►
From YouTube: Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints - 25 August 2020
Description
Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints
A
A
I
won't
repeat
my
statement
from
the
start
of
last
week's
meeting,
but
I
refer
members,
witnesses
and
media
to
its
terms.
In
summary,
we
are
bound
by
the
terms
of
our
remit
and
the
relevant
court
orders,
including
the
need
to
avoid
contempt
of
court
by
identifying
certain
individuals,
including
through
jigsaw
identification.
A
The
committee
as
a
whole
has
agreed
that
it
is
not
our
role
to
revisit
events
that
were
a
focus
of
the
trial
that
could
be
seen
to
constitute
a
re-run
of
the
criminal
trial.
Our
remit
is
quite
clear.
It
states
to
consider
and
report
on
the
actions
of
the
first
minister,
scottish
government
officials
and
special
advisers
in
dealing
with
complaints
about
alex
salmond
former
first
minister,
considered
under
the
scottish
government's
handling
of
harassment,
complaints
involving
current
or
former
ministers
and
procedure
and
actions
in
relation
to
the
scottish
ministerial
code.
A
The
more
we
get
into
specifics
of
evidence,
the
more
we
run
the
risk
of
jigsaw
identification
as
previously
explained
I'd,
be
grateful
if
members
questions
and
witnesses
answers
could
reflect
these
terms
and
in
return
I'll
endeavour
to
let
the
evidence
sessions
flow
within
our
legal
limits
wherever
possible.
Please
also
avoid
naming
specific
government
officials
unless
they
were
central
to
the
development
of
the
policy.
A
Lastly,
for
ease
of
navigation,
where
possible,
please
refer
to
the
document
reference
number
and
footnote
reference.
If
asking
on
a
particular
record
submitted
by
the
government
with
that,
may
I
welcome
james
hind,
head
of
cabinet
parliament
and
governance
division
of
the
scottish
government,
and
can
I
begin
by
inviting
mr
hind
to
take
the
oath?
Yes,
if
you
would
raise
your
right
hand,
please
mr
hyde
and
then
repeat
after
me,
I
swear
by
almighty
god.
I.
B
B
B
B
The
procedure
was
approved
by
the
permanent
secretary,
given
her
duty
of
care
for
the
staff
of
the
scottish
government
and
by
the
first
minister
as
the
arbiter
of
ministerial
standards
of
behavior
convener.
In
answering
questions,
I
will
draw
upon
the
report
that
the
scottish
government
has
provided
to
the
committee,
as
well
as
to
the
supporting
documentation
and
the
chronology
of
events
that
we
also
supplied
for
the
avoidance
of
doubt
convener,
I'm
giving
evidence
to
the
committee
on
behalf
on
behalf
of
ministers
and
not
in
a
personal
capacity
today
and
finally
convener.
B
C
B
I
immediately,
prior
to
this
role,
I
held
a
a
role
within
the
corporate
centre
of
the
organization
and
had
responsibility
for,
amongst
many
other
things,
buildings
and
estates
of
the
scottish
government.
That
meant
I
was
responsible
for
a
time
for
the
functioning
of
butte
house
as
well
as
many
other
buildings.
The
scottish
government
has
around
the
country
and
I
would
occasionally
have
contact
with
the
former
first
minister
in
that
role.
B
C
B
B
C
B
Yes,
yes,
well
I
mean
it's:
all
staff
are
invited
to
take
part
in
the
people
survey
and
as
ahead
of
a
division,
I
receive
results
about
my
division
and
I,
along
with
every
other
senior
manager.
I
consider
them
very
careful
in
terms
of
what
they
tell
me
about
the
operation
and
staff
sentiment
of
the
the
colleagues
who
work
for
me.
So
it's
a
very
important
milestone
in
the
the
course
of
the
year
for
the
for
the
scottish
government.
B
So,
as
I'm
as
a
head
of
a
division,
I
would
get
a
local
report
about
my
division,
which
numbers
about
25
staff.
So
that's
very
particular
to
my
circumstances.
So,
along
with
my
team
leaders,
who
spend
a
lot
of
time
analyzing
what
that
means,
what
staff
are
telling
us
both
at
the
corporate
level
and
at
the
business
area
level
about
things
that
we
should
be
thinking
about
as
managers
as
to
how
we
can
make
sure
that
our
staff's
experience
of
working
within
the
scottish
government
is
as
positive
as
possible.
B
Well,
as
I
said
at
the
corporate
level,
permanent
sector
identified
the
action
that
was
being
taken
at
that
level
within
my
own
division.
Yes,
there
were
results
there,
because
I've
got
a
relatively
small
division.
The
results
aren't
identified,
no
individual
can
be
identified,
so
these
are
results
about,
as
I
say
my
case,
with
25
people.
So
it's
understanding
what
those
results
mean
in
terms
of
how
I
should
be
managing
my
division
more
effectively
and
right
and
like
what
staff
are
saying.
D
Very
much
kamina
good
morning,
mr
hind,
mr
hein.
Last
week
we
learned
that
concerns
have
been
raised,
informally
about
the
conduct
of
the
former
first
minister,
which
may
or
may
not
have
influenced
the
development
of
this
policy.
I'm
not
asking
about
whether
those
claims
were
based.
In
fact,
I'm
just
keen
to
understand
what
happened.
Now.
You
said
to
margaret
mitchell
that
you
were
not
personally
involved
in
or
had
factual
information
of
allegations
of
misconduct.
D
B
D
Me
for
not
being
clearer
and
that's
not
what
I
was
asking
notwithstanding
the
procedure,
I'm
talking
about
the
scuttlebutt,
the
rumor
mill,
the
general
sort
of
quiet,
mutterings
and
understandings
of
the
culture
at
the
time
that
we
already
know
that
there
were
mutterings
of
that
kind,
that
there
were
concerns
about
alleged
misconduct
and
bullying
or
sexual
inappropriate
behavior
by
the
first
minister.
When
did
you
first
learn
about
those
rumors
that
those
mutterings
not
anything
to
do
with
this
procedure?.
D
If
I
can
just
dial
back
and
say
what
I'm
trying
to
establish
here
is
the
culture
in
which
this
procedure
was
designed.
Cultures
have
a
formal
process,
but
they
also
have
an
informal
process.
They
have
the
organizational
discussions
that
happen
by
water,
coolers
and
so
thinking
about
those
organizational
discussions
that
happen
by
water
coolers.
When
were
you
first
made
aware
that
there
were
informal
concerns
that
had
not
materialized
into
a
complaint?
About
the
former
first
minister's
behavior,
I
was
told.
B
D
B
D
E
You
convener
good
morning,
mr
hind
and
last
week,
the
permanent
secretary
cedar
statement
and
a
quote
directly
from
the
official
record
as
civil
servants.
Every
process
that
we
create
must
be
robust
and
fair
and
open
to
challenge
and
scrutiny,
and
she
then
went
on
to
say
creating
a
new
human
resource
procedure
was
no
no
different
yet.
E
E
B
Yes
is
the
direct
answer:
wisconsin
there
was
a
team
of
colleagues.
As
we
say
in
the
the
statement.
That's
been
submitted
in
the
segment
remarks
of
a
team
of
colleagues,
professional
advisors
on
legal
matters
on
hr
matters
who
were
closely
involved
in
working
with
me
on
a
collaborative
basis
to
develop
the
procedure
and
to
engage
as
appropriately
with
other.
B
Other
parties
that
might
have
something
to
contribute
to
the
development
of
the
procedure.
We
did
work
at
pace.
As
you
know,
when
a
commission
comes
from
cabinet,
it
concentrates
the
mind
and
we
move
quickly
to
deliver.
What
cabinet
is
is
asking
for.
