►
From YouTube: Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints - 15 September 2020
Description
Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints
A
A
I
will
then
move
on
to
agenda
item
two.
I
won't
repeat
my
full
statement
from
our
meeting
on
18th
of
august,
but
I
would
remind
all
those
present
and
watching
that
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
also
agreed
that
it
is
not
our
role
to
revisit
events
that
were
a
focus
of
the
trial,
as
that
could
be
seen
to
constitute
a
rerun
of
the
criminal
trial.
Our
remit
is
clear.
It
is
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
identifying
those
who
make
complaints.
The
more
we
ask
about
specific
matters
covered
in
the
trial,
including
events
explored
in
the
trial.
The
more
we
run,
the
risk
of
rerunning
that
trial
wherever
possible,
can
witnesses
as
well
as
members.
Please
avoid
discussion
of
the
specifics
of
concerns
or
complaints,
including
those
that
predated
the
harassment,
complaints
procedure
being
produced
and
also
avoid
naming
specific
government
officials.
A
A
B
Thank
you,
convener.
I
served
as
permanent
secretary
to
the
scottish
government
from
2010
to
2015
after
a
career
in
public
service
in
england,
as
a
director
of
education
and
chief
executive
in
a
major
local
authority
and
as
a
director
general
and
permanent
secretary
in
whitehall
as
permanent
secretary
in
the
scottish
government,
I
had
a
dual
role
as
principal
policy
advisor
to
the
first
minister
in
the
cabinet
and
as
head
of
the
civil
service
in
the
scottish
government.
B
I'm
also
subject
to
the
obligations
on
confidentiality
imposed
on
former
civil
servants
by
the
civil
servants
management
code.
Within
these
constraints,
I
shall
of
course,
do
all
I
can
to
assist
the
committee
for
full
transparency.
I
should
declare
I
served
in
the
scottish
government,
whilst
a
number
of
members
of
this
committee
were
in
ministerial
roles
and
remain
a
member
of
the
fda.
A
C
B
C
C
B
I
was
well
briefed
by
the
director
of
hr
on
a
number
of
aspects
concerning
the
overall
arrangements.
You'll
appreciate
that
there
are
a
whole
suite
of
hr
policies.
We
didn't
go
through
each
one
in
detail,
they
were.
I
was
aware
they
were
there
and
could
call
on
specialist
advice,
including
legal
advice,
where
necessary,
if
their
interpretation
became
an
issue.
D
C
And
finally,
in
your
submission,
you
state
the
limiting
cases
were,
of
course,
situations
where
a
formal
complaint
was
brought
against
a
minister
and
or
there
was
presenting
evidence
that
nigrious
act
had
been
committed.
In
these
cases,
formal
procedures
were
followed.
Now
we
know
under
the
fairness
that
work
policy.
This
means
the
complaint
would
be
passed
on
to
use
permanent
secretary
and
to
nicolas
sturgeon
as
the
deputy
first
minister,
can
you
confirm
whether
these
formal
complaints
involved
harassment,
complaints
against
ministers,
including
the
former
first
minister,.
C
Yes,
that's
that's
in
that
case,
it's
a
little
bit
misleading
your
statement.
It
says
limiting
cases
where,
of
course,
situations
where
a
formal
complaint
was
brought
against
the
minister
and
there
was
presenting
evidence
that
egregious
act
and
the
greatest
act
had
been
committed
in
these
cases.
Formal
procedure
would
be
followed
70
to
so,
you
were
referring
to
specifics
because
my
understanding
was
if
it
couldn't
be
dealt
with
informally.
It
had
to
go
to
the
formal
procedure.
B
No
formal
complaints
came
forward
against
any
elected
politician
in
any
of
the
environments
in
which
I
worked.
What
I
was
seeking
to
lay
out
there
by
was
in
the
absence
of
formal
complaints
or
egregious
acts
known
egregious
acts.
One
used
informal
mechanisms
to
move
forward
situations
where
you
knew
there
was
a
concern.
B
C
B
Well,
in
terms
of
a
tight
legalistic
definition,
I
would
rely
on
lawyers
and
hr
folk,
but
in
terms
of
an
everyday
understanding
of
the
way
that
staff
might
be
affected
by
behavior.
I
think
I
could
recognize
it
as
well,
as
anybody
else
could
and
as
I
indicated
I,
I
knew
the
situation
we
were
dealing
with.
C
B
C
I
I
think
convener.
