent understanding across Scotland about what the UNCRC will actually mean for service providers and their practice?

Thank you, convener. I will be as brief as possible. I will return to the point about diagnosis that Kaukab Stewart brought up. We need to do a lot more to look into the discrepancies—the racial and cultural disparity, as well as the gender disparity in particular, given that girls really struggle to get autism diagnoses. I am interested in the witnesses’ perspectives on diagnoses across the board and the impact of lockdown on that. Despite the fact that the overall number of diagnosed additional needs has gone up, I am working on the presumption that, in some cases, it would have been hard, if not impossible, to get a diagnosis during lockdown. Does that mean that a backlog has built up between last summer and now? Are there further delays in the system for getting a diagnosis, or is that part of the system still working relatively well and the problem is assigning the relevant support once the diagnosis has been confirmed?

I have a second question, before I come to Laurie Black. Maybe I will roll them into one, given the time constraints—I hope that you do not mind, Laurie.

A number of points have been made about support staff. The job title varies—school assistants, classroom assistants, pupil support assistants—but the role is, in essence, the same: providing support to children who have been diagnosed with additional needs. Should there be any requirement for qualifications for any member of staff who provides that kind of one-to-one support? Standard practice in most schools is to assign general classroom assistants to that role. I do not wish to denigrate those people but, in most cases, they have no specific qualifications in additional support needs. Should support staff who are assigned to help young people with additional needs be required to have some kind of qualification in ASN?

Thank you. That is all from me, convener.