The
first
minister
is
asking
for
the
engagement
that
took
place
with
the
trade
unions
was
led
by
my
colleague
nicola
richards,
who
will
be
appearing
after
me.
B
B
B
B
Professional
advice
within
government
from
the
relevant
part
of
government
dealing
within
people
directorate
who
give
hr
advice.
Clearly,
legal
advice
was
taken
at
all
appropriate
moments:
legal
advice,
informed
by
employment
law,
acas
guidance
was
influential
in
terms
of
the
design
of
the
procedure
and
how
it
was
developed.
E
B
E
E
E
B
I
think
the
development
of
the
procedure
was
an
iterative
process.
There
were
many
many
versions
of
the
procedure
produced
over
the
course
of
the
period
up
till
it
was
signed
off
on
the
20th
of
december
legal
advice
was
sought
every
stage
and
every
point
in
its
development
to
help
shape
the
procedure
so
that
what
we
ended
up
with
was
lawful.
E
B
Well,
you
know,
I
think
all
I
can
say
is
that
we've
ended
up
with
a
procedure
that
the
government
regards
as
being
lawful.
It
would
not
be
lawful
if
it
wasn't
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
appropriate
legal
advisors,
so
you
may,
I
think,
reasonably
unfair,
that
the
procedure
that
has
been
produced
was
informed
on
the
basis
of
legal
advice
that
was
accepted
to
ensure
that
it
was
lawful.
Okay,.
E
B
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you
good
morning,
mr
hein.
Just
just
on
this
issue
of
legal
advice
that
my
colleague
was
was
pursuing
and
specifically
on
this
question
of
whether
former
first
ministers,
former
ministers
would
be
considered
as
part
of
the
policy.
Did
you
had
sight
of
legal
advice
on
that
specific
point.
B
Yes,
yes,
I'm
just
pausing,
not
because
we
didn't
have
legal
advice,
but
would
my
answer
disclose
something
that
it
shouldn't,
but
every
aspect,
including
the
first
procedure
that
was
produced
on
the
7th
of
november,
dealt
only
with
former
ministers
and,
as
I
said
to
ms
constance,
we
had
legal
advice
from
the
outset.
So
the
fact
that
the
first
procedure
focuses
purely
on
former
ministers
again
you
you
can
reasonably
assume
that
legal
advice
was
taken
on
that.
B
Again,
I'm
sorry
if
this
sounds
I'm
answering
the
question
around
way,
but
the
final
procedure
provides
for
former
first
ministers,
the
final
procedure
we
regard
as
a
lawful
document,
a
lawful
procedure.
Therefore,
again
you
can
reasonably
assume
that
legal
advice
was
taken
that
supported
that
view.
Thank.
F
G
Good
morning,
mr
high
morning,
I
think
you
would
be
accurately
described
as
a
career
civil
servant.
Correct
excellent,
thank
you,
because
your
your
knowledge
will
undoubtedly
be
extraordinarily
helpful.
I
understand
you're
saying
that
when,
when
a
cabinet
commission
something
there
is
a
degree
of
speed
required
and-
and
you
produced
a
first
draft
of
the
policy
within
a
week-
is
that
correct?
B
B
B
I
was
already
in
the
space
of
thinking
that
the
gap
that
we
had
in
scotland
was
in
respect
of
allegations
being
made
against
former
ministers
as
as
is
set
out
in
the
scottish
government's
report
to
the
committee.
A
complaint
against
a
current
minister
could
be
held.
Could
be
considered
using
two
approaches.
G
B
Discussions
that
were
had
were
had
at
official
level
with
people
like
nicola
richards
and
others
who,
in
people
directorate
who
were
looking
at
a
wider
review
of
scottish
government
policies
and
procedures
in
line
with
the
the
cabinet
commission.
My
my
involvement
is
on
the
scottish
ministry
of
code
and
giving
advice
on
ministerial
standards
of
behavior.
G
I
absolutely
get
that,
but
what
I'm
trying
to
identify
is
in
that
first
week,
for
what
was
quite
a
significant
inclusion.
Did
you
speak
to
anybody
about
that?
Did
you
send
a
minute
a
memo
anything
at
all,
or
is
this
entirely
just
down
to
you
because
it
it?
You
could
not
have
been
unaware
of
the
significance
of
the
inclusion
and
therefore
I
would
have
thought
you
would
have
checked
with
some
of
your
civil
service
colleagues.
Now
you've
mentioned
nicola
richards
and
others
who
are
the
others.
B
I
did
not
speak
to
the
permanent
secretary
at
that
point,
because
this
was
the
development
of
a
draft
procedure
that
would
in
due
course
come
forward
for
the
permanent
secretary
and
the
first
minister
to
sign
off.
So
I
was
developing
a
proposition.
It
was
not
the
settled
procedure
at
that
point.
It
wouldn't
be
settled
for
a
number
of
weeks
to
come.
G
Okay,
thank
you,
and
could
I
ask
you
who
drove
this
process
because
the
the
permanent
secretary
seemed
to
suggest
our
last
meeting
that
she
wasn't
really
that
involved?
So
I'm
curious
to
know
kind
of
you
know
what
was
the
communication
between
you
during
that
process?
Was
it
fairly
regular?
Was
it
daily?
Was
it
by
email
verbally?
How
did?
How
did
you
communication.
B
With
the
permanent
secretary
I
spoke
to
the
permanent
secretary,
probably
two
or
three
times
over
the
course
of
the
development
of
the
procedure
spoke
more
frequently
with
her
private
office,
her
private
secretaries,
who
were
clearly
keeping
a
close
watch
on
the
overall
review
and
my
contribution
to
that.
So
there
was
some
direct
involvement
with
the
permanent
secretary
and
indirect
involvement
through
her
private
office.
G
G
B
B
G
B
I
suppose
I
would
ask
what
did
that
mean
in
practice
I
mean
the
procedure
provided
at
paragraph
10
of
the
procedure
that
somebody
not
involved
in
the
matter
under
investigation
would
would
act
as
investigating
officers,
so
somebody
was
independent
of
the
the
allegations
would
would
undertake
now
there's
another
way
to
read.
It,
of
course,
is
some
third
party
outside
government
and
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
what
judith
was
meant,
meaning
there.
B
B
Doesn't
have
that
right,
okay!
Well,
they
were
scottish
government
civil
servants.
They
were
not
independent
third
parties
to
government
okay,
so
that
was
what
I
was
agreeing
with
that
I,
where
I
had
taken
the
procedure,
was
that
the
investigation
were
done
by
a
scottish
government
official
unconnected
to
the
matter
being
investigated,
and
I
offer
some
potential
names
of
who
those
individuals
might
be,
but
they
were
not
external
to
government.
G
Okay,
can
I
ask
a
final
question
in
this
section
convene
a
very
short
you.
You
sought
cabinet
office's
opinion
on
the
policy
to
include
former
ministers
in
an
email
and
got
quite
an
uncomfortable
response.
Did
you
go
back
to
them?
Did
you
even
reply
to
their
point
about
you
know,
including
former
civil
servants,
I'm
curious
to
know
what
happened
thereafter.
B
H
B
Would
it
make
sense
for
us
to
wait
the
outcome
of
that
review
before
taking
action,
given
the
commission
from
the
cabinet,
given
that
the
first
minister
had
written
to
the
presiding
officer,
given
that
first
minister
was
keen
to
take
national
leadership
on
these
matters,
that
the
permanent
secretary
was
keen
that
her
duty
of
care
to
staff
was
as
full
and
comprehensive
as
it
might
be,
delaying
and
delaying
what
turned
out
to
be
till
september.
2018
did
not
feel
an
option
to
me.