There
is
a
point
of
order
here.
Continually
we've
been
told
that
you
know
there's
confidentiality
under
the
ministerial
code,
but
this
is
an
inquiry
of
the
parliament
into
the
scottish
government's
handling
of
harassment,
complaints.
You
are
a
witness
here
to
facts
and
events,
and
it's
on
that
basis.
I'm
asking
you
that
question.
B
A
E
Yeah,
thank
you.
You've
said
peter
that
you
were
aware
of
concerns
and,
and
your
statement
describes-
or
I
think
some
of
the
evidence
you
provide
is
describes
that
the
safe
spaces
which
were
created
in
which
such
concerns
could
be
raised
without
talking
about
individuals
here,
do
you
feel
that
those
safe
spaces
that
were
created
were
successful
as
forums
in
allowing
people
to
bring
forward
complaints?
You've
said
that
no
complaints
will
brought
forward.
B
B
That
was
important,
because
the
variation
in
contact
and
quality
between
line
managers
and
their
staff
was
variable,
so
the
introduction
of
we
called
it.
The
monthly
conversation
was
designed
to
close
that
gap
and
refer
to
the
safe
space
that
you
provided
now.
It
is
possible
that
in
such
a
space,
those
type
of
concerns
might
be
raised.
They
might
of
course,
be
raised
outside
them.
B
Our
concern
was
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
bedrock
of
trust
and
information
exchange
between
the
line
manager
and
the
individual
to
promote
that.
Of
course,
it
remains
the
case
that
a
person,
a
member
of
staff,
might
choose
to
go
to
another
person
altogether.
Another
civil
servant
in
with
whom
they
had
a
relationship
and
and
had
an
existing
relationship
of
trust,
so
it
helped
with
the
general
climate,
rather
than
being
the
only
channel
that
you
would
make
available
to
people.
E
Thank
you.
You've
you've
also
stated
in
your
evidence
that
all
reasonable
steps
were
taken
in
your
time
as
permanent
secretary
to
ensure
that
the
culture
and
procedures
within
the
civil
service
were
appropriate
to
task
and
to
meet
their
duty
of
care
to
staff
and
you've
also
seen
that
complaints
were
dealt
with
or
concerns
rather
were
dealt
with
on
an
ad
hominem,
odd,
ad
hominem,
or
perhaps
that
feminine
bases,
but
you've
mentioned
reasonable
steps.
So
what
were
the
reasonable
steps
that
were
taken
in
these
type
of
situations?.
B
In
the
scottish
case
between
the
first
minister
and
a
rank-and-file
civil
servant
and
you've
got
what
I
called
in
my
evidence
and
asymmetry
of
accountability,
because
to
be
short,
civil
servants
do
not
have
a
line
of
accountability
from
ministers.
Ministers
are
accountable
to
this
parliament,
so
you've
got
that
those
sort
of
gaps.
B
B
B
B
B
So
what
was
the
issue
in
falkirk
last
friday?
How
can
I
help
what
happened
there?
That
kind
of
thing
which
started
the
conversation
and,
of
course
had
the
effect
of
conveying
the
fact
that
I
knew
perfectly
well
what
had
happened
in
that
circumstance
and
then,
lastly,
where
required-
and
this
wouldn't
be
on
every
occasion
to
seek
advice
or
maybe
just
to
pass
information
to
a
senior
counsellor
or
minister
around
these
kind
of
issues.
B
B
So
this
was
part
of
make
keeping
these
issues
front
and
center,
because
I
think
the
civil
service
is
entitled
to
expect
ministers
to
be
able
to
control
their
behavior
and
where
that
had
gone
beyond
reasonable
bounds,
but
had
not
triggered
a
complaint.
It
didn't
seem
to
me
unreasonable
that
that
should
be
a
fact
that
was
known
about
and,
of
course,
if,
if
the
individual,
the
minister
concerned
had
additional
information
about
particular
circumstances,
then
that
was
always
important.
E
Thank
you.
You
have
partly
anticipated
some
of
my
next
question,
which
was
without
talking
about
individuals.
Did
you
feel
that
lessons
were
being
learned
by
the
civil
service
during
the
time
of
your
involvement,
about
the
kind
of
reasons
why
people
do
not
raise
complaints?
You've
mentioned
some
of
those
reasons
just
now,
but
when
lessons
being
learned,
were
things
being
changed
during
this
period
to
try
to
overcome
some
of
these
obstacles
to
people
raising
complaints
of
the
kind
you
mentioned.
