³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

I have another line of questioning, but I would first like to stick with the issue of attendance.

Bruce, at the start, you mentioned the group of young people who had been disengaged from school before the pandemic but who found remote learning quite beneficial, as it provided them with a route back in. We know that, overwhelmingly, the pandemic has thrown up barriers rather than taking them down, but in that case, it has done the opposite.

Have you had any discussions with young people in that situation recently—in other words, since August, when schools moved back to the default of in-person learning? Has the progress that was made with that specific cohort been undone by what has happened as we have returned to normality, or has some of that progress been maintained?

Sally Cavers, is the experience of the families that you work with similar?

If Ramon Hutchingson is looking to come in, I will be very happy to hear his thoughts.

Before Stephen McGhee or Linda O’Neill comes in, if they wish to, I note that I take on board Michael Marra’s point that looking back is useful but looking forward is more important. Some local authorities have made significant improvements, partly because of the additional scrutiny of their practices that the pandemic provided. From what you have seen so far, have local authorities taken the approach of permanently embedding those processes into what they do or are we in danger of it being a one-off experience—that Covid required an additional level of impact assessment and we will go back to the way in which we did things before? Have we normalised that approach or does the culture in local authorities mean that it is all seen as pandemic related and so not required to continue in normal work?