D
B
I
B
I
Okay,
but
given
you
have
a
role,
you
have
a
role
in
terms
of
you
know,
marrying
if
you
like
repeat
the
internal
policy
on
harassment
with
the
ministerial
code.
I
think
it
is
important
to
ask
this
next
question.
It
says
respondents
were
able
to
seek
in
relation
to
encountering
bullying
or
harassment.
I
I
A
B
It
produced
some
recommendations.
It
did
not
produce
a
procedure
of
the
sort
we
have
for
dealing
with
complaints
against
either
current
or
former
ministers.
I
think
it
still
remains
the
case
in
whitehall.
As
far
as
I
know
that
complaints
against
current
ministers
will
be
considered
under
the
ministerial
code.
There
is
no
bespoke
standalone
procedure
for
dealing
with
such
complaints
and
I'm
not
aware
of
anything
at
all
for
former
ministers,
so
it
was
a.
J
Johnson,
thank
you
convener
and
good
morning,
mr
hind,
so
the
scottish
cabinet
meeting
off
tuesday
31st
of
october,
which
my
colleague
jackie
bailey,
has
referred
to
paragraph
38,
says
that
while
there
was
no
suggestion
that
the
current
arrangements
were
ineffective,
the
first
minister
had
also
asked
the
permanent
secretary
to
undertake
a
review
of
the
scottish
government's
policies
and
processes
to
ensure
that
they
were
fit
for
purpose.
And
can
I
just
confirm,
mr
hind?
J
Okay
and
the
timeline
prepared
by
the
scottish
government
indicates
that
the
internal
assessment
identified
and
you've
already
referred
to
this,
that
there
was
a
gap
in
terms
of
having
a
procedure
that
could
be
deployed.
Should
any
historical
complaints
arise
in
scotland?
Yes,
correct
yes,
now,
with
regards
to
the
convener,
has
just
touched
on
this
point
too.
K
B
We
looked
around
other
administrations
as
well,
and
there
was
nothing
obvious
that
we
could
use
here
so
effectively.
I
was
starting
from
scratch
in
the
development
of
this
procedure.
As
far
as
we
know,
it
remains
the
only
procedure
of
its
type,
so
I
was
using
my
experience
of
a
number
of
years
of
being
involved
in
the
the
offering
advice
and
ministry
of
code,
so
I
knew
what
kind
of
areas
I
should
be
drafting.
B
I
know
there
was
also
engagement
not
directly
with
by
me,
but
with
people
directorate
colleagues
with
parliament
itself,
who
were
going
through
the
same
process
of
thinking
about
its
own
procedures
in
terms
of
harassment
and
bullying
and
produce
and
has
produced
its
own
standalone
procedure
as
well.
So
you
know,
quite
a
number
of
organizations
were
grappling
with
these
issues
in
the
aftermath
of
the
metoo
campaign,
and
particularly
within
scottish
government.
In
light
of
some
of
the
allegations
emerging
from
from
westminster.
J
Did
you
have
any
feedback
or
input
at
all,
even
informal
from
colleagues
say
in
westminster
were
any
concerns
expressed
about
the
development
of
this
policy
in
scotland
or
were
they
looking
at
the
work
that
you
were
undertaking
and
thinking?
Perhaps
that's
something
we
might
wish
to
pursue
ourselves.
B
In
fact,
in
exchange
with
ms
bailey,
then
about
the
engagement
with
the
cabinet
office
and
clearly
they
were,
I
think,
uncomfortable
as
they
said
in
their
email
about
where
we
were
getting
to.
I
think
it
was
because
we
were
potentially
ahead
of
them
in
terms
of
the
development
for
policy
of
this
sort.
J
B
B
What
is
the
understanding?
What
is
the
evidence
within
government
for
any
allegations
that
are
raised?
So
it's
not
a
simple
thing.
It
was
a
right
thing
to
do.
I
think,
to
fill
the
gap,
but
maybe
in
time
gone
by
because
of
those
complexities
and
difficulties
of
crafting
a
procedure,
it
was
not
addressed,
but
of
course
we
had
all
the
metoo
movement
and
some
of
the
specific
allegations
that
we're
the
catalyst.
I
think
for
us
and
ministers
wanting
to
do
something
on
that.
On
that
occasion,
thank.
J
B
I
think
the
first
minister
has
been
sort
of
the
permanent
sector
has
been
clear
that
the
way
the
procedure
was
applied
and
that
part
of
the
procedure
could
give
the
appearance
of
there
being
bias.
There
wasn't
bias,
but
you
gave
the
appearance
of
bias
in
the
way
that
part
of
the
procedure
was
applied.
That,
therefore,
had
the
consequences
for
the
judicial
review
case.
The
procedure
itself
remains
extant,
it's
in
place.
It
remains
lawful
in
the
way
I've
described
so
there's
no
fundamental
concerns
about
the
procedure.
J
B
Not
to
my
understanding
I
wasn't
involved
so
I
didn't
know
there
was
any
contact.
I
didn't
know
there
were
any
people
coming
forward
with
concerns
or
complaints,
and
I
didn't
know
there
was
engagement
with
them
by
the
person
who
would
be
appointed
investigating
officer
so
I'd
know
firsthand
knowledge
of
those
things.
K
Thank
you
convener
at
our
last
meeting.
In
fact,
the
permanent
secretary
explained
what
she
called
and
what
I
think
you've
called
as
well
the
iterative
process
that
led
to
the
development
of
the
policy,
and
she
indicated
that
there
was
very
limited
involvement
by
ministers
in
that
process,
but
had
that
involvement,
some
involvement
from
special
advisers.
B
This,
the
development
of
this
procedure
did
not
generate
large
volumes
of
emails
to
large
copy
lists.
Now
the
the
review
that
was
undertaken
and
the
this
work
was
not
secret.
The
first
minister
had
talked
about
it.
Clearly
mr
zwinia
talked
about
it
and
public.
Permit
secretary
had
indicated
to
the
organization
that
this
review
was
underway,
so
it
wasn't
being
done
in
secret,
but
nevertheless
it
was
a
reasonably
small
number
of
colleagues
who
were
involved,
who
had
a
business
reason
to
be
involved
in
the
development
of
their
procedure.
K
On
that
point,
one
occasion
when
the
chief
of
staff
was
included
was
I'm
referring
back
here
to
document
xx013,
but
I
think
you'll
be
familiar
with
it,
probably
without
thumbing
through
it,
but
you're
welcome
to
take
a
pause
to
do
so.
If
you
wish,
this
is
the
the
email
exchange
where
it
was,
it
was
commented
that
there
were
still
some
tricky
questions
not
yet
agreed.
B
I
I'm
not
sure
I
am
able
to
put
my
hand
quite
on
that
paper
immediately,
but
I
do
know
the
exchanges
that
were
had
with
the
chief
of
staff
around
that
time.
I
think
it
would
be.
It
was
at
the
17th
of
november
around
that.
Yes,
yes,
I
mean
the
the
procedure
was
still
in
draft
at
that
point.
We've
been
working
on
it
clearly
10
days
or
so
it's
gone
through
various
iterations.
B
The
permanent
sector
would
automatically
trigger
the
investigation
without
recourse
to
the
first
minister.
So
in
some
ways
it
was
a
as
it
were.
It
was
a
strengthening
of
the
the
independence
of
the
procedure
from
first
minister,
they
put
the
responsibility
for
that
onto
the
permanent
secretary
to
decide
whether
to
initiate
the
the
investigation
against
the
current
minister.