B
I
hope
so
certainly
we
had
and
benefited
from
a
strong
relationship
with
all
of
our
trade
unions
and
not
only
in
a
routine
sense.
I
used
to
meet
the
trade
unions
once
or
twice
a
year
on
a
round-table
basis,
and
always
the
most
interesting
part
of
the
agenda
was
when
the
formal
business
had
been
finished
and
they
wanted
to
share
particular
matters.
B
There
were
also
opportunities
for
trade
union
officials
individually
and
collectively,
to
talk
to
me,
so
we
certainly
knew
if
ever
we
needed
any
knowledge
that
the
gross
imbalance
of
power
that
I
referred
to
would
make
it
very
likely
that
people
would
be
very
thoughtful
about
coming
forward.
What
was
also
apparent,
particularly
at
the
top
of
the
office,
was
that
people
staff
were
deeply
committed
to
their
role
energized
by
being
a
civil
servant
at
the
top
of
the
scottish
government.
B
B
In
my
day
that
people
really
believed
in
what
they
were
doing
and
wanted
to
do
it
really
well
and
understood
that
they
would
be
working
under
significant
pressure,
so
you've
got
those
two,
an
imbalance
of
power
and
the
motivation
of
people
to
do
the
best
they
possibly
could
for
ministers
of
whatever
stripe,
and
that
was
an
important
issue.
So
this
was
not
a
partisan
thing.
This
was
being
a
civil
servant
and
being
a
good
one
was
what
drove
those
people.
B
B
The
monthly
conversation
was
part
of
the
suite
of
measures,
but
I
wonder
if
I
could
just
help
the
committee
a
bit
here,
because
I
don't
know
what
the
arrangements
are
currently,
but
my
physical
proximity
to
the
first
minister's
private
office,
and
I'm
talking
here
not
only
about
his
private
office
proper
but
the
communications
team,
the
special
advisers
events,
all
of
those
people.
My
physical
proximity
to
these
people
was
very
close,
so
instant,
andrew's
house.
They
were
literally
across
the
corridor
and
I
made
it
my
business
to
be
in
their
open
plan
office.
B
Often
so
I
would
have
conversations.
I
knew
a
good
number
of
those
people
and
I
had
very
regular
weekly
conversations,
at
least
with
the
principal
private
secretary,
and
always
we
were
talking
about
the
arrangements
always
improperly
the
arrangement
to
support
the
first
minister
and
the
cabinet
and
the
discharge
of
their
duties.
That's
what
I
was
essentially,
therefore
key
part
of
my
role
was
to
get
the
civil
service
to
work
as
effectively
as
it
possibly
could
for
ministers
to
fulfill
their
program
within
the
law.
B
That
was
the
job,
so
the
private
principle,
private
sector-
and
I
talked
all
the
time
about
how
well
we
were
doing
that
now.
If
you
had
bullying
and
intimidatory
behavior
here,
was
a
clear
signal
that
something
was
not
working
for
somebody
and
indeed,
probably
for
both
parties.
So
did
we
talk
about
that?
B
Yes,
we
did,
and
we
talked
a
lot
about
the
measures
that
would
ameliorate
it
both
for
the
individuals
and
indeed
for
the
first
minister
to
smooth
things
along
to
work
better
and
again
just
to
give
a
sense
of
frequency
here
for
much
of
the
time
that
office
that
operation
the
whole
show
ran
really
well
with
great
energy
and
great
motivation
on
both
sides.
So
the
normal
diet
was
of
pace,
excitement
things
happening
things
being
fixed
on.
B
We
go
you
you're
all
familiar
with
how
political
environments
work,
they're,
very
energizing
places
to
be,
but
they
were
punctuated
by
these
kind
of
behaviors
were
a
problem
in
the
words
I've
described
so
there
you've
got.
Did
I
know
about
this?
Yes,
I
did,
and
I
listened
to
your
proceedings
earlier
where
there
was
a
question
about
the
rumor
mill.
B
Well,
I
had
enough
to
rely
on
the
rumor
mill.
This
was
my
daily
working
life.
I
was
in
touch
with
these
people
alert
to
their
concerns,
and
did
we
get
more
sensitive
to
them?
Yes,
we
did,
but
again
we
were
working
in
an
informal
environment.
We
didn't
have
a
formal
complaint,
somebody
coming
forward,
either
individually
or
collectively,
to
say
up
with
this,
I
will
not
put.