A
I
I
B
Well,
there
is
no
obligation
on
the
scottish
government
to
follow
the
same
policies
and
procedures
developed
by
other
government
departments,
the
permanent
sector
sector's
responsibility
for
ensuring
the
health
and
well-being
and
has
a
care
of
duty
to
all
staff
within
the
scottish
government
and
has
an
obligation,
therefore,
to
ensure
that
all
policies
and
procedures
are
appropriately
judged
to
deliver
her
duty
and
her
responsibilities
like
other
parts
of
government.
When
we're
developing
policies
and
procedures,
we
will
want
to
make
sure,
as
we
did
in
this
case,
that
they
are
lawful
and
reflect
best
practice.
B
So
clearly,
my
colleagues
and
people
directorate
will
be
speaking
to
their
counterparts
and
other
government
departments
and
in
the
cabinet
office
on
a
regular
basis
about
the
development
of
policies.
But,
as
we
saw
in
this
instance
when
there
was
a
need
for
a
distinctive
scottish
solution,
we
proceeded
on
the
basis
of
developing
something
that
suited
scottish
circumstances.
B
I
And
in
your
experience,
have
these
changes
seen
our
our
results,
a
change
in
the
culture
in
the
organization
and
the
interaction
with
ministers?
In
other
words,
in
subsequent
surveys
of
staff?
Has
they
have?
Has
there
been
a
difference
and
a
decline
in
the
numbers
experiencing
bullying
and
harassment.
B
The
risk
of
sounding
unhelpful-
I'm
probably
not
the
right
person
to
give
you
a
deep
data
analysis
of
the
corporate
people's
survey
results
and
what
the
trends
are.
I
think
permanent
secretary
talked
a
little
about
those
last
week
and
indicated
that
the
results
were
scottish
government
were
at,
I
think,
the
highest
level
ever
in
terms
of
positive
outcomes,
so
that
suggests
we're
getting
something
right,
but
I'm
sure
nicola
richards
would
be
able
to
give
you
more
detail
on
those
issues
than
I
can.
B
F
Thank
you
community.
I
have
a
follow-up
to
pastor
allen's
question
and
one
other
substantive
question
which
I
can
ask
now,
if
you
wish
convener,
but
my
follow-up
to
to
the
line
of
questioning
from
aleister
allen.
Mr
hind
is
around
the
involvement
of
the
first
minister's
chief
of
staff,
liz
lloyd
in
relation
to
the
policy
development,
and
it
is
clear
from
the
information
we've
seen
that
she
was
involved
in
the
development
of
the
policy.
B
This
is
for
the
reasons
I
said
earlier,
quite
a
distinctive
policy
because
it
engages
both
the
responsibilities
of
the
permanent
secretary
in
terms
of
her
duty
of
care
to
staff.
So
therefore,
is
an
hr
dimension
to
it
as
well,
but
also
directly
engages
with
the
first
minister's
responsibility
under
the
scottish
ministerial
code.
B
So
a
normal
hr
process,
I
don't
think,
would
go
anywhere
near
a
special
advisor
nicola.
Richards
will
be
able
to
say
more
about
that
than
I
can,
but
those
would
be
matters
for
the
the
civil
service
functioning
of
the
organization
unlikely
to
be
matters
that
we
would
engage
a
special
advisor
about.
But
when
we're
dealing
with
the
first
minister's
responsibilities
under
the
scottish
ministerial
code,
that
would
be
entirely
legitimate
for
the
chief
of
staff
to
become
engaged
in
that.
F
L
F
Now
we
know
that
the
deputy
first
minister,
john
swinney,
was
the
cabinet
lead
on
the
matter
as
the
most
senior
male
figure.
He
was
the
one
who
was
asked
to
respond
to
the
topical
question
in
parliament
on
the
31st
of
october
2017,
and
yet
from
the
information
we've
had,
it
appears
that
he
did
not
have
any
role
in
the
development
of
policy
again.
Is
that
not
unusual.
B
Not
in
this
instance,
I
mean
mr
swinney's
decision
has
agreed
a
cabinet
on
the
31st
was
that
he
would
lead
for
the
government
in
the
answer
to
the
tropical
question,
to
signal
quite
clearly
that
this
is
that
the
metoo
campaign,
the
allegations
that
had
been
raised
required
men
to
review
their
own
behaviors.
So
he
was
signaling
that,
on
behalf
of
on
behalf
of
the
government,
he
did
not.
Therefore
he
did
not,
as
a
consequence,
take
on
responsibility
for
the
whole
of
the
review
or
for
the
scottish
ministerial
code.
B
A
B
Well,
to
to
break
that
into
two
parts,
the
the
commission
from
cabinet
was
a
commission
effectively
without
limits
it
was
to
review
all
policies
and
procedures
and
identify
how
they
could
be
made
fit
for
purpose.
I
interpreted
that
to
to
also
mean
is
there
anything
that's
not
covered
that
needs
to
be
covered,
which
is
why
I
identified
the
gap
in
relation
to
to
former
ministers.
B
The
what
I
was
producing
was
a
draft
that
would
then
be
approved
or
put
for
approval
to
the
permanent
secretary
and
the
first
minister.
So
I
was
not
deciding
myself
that
this
is
going
to
be
the
procedure
for
the
scottish
government.
The
reasons
I've
just
explained
to
mr
fraser,
the
permanent
sector
and
first
minister
both
have
responsibilities
separate
and
distinct
responsibilities
in
terms
of
the
procedure.
B
Therefore,
they
were
both
asked
to
sign
it
off
at
the
appropriate
point
in
terms
of
the
development
of
the
procedure.
As
I
said
earlier,
there
was
a
small
team
of
us
working
on
it
collaboratively
pulling
in
appropriate
professional
advice,
so
we
developed
a
procedure
in
a
way.
We
thought
best
reflected
the
gap
that
had
been
identified.
C
B
Yes,
I
was
acting
on
the
basis
of
the
commission.
I
was
interpreting
it
in
the
way
I
thought
would
be
most
helpful
and
give
some
added
value
to
the
review
and
options
that
could
then
go
up
to
the
first
minister
and
permanent
secretary
about
how
the
totality
of
policies
and
procedures
could
be
as
comprehensive
as
possible.
D
We
now
know
that
this
procedure
would
be
tested
in
its
absolute
infancy
and,
before
it
think,
was
even
dry.
It
would
trigger
allegations
probably
the
most
explosive
allegations
in
scottish
political
history,
given
that
this
was
ultimately
your
brainchild.
The
procedure
was
your
commission
did.
Were
you
consulted
in
the
appointment
of
an
investigating
officer
by
the
director
of
people
it
wasn't?
B
D
B
I'm
clear
if
I
wasn't
earlier
the
first
I
heard
about
any
allegations
and
the
first
I
was,
I
think,
the
24th
of
august
2018
when
there
were
press
reports.
I
knew
nothing
of
before
then
about
any
complainer
anybody
raising
concerns
and
you're
nothing
about
the
appointment
of
any
investigating
officer
or
and
any
sharing
of
the
draft
procedure
with
any
individual.
So
once
I
had
developed
a
procedure
once
it
had
been
signed
off,
I
stood
back
rightly
so
from
any
application
of
the
procedure.
G
Jackie
bailey,
thank
you,
convina,
mr
hind,
on
the
22nd
of
november,
when
the
first
minister
wrote
to
the
permanent
secretary
commissioning
the
policy
and
she
included
the
phrase
former
ministers,
including
those
of
previous
administrations,
regardless
of
party.
Wasn't
that
the
exact
phrase
that
was
suggested
by
the
chief
of
staff
to
the
then
pps
of
the
permanent
secretary
and
an
email
exchange
which
I
believe
is
xx013
and
your
response,
xx014.
B
B
G
A
G
G
Claim
again,
I'm
just
curious
whether
that's
the
exact
wording
that
was
suggested
by
the
chief
of
staff,
because
what
we
have
is
a
set
of
emails
at
xx013
to
the
perm.
The
ps
perm
secretary
then
forwarded
to
you
and
then
your
reply.
So
I
mean
I'm
happy
if
you
wanted
to
write
to
the
committee
afterwards.
B
G
G
A
Er,
thank
you
I'll
get
a
quick
couple
of
points
of
clarification.
Please,
mr
hines,
before
we
wind
up
this
session,
you've
said
a
few
times
now
that
you
had
no
knowledge
of
the
complaints
and
you
were
developing
the
policy
as
per
your
role,
but
the
committee
has
heard,
and
indeed
we've
had
it
submitted
to
us
that
lived
experience
was
deemed
to
be
very
important
and
one
complainant
was
given
a
copy
of
the
policy
and
draft
form.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
and
my
final
point
is
follows
on
from
what
ms
bailey
was
saying
about.
The
missing
documents.
There's
obviously
been
a
lot
of
key
meetings
where
policy
development
changed
as
a
result
of
comments.
Are
you
aware
of
additional
records
that
have
not
been
provided
to
this
committee.
B
Well,
clearly,
there
is
one
we've
identified
there,
other
others,
I'm
very
happy
to
go
back
and
and
and
have
a
look.
I
mean
it
feels
to
me
that
I
don't
know
many
documents.
There
are
kind
of
150
plus.
It
feels
to
me
that
you
know
there's
a
very
clear
setting
out
of
the
process
for
the
development
of
the
procedure
from
its
earliest
days,
7th
of
november
through
to
to
sign
off
on
the
20th
of
december,
so
it
felt
to
me
reading
it
that
all
of
the
material
points
were
covered
in
what's
been
disclosed.
H
A
A
A
The
meeting
is
reconvened
and
I
welcome
nicola
richards
director
of
people
in
the
scottish
government.
Can
I
begin
please
by
inviting
miss
richards
to
take
the
solemn
affirmation
if
you
would
raise
your
right
hand,
please
and
then
repeat
after
me,
I
solemnly
sincerely
and
truly
declare
and
affirm.
I.
A
L
L
The
directorate
has
around
250
staff
covering
a
wide
range
of
responsibilities
and
technical
expertise.
So
my
role
is
one
of
strategic
direction
and
management
oversight.
The
scottish
government
is
a
fair
work
employer,
and
this
is
reflected
in
our
approach
to
equality,
mental
health
and
well-being.
We
have
a
public
sector
duty
under
the
equality
act
to
eliminate
unlawful
discrimination,
which
includes
sexual
harassment,
bullying
harassment
is
not
and
never
has
been
acceptable
in
the
workplace,
as
the
permanent
secretary
set
out
in
earlier
evidence.
A
C
L
Thank
you
just
to
clarify
my
my
role
in
people
directorate
between
2010
and
2014
was
largely
on
the
learning
and
development
side,
so
I
would
have
had
less
involvement
at
that
point.
With
fairness
at
work
policy
around
august
2014,
I
expanded
my
role
and
that
then
took
on
some
more
of
the
hr
policy
side,
but
not
the
direct
bullying
and
harassment
investigation,
side
of
things,
so
so
less
in
that
area.
L
I
think
on
fairness
at
work.
More
generally,
it
has
been.
It
serves
us
reasonably.
Well,
I
think,
as
an
overall
policy.
It
is
reasonably
unremarkable
in
that
way.
The
provision
relating
to
ministers
that
exists
within
fairness
at
work
and
has
been
in
fairness
at
work
since
2010,
I
think,
by
early
2017.
L
Understandably,
we
have
had
under
the
ministerial
process,
we
have
handled
two
issues
under
the
fairness
at
work
process
involving
ministers
involving
current
ministers.
One
of
those
was
resolved
at
the
informal
stage
and
that
occurred
at
the
early
part
of
2017.,
and
there
is
another
complaint
that
is
still
in
progress.
So
I
won't
go
into
further
detail
about
that
one,
but
it
is
still
at
the
informal
stage.
Okay,.
C
L
So
it's
very
much
a
core
question
set
every
year,
there's
kind
of
a
bidding
process
where
you
can
try
and
get
your
local
questions
included
within
the
wider
question
set,
and
so
at
various
points,
we've
added
questions
that
we
felt
were
particularly
relevant
to
initiatives
that
we
had
underway,
for
example,
around
monthly
conversations,
which
is
a
kind
of
a
well-being
led
process
that
we
try
to
have
for
our
staff.
So
we
included
questions
relating
to
monthly
conversations.
L
I
think
probably
the
major
change
that
has
been
made
at
a
uk
level
to
the
survey
that
might
be
of
interest
to
the
committee
in
recent
years
was
in
2019
was
the
first
year
that
the
survey
had
a
breakdown
of
different
sorts
of
harassment,
because
the
bullying
and
harassment
is
quite
a
big
capsule
and
there's
a
lot
that
gets
covered
within
that.
But
in
this
year's
survey
it
broke
down.
L
L
I
would
need
to
check
what
local
questions
we
put
forward
that
year,
because
each
year
we
do
put
forward
local
questions.
I
think
it
would
be
very
unusual
for
us
to
ask
for
questions
as
specific
as
that
you
know
it's
a
general
survey.
It's
very
widely
responded
to.
We
get
a
very
good
response
rate
and
that
it
isn't
for
individuals,
it's
very
clear
that
it's
an
anonymous
survey.
L
E
L
They,
I
think,
as
james
set
out
it's
quite
an
unusual
policy,
this
one.
It's
not
you
know.
Normally,
we
would
have
a
very
extensive
process
with
our
trade
unions
when
we
were
looking
to
bring
in
a
policy
that
was
going
to
be,
I
mean
if
it
was
a
full
refit
of
fairness
at
work.
It
would
be
a
very,
very
significant
undertaking.
L
This
policy
is
slightly
different
because
essentially
the
first
minister
gets
to
decide,
so
the
the
degree
of
union
involvement
is
slightly
different
to
how
it
would
be
normally.
I
think
what
was
very
clear
and
very
clear
from
the
exchanges
with
the
unions
from
the
earlier
stages
of
this,
that
their
absolute
commitment
was
that
the
scottish
government
did
not
step
away
from
having
a
policy
related
to
complaints
about
ministers.
That
was
their
overriding
concern
was
that
we
stuck
with
the
commitment
that
had
been
in
place
since
2010
in
fairness
at
work.
L
So
my
sense
of
all
of
the
engagements
that
we'd
had
with
the
unions
during
that
time
was
their
concern,
was
that
we
didn't
water,
that
down
that
we
didn't
step
back
from
that
they
were.
They
were
perfectly
content
with
there
being
kind
of
procedural
changes
improvements
to
that,
but
I
didn't
perceive
any
particular
difficulties
there.
The
reassurance
that
we
were
seeking
to
give
the
unions
through
that
time
was
that
the
scottish
government
was
not
looking
to
step
away
from
having
a
process
by
which
policies
around
ministers
would
be
handled.
E
Okay
and
obviously
we'll
hear
more
directly
from
the
trade
unions
a
future
session,
but
in
the
submissions
received
to
committee
from,
I
think,
the
pcs
they
expressed
some
commentary
around
that
there
was
the
stage
one
of
the
policy
development,
but
then
stage
two
just
was
paused
and
shelved.
Can
you
explain
why
that
was
and
whether
work
around
stage
two
is
is
proceeding
or
not?
Yes,.
L
L
I
think,
because
of
the
way
in
which
circumstances
have
developed,
it's
been
very
difficult
to
finalize
our
work
around
fairness
at
work,
to
be
able
to
take
the
ministerial
aspect
out
of
fairness
at
work
and
put
that
into
a
new
standalone
policy,
because
the
procedure
for
that's
that
you're
looking
at
today,
was
under
such
a
lot
of
scrutiny.
It
was
very
difficult,
therefore,
to
do
further
work
to
that
until
all
of
these
processes
had
completed
so
there
is
still
unfinished
business
there.
E
L
E
Reflective
of
you,
I
suppose,
I'm
more
interested
and
specifics
in
and
around
process
and
tasks.
So
if
I
can
put
to
you
that
a
bit
also
up
here
that
wider,
more
formal
staff
engagement
up
here
appeared
limited
and
we
know
you
know,
there
was
at
least
one.
You
know
message
to
staff
emini
emanating
from
the
the
permanent
secretary,
but
in
terms
of
formal
two-way
engagement
with
staff
above
and
beyond
engagement
with
trade
unions.
Where
was
that
meaningful
engagement.
L
Oh
certainly
I
mean
in
terms
of
all
of
our
policy
development.
We
would
have
that
absolutely
at
the
heart
and
I
think
it's
in
relation
to
the
standard
policies
that
we
would
work
through,
that
would
need
to
be
applied
by
local
managers.
You
would
want
to
have
a
very
extensive
range
of
engagement
based
on
that
was
it.
L
E
And
in
terms
of
you'll
have
heard
this
mentioned
before
as
well
that
on
the
14th
of
december,
the
draft
policy
was
sent
to
one
person,
someone
who,
at
that
time
was
a
potential
complainer,
and
that
was
before
it
was
signed
off
by
the
first
minister
and
we've
heard
people
make
reference
to
the
importance
of
lived
experience
and
also
others
have
said.
You
know
that
information
was
shared,
but
there
was
no
changes
and
made
to
the
final
stages
of
of
this
policy.
L
There
were
a
number
of
reasons
why
the
policy
was
shared.
At
that
point,
and
I
would
say
it
was
shared
very
carefully
and
within
understanding
having
taken
advice,
that
a
person
in
this
situation
may
not
be
objective.
So
this
wasn't
about
accepting
drafting
changes
that
would
shape
the
application
of
this
policy.
Should
they
decide
to
move
to
a
formal
complaint.
L
Would
this
have
made
a
difference
to
you?
What
elements
of
these
kinds
of
policies
would
make
a
difference,
so
it
was
very
much
not.
Would
this
make
a
difference
to
you
raising
a
complaint
now,
but
would
this
be
preventative
in
the
future?
Would
this
help
us
prevent
these
kinds
of
things
happening
in
in
future?.
E
Well,
there's
been
much
emphasis
by
your
own
commentary,
ms
richards,
and
what
we've
heard
from
mr
hind,
seeing
in
particular
developing
a
retrospective
process
that
included
former
ministers
while
that
and
his
view,
and
the
view
of
others
that
that
was
the
right
thing
to
do.
It
was
not
straightforward.
E
L
So,
whilst
it
was
it's
helpful
and
important
to
try
and
be
transparent
and
write,
your
policies
out,
it
doesn't
actually
stop
somebody
raising
a
complaint
about
something
and
complaints
about
third
parties,
which
is
essentially
you
know
what
a
a
minister
or
former
minister
would
be
in.
This
instance
is
a
fairly
routine
part
of
other
policies,
it's
included
within
our
furnace
at
work
policy.
You
know
people
will
have
issues
with
contractors
with
people
that
they
come
across
in
other
organizations
and
what
you
always
have
to
be
clear
to
people.
L
I
think
in
those
instances
is
that
there
are
limits
to
what
you
can
do.
There
are
limits
to
which
the
degree
to
which
you
can
compel
someone
else
to
participate
in
that
process
because
they're,
not
your
employee,
so
you
can't
enforce
their
engagement
in
the
development
in
the
investigation
and
there
are
limitations
to
the
sanctions
that
you
can
apply.
So
there
is
fairly
well
worked
out
territory
here,
but,
yes,
it
is
certainly
more
complex
than
it
being
a
civil
servant
to
civil
servant
policy.
E
And
my
very
final
question:
convener
is
yes,
complaints
need
to
be
investigated
and
if
there's
no
process,
there
needs
to
be
a
process
and
procedure
put
in
place.
But
therefore,
how
do
you
ensure
that
it's
fair
and
robust
to
all
parties,
particularly
when
it's
done
at
peace?
And
you
know
what
have
you
learned
in
terms
of
the
the
here
and
now.
L
L
A
L
D
Know
I
have
two
sections
of
questions,
firstly
about
the
development
of
the
policy
and
then
the
application,
the
policy
I'm
happy
to
break
between
those
and
allow
others
to
come.
In
good
morning,
mr
richards
james
hein
confirmed
to
the
committee
that
there
was
a
background
hum
of
water,
cooler,
conversations
and
rumors
about
alleged
bullying
and
sexual
harassment.
Misconduct
on
the
part
of
the
former
first
minister,
alex
simond,
you
joined
the
organization
in
2010
and
four
years
before
alexander
left
office,
can
ask
at
what
point.
L
D
If
I
may
the
ministerial
code,
sorry,
the
civil
service
code
allows
us
to
ask
you
about
your
recollection
of
facts
and
events.
The
we've
had
mr
hein
confirm
that
the
there
was
a
background
chatter
about
concerns
about
the
behavior
of
the
former.
First
minister,
it's
that's
a
fact.
We're
just
asking
I'm
just
asking
when
you
first
learned
of
that.
L
L
D
D
L
D
The
there
is
an
email
I
will
refer
to
in
the
second
half
of
my
questions,
which
sounds
at
odds
with
that
suggestion
that
it
was
never
raised
with
you
directly
prior
to
becoming
made
formal,
and
can
I
before
we
get
to
that,
and
I
I
will
allow
the
other
members
in
before
that-
was
that
draft
procedure
shared
with
that
particular
complaint
to
give
them
confidence
in
the
process.
That
would
ultimately
assess
the
credibility
of
that
complaint.
L
It
was
to
make
ensure
they
were
unable
to
make
an
informed
decision,
so
you
would
want
them
to
have
go
into
something
understanding,
some
of
the
process
that
they
would
be
moving
into.
As
I
say
it
would.
If
they'd
have
raised
the
complaint
at
that
point
before
the
process
was
in
place,
then
we
still
would
have
had
to
have
dealt
with
it.
J
L
L
L
It'd
be
those
kinds
of
things
that
people
would
put
in
place
most
most
generally,
and
sometimes
people
would
apply
to
you,
know
kind
of
loan
worker
type
policies
and
certainly
in
relation
to
our
fairness
at
work
policy
in
relation
to
engagement
with
third
parties.
So
if
you've
got
regular
contact
with
an
organization
that
you're
finding
problematic
in
some
way,
then
there's
provision
for
you
to
not
meet
them
alone
and
to
do
those
kinds
of
things.
J
J
L
Our
sense
at
the
time,
and
certainly
my
sense
at
the
time,
was
that
it
was
was
applied
robustly.
We
thought
carefully
about
the
designation
of
a
senior
civil
servant
into
the
role
of
the
investigating
officer
and
the
the
kinds
of
qualities
that
we
had
thought
about
in
advance
in
the
more
abstract
sense
of
having
legal
or
professional
background
hr
background.
These
are
the
kinds
of
skills
and
experience
that
we
were
looking
to
make
sure
that
somebody
would
be
able
to
apply.
L
The
person
that
I
asked
to
take
on
the
role
had
many
many
years
professional
experience,
including
in
very
complex
and
tricky
situations.
They'd
been
the
head
of
hr
in
a
mental
health
charity
for
10
years,
so
they
were
bringing
a
wealth
of
experience
that
is
not
common
across
the
wider
civil
service.
So
I
think
our
sense
was
that
they
were
not
in.
They
were
not
even
in
the
organization
at
the
point
when
the
events
were
alleged
to
have
occurred,
so
they
had
no
engagement
in
any
way.
L
L
J
L
We
had
in
response
to
the
permanent
secretary's
messages
that
staff
messages
that
were
coming
through
at
that
time.
I
think,
in
that
kind
of
october,
to
december
period
we
had
about
10
people
come
forward
to
raise
issues
most
of
those
were
about
civil
servants,
so
they
were
issues
around
harassment,
sexual
harassment,
some
of
those
were
formalised.
L
G
L
G
Okay,
that
that's,
I
just
wanted
to
establish
that,
because
point
about
the
internet
came
much
much
later.
It
came
in
in
february,
after
which
time
you'd
received
two
complaints.
Can
I
say
from
an
hr
perspective,
you're,
making
a
distinction
between
concerns
and
complaints.
Is
that
not
a
bit
of
a
false
distinction?
L
I
mean,
I
think,
you're
right
in
that,
should
individuals
have
decided
not
to
pursue
a
formal
complaint.
I
think
organizationally
we
still
would
have
had
some
very
significant
things
to
think
through.
If
somebody
had
said,
I
don't
want
to
proceed
with
making
a
formal
complaint,
and
yet
we
had
a
reasonably
detailed
set
of
allegations
from
somebody.
Then
I
think
organizationally
would
have
had
to
have
found
a
way
of
establishing
some
closure
on
that.
G
L
L
The
reasons
why
we
shared
that
were
that
we
were
trying
to
establish
in
terms
of
our
learning
as
an
organisation
whether
this
would
have
made
a
difference
to
them
at
the
time.
Would
it
have
made
it
more
possible
to
have
raised
issues
about
a
first
minister,
an
incumbent
first
minister,
would
that
have
made
it
more
straightforward
for
them.
L
G
G
G
Okay,
can
I
move
on
to
ask
you?
The
the
permanent
secretary
last
week
seemed
to
suggest
that
she
wasn't
deeply
involved
in
developing
the
policy
process.
Did
you,
as
director
of
people
not
keep
her
updated?
You
know
what
contact
did
you
have
with
her
and
did
her
private
secretary?
How
often
was
that.
L
L
G
Thank
you
one
final
question,
mr
hind.
Earlier
I
don't
know
if
you
had
his
evidence,
he
was
very
clear
that
the
policy
itself
was
lawful,
but
the
implementation
was
not
lawful.
Given
that
implementation
is
an
hr
function,
do
you
think
that's
an
accurate
reflection,
or
has
he
indeed
just
thrown
you
under
the
bus.
L
K
Would
I
be
writing
an
understanding
from
what
you've
just
said
that
the
distinction
doesn't
really
have
anything
to
do
with
the
seriousness
of
the
issue,
it's
more
to
do
with
the
attitude
of
the
the
person.
Presumably
I'd
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
presumably
not
everybody
who
wishes
to
make
known
their
concerns
about
something
wishes
to
pursue
a
formal
complaint.
I
L
I
L
During
the
setup
of
the
procedure
yeah,
I
don't
recall,
I
don't
think
so
I
mean
certainly
not
in
terms
of
costs.
I
mean
most
of
it
was
in
the
sense
of
lessons
learned.
Many
organizations
were
in
a
similar
position
needing
to
look
at
their
own
policies
needing
to
make
sure
that
they
were
engaging
effectively
with
staff.
So
I
don't
think
the
scottish
parliament's
hr
department
sent
us
a
bill,
so
I
think
they,
you
know
we
there
was
lots
of
exchange.
L
I
Strikes
me
if
anybody
had
been
a
member
of
the
professional
organization
in
relation
to
hr,
it
might
have
been
quite
helpful
in
this
process.
However,
we'll
move
on,
it's
said
in
our,
in
our
background
information
that
10
of
scottish
government
staff
had
faced
bullying
or
harassment,
that's
10
of
how
many
roughly.
L
L
I
L
The
full
list
of
when
you,
when
asked,
who
bullied
or
harassed
you
the
full
list
within
the
uk
civil
service
survey,
covers
colleagues
in
your
area.
Colleagues,
in
a
different
area,
your
manager,
another
senior
member
of
staff,
someone
I
manage
someone
working
in
a
different
civil
service
organization,
someone
working
for
a
non-civil
service
organisation,
a
contractor,
a
service
user,
a
member
of
the
public
or
someone
not
listed
here.
L
I
think
someone
would
probably
say
another
senior
member
of
staff
in
the
scottish
government,
but,
as
I
say
these
aren't
these
aren't
categories
that
we
get
to
decide
on
and
in
those
kinds
of
settings.
That
would
be
a
relatively
small
number.
So
I'm
not
sure
that
in
any
of
the
uk
civil
service
policies
they
would
set
out
ministers
in
such
an
explicit
way.
A
L
A
L
L
L
By
which
you
get
an
overall
sense
of
the
culture
of
an
organisation,
so
it
is
quite
wide-ranging
in
that
way,
and
I
would
say,
on
the
bullying
and
harassment
scores
in
particular,
across
the
you
know,
kind
of
hundred-plus
organizations
that
are
covered
bullying
harassment
scores
vary
from
five
percent
to
twenty
percent.
You
know
we,
I
think
this
year
we're
eleven
percent
and
of
the
big
organizations
of
which
we
compare
to
the
average
is
twelve
percent.
L
So,
whilst
it
sounds
a
very
disturbing
figure-
and
I
think
it
is
a
disturbing
figure
because
we
wouldn't
want
anybody
to
be
experienced,
bullying
and
harassment
as
part
of
their
ongoing
work,
it
is,
is
a
fairly
consistent
picture.
I
think
across
most
organizations
that
memory
are
bullying
and
harassment
in
one
heading,
they
are
yeah
yeah
and
it's
it's
quite
wide-ranging,
though,
as
I
say
in
2019,
there
was
a
breakdown
so.
H
L
L
K
L
Yeah
as
james
set
out
he
leaded
off
on
the
drafting,
it
was
lots
of
engagement
across
legal
and
members
of
my
team.
In
terms
of
setting
out,
I
think
in
particular
how
do
you
bring
together
the
ministerial
code
responsibilities
with
those
of
the
employer
and
particularly
the
duty
of
care
to
staff?
So
that
was
really,
I
suppose,
the
the
key
part
that
I
was
playing
in
that
was
making
sure
that
we
were
linking
across
to
the
duty
of
care
to
staff
our
our
responsibilities
as
an
employer
within
the
policy.
K
And
on
that
duty
of
care,
I'm
going
to
be
careful
have
asked
this
because
I'm
not
asking
about
individuals
here,
but
you
you
said
that
you
you
sorted
or
we've
heard
that
rather
people
with
invert
comes
lived,
experience
were
sought
out
or
were
contacted.
In
any
case
I
take
it.
Some
kind
of
support
was
offered
to
these
individuals
as
well.
L
I
mean
the
individuals
had
already
come
forward
to
the
confidential
sounding
board.
So
you
know:
support
had
already
been
offered
through
that
kind
of
route,
so
the
the
sharing
of
the
procedure
was
really
just
part
of
a
wider
discussion
with
them
in
terms
of
the
options
open
to
them
and
their
wishes.
K
K
A
F
Thank
you
convener.
I
only
have
really
one
question
as
a
follow-up
to
to
alter
allen's
question
about
the
involvement
of
of
special
advisors,
and
we
heard
from
mr
hind
earlier
that
in
his
view,
it
would
be
unusual
to
have
a
special
advisor
involved
in
the
preparation
of
a
policy
based
on
hr.
Would
that
be
from
your
experience
that
would
be
a
reasonable
position.
F
D
D
You've
always
been
taught
about
protecting
both
the
civil
service
and
the
government,
but
it's
really
important
that
we
get
to
the
nub
of
the
truth
in
all
of
this,
and
the
civil
service
code
does
not
preclude
you
from
doing
it,
and
I
have
to
say
from
some
of
the
answers
that
you've
given
and
some
of
the
answers
that
james
hind
has
given
that
we
as
a
committee
do
seem
to
be
encountering
what
I
would
describe
as
a
gray
wall
of
silence
on
some
of
this.
So
I'd
ask
justin
these
final
questions.
D
You
wrote
on
the
12th
of
december
and
for
the
record,
that's
document
yy0046
in
that
you
wrote
an
email
to
miss
a
asking
if,
after
your
discussion
with
her
that
she'd
come
to
a
decision
on
whether
to
raise
a
formal
complaint
in
the
email,
you
keep
using
the
term
we
by
which
you
mean
yourself
and
judith
mckinnon,
who
was
copied
into
the
same
email.
You
suggest
miss
a
wait
until
after
the
new
year.
L
I
think
I
was
going
on
holiday
the
next
day,
I
think,
even
in
civil
servants
for
loud
holidays.
I
would
just
like
to
clarify
a
couple
of
points.
I
said
that
it
was
shared
that
they
weren't
a
complainer.
At
that
point
they
had
raised
a
concern,
but
they
hadn't
formally
raised
a
complaint.
She
could
at
any
point,
have
decided
to
say
this
is
the
formal
complaint
we
may
or
may
not
have
had
the
procedure
in
place
at
that
time,
but
we
still
would
have
had
to
have
dealt
with
it.
D
L
L
No,
it
wasn't
we'd
taken
advice
from
police
scotland
in
terms
of
how
to
take
a
victim-led
approach
and
part
of
that
indicated
that
you
could
say
that
if
there
were
other
people
who
were
considering
complaints
it
you
know
it
might
be
of
of
help
to
them.
I
would
say
actually,
I
probably
can't
say,
because
I
think
it
will
get
us
into
territory
in
terms
of
the
complainers
but
yeah.
I
probably
sorry.
I
can't.
D
D
D
I
won't
refer
to
the
email
again,
but
my
my
final
question
or
questions
is
specifically
about
paragraph
10
of
the
procedure
and
lays
out
the
designated
civil
senior
civil
servant
will
be
designated
as
investigating
officer
and
that
that,
prior
that
person
won't
have
any
prior
involvement
or
knowledge
of
the
matter
being
raised.
Given
that
judith
mckinnon
had
already
had
discussions
with
complainers,
did
you
at
any
point
consider
her
appointment
in
that
role
as
problematic,
given
the
gravity
of
these
allegations
under
the
terms
of
paragraph
10.,.
L
I
didn't-
and
I
think
it
was
certainly
was
the
gravity
of
these
issues
and
the
sensitivity
of
them,
which
made
it
so
important
that
we
were
able
to
handle
it
very
confidential,
very
confidentially
within
hr,
and
to
do
so
very
very
carefully
with
people
who
were
very
highly
skilled
and
the
engagement
that
judith
had
had
with
the
individuals
in
advance
was
absolutely
her
role
as
an
hr
professional.
It
was
about
setting
out
options
in
earlier
drafts
of
the
procedure.
L
C
Was
this
put
in
place
as
a
result
of
the
gap
analysis
which
carried
out
establishing
that
there
was
a
reluctance
for
people
to
come
forward
and
if
so,
how
many
people
roughly
did
come
forward
and
of
those
people?
Did
they
any
of
them
end
up
to
be
formal
complainers
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
there's
one
other
aspect.
I
know
I've
asked
three
questions,
but
hopefully
this
one-
and
you
will
also
answer
if
this
was
good
practice
and
a
good
way
of
giving
these
people
the
support
to
come
forward.
C
L
I
think,
on
the
pastoral
support
the
confidential
sounding
board,
as
it
became
known.
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
organizations
at
that
point.
We're
trying
to
understand
what
what
creates
the
reluctance
in
people
coming
forward,
particularly
around
sexual
harassment,
but
but
more
generally,
and
I
think
that
the
scottish
parliament
was
putting
in
place
a
helpline.
It
was
doing
an
independent
helpline
in
that
way.
L
So
I
think
a
lot
of
organizations
at
that
time
were
thinking
about
how
do
you
bridge
the
gap
and
certainly
for
us
putting
in
a
senior
person
who
could
be
contacting
that
kind
of
way
and
it
felt
like
it
was
an
opportunity.
I
think,
to
really
just
be
just
to
be
sure
that
we
didn't
have
a
big
issue
that
we
weren't
aware
of
that.
You
know
there
wasn't
something
lurking
that
we
didn't
fully
understand
and
I
think
it
is
it's
a
valuable
process.
L
L
C
C
L
Mean
certainly
at
was
described
as
the
watershed
moment.
I
think.
Certainly
there
were
provisions
put
in
place
at
that
time
and
I
think
the
individual
had.
I
don't
know
if
they
all
came
directly
to
her.
Some
of
them
came
to
hr
that
there
were
about
10
people
that
came
forward
during
that
time.
Some
of
those
did
proceed
to
formal
complaints.
L
Some
of
them
were
resolved
through
other
means,
so
that,
but
I
think
it
came
to
a
point
where
actually
no
one
was
contacting
her
anymore,
so
it
didn't,
you
know
it
kind
of
it
sort
of
just
sort
of
fell
away
more.
Naturally,
I
think
that
people
weren't
coming
forward
directly
in
that
way,
but
I
think
you
know
yes,
I
mean.
Certainly
I.
L
A
A
And
I'm
interested
to
know
why
it
wasn't
shared
with
any
other
members
of
staff
who
perhaps
had
raised
concerns
about
bullying
harassment
and
who
had
been
through
the
process
before
just
to
see
whether
they
felt
that
this
was
an
improvement
on
the
situation
that
they
went
through.
Perhaps
or
you
know
if
they
felt
that
actually,
this
wouldn't
have
been
much
better.
So
their
experiences
could
have
fed
into
the
development
of
policy
and
I'm
interested
as
to
why
that
sharing
of
policy
wasn't
widened
in
any
way.
L
I
think
for
a
specific
policy
about
complaints
about
ministers,
we
had
had
very
very
few,
in
fact,
no
formal
complaints
about
ministers
until
these
had
been
raised.
So
all
we
had
had
at
that
point
was
one
issue
that
had
been
raised
and
dealt
with
under
the
informal
policy,
but
that
wouldn't
have
been
covered
by
this
policy
anyway,
because
it
wasn't
a
sexual
harassment
incident.
So
it
wasn't.
You
know
we
didn't
have
a
wide
staff
group
with
relevant
experience
on
on
whom
we
could
draw.
A
L
L
Oh
well,
that
was
all
underway.
At
the
same
time,
yeah
I
mean
there
was
a
lot
of
work
going
on
about
our
internal
policies.
There
was
a
lot
of
work
going
on
about
civil
servant,
civil
servant
behaviours
and
we
refreshed
our
standards
of
behavior.
We
created
a
new
route
map
so
that
individuals
in
the
organisation
could
understand
all
of
the
routes
by
which
harassment
and
considerations
could
be
raised.
So
there
was
a
wide
range
of
work
going
on
with
the
wider
staff
group,
but
that
was
more
general
and
it
wasn't
specific
to
ministers.
So.