B
You
must
do
something.
Nor
did
we
have
a
known,
egregious
act,
I'm
sorry
about
the
vocabulary.
What
I'm
talking
about
here
is
something
that
would
strike
anyone,
regardless
of
what
the
complainant
thought
about
it
as
unacceptable
behavior.
Now,
in
those
circumstances,
you've
got
something
to
get
hold
of.
If
you've
got
a
complaint
or
a
known,
egregious
act.
You've
then
got
something
you
can
act
act
upon
in
the
absence
of
those
two
conditions,
I've
tried
to
describe
here
the
kind
of
things
that
I
did.
Thank
you
convenient.
A
F
By
angela,
thank
you
very
much
good
morning,
sir
peter.
Thank
you
for
coming
to
see
us
today.
You
said
in
a
line
of
questioning
to
aleister
allen
that
the
bullying
behavior
would
punctuate
office
life
in
andrew's
house.
So
I
take
it.
Did
you
actually
witness
that
bullying
behavior
yourself
on
the
part
of
mr
salmond.
F
I'm
I'm
afraid
I
don't
appreciate
that.
I
mean
this
it
you're
under
oath
here.
I
understand
that
you
have
a
duty
of
care
to
protect
the
identities
of
people
who
might
have
been
involved
in
this.
So
we're
just
asking
you
for
your
recollection
of
the
facts:
did
you
witness
alex
hammond
shouting
at
or
bullying
an
individual
member
of
staff.
F
F
F
B
And
of
course
we
would
talk
about
what
was
actually
at
stake
here
and
all
the
other
other
sort
of
ways.
And
again
these
were
not
the
stock
in
trade
of
day
by
day
work,
but
they
did
occur,
yeah
as
they
do
in
in
other
working
environments,
and
I've
described
the
the
moral
responsibility
legal
responsibility
that
as
an
employer,
we
had
to
attend
to
those
circumstances.
In
the
best
way
we
could.
F
But
you
keep
hiding
behind
this
defense
of
confidentiality
to
actually
confirm
to
the
committee
whether
you
did
actually
ever
discuss
this
with
nicola
sturgeon,
and
I
I
don't
understand
that
tension.
I
mean
this
is
a
matter
of
process,
we're
not
asking
you
to
identify
complainers
or
individuals
involved.
We
just
want
to
know.
Did
you
apply
that
process
that
you've
agreed
to
us
would
have
been
the
appropriate
way
forward
by
raising
these
issues
with
nicola
sturgeon?
At
any
point,.
A
F
I
forgive
me
convenient,
but
I
don't
believe
I've
named
a
specific
incident.
This
is
about
the
culture
and
the
way
things
were
dealt
with
because
houston
has
taken
us
through
that.
I'm
not
content,
though,
that
this
defense
of
confidentiality
should
prohibit
him
from
just
confirming
the
way
things
were
done
before
the
procedure
was
brought
in
and
that's.
F
B
In
the
just
to
refer
back
to
what
I
recently
just
said,
the
it
was
part
of
the
conversation
that
went
on
in
the
senior
group.
It
did
not
thereby
need
specific
going
over.
My
handover
with
leslie
evans
was
focused
upon
issues
that
I
was
dealing
with
of
the
moment
that
she
would
be
picking
up.
The
reigns
of
there
was,
for
example,
a
live
procurement
issue
of
some
depth
and
complexity.
They
always
are.
It
was
that
I
I.
F
Guess
the
thing
yeah
so
and
thank
you
for
that,
but
as
we
we've
established,
there's
always
an
informal
side
of
the
process
as
well.
The
where
the
bodies
are
very
discussions
that
happen
when
anyone
hands
over
to
somebody
else
and
surely,
given
the
the
extent
to
which
you
had
to
manage
bullying
behavior
by
certain
ministers
that
that
you
know
would
have
been
one
of
the
most
gritty
aspects
of
your
job,
because
it's
one
of
the
most
sensitive
ones.
Surely
you
must
have
had
conversations
with
leslie
evans
about
how
to
deal
with
that.
F
B
B
F
And
this
ties
nicely
into
my
very
final
question:
convener
that
reality,
maybe
down
to
the
fact
that
not
many
people
had
confidence
in
the
complaints
procedure
against
such
a
powerful
figure.
So
can
I
ask
you:
did
any
of
the
concerns
raised
with
you
in
ad
hominem
terms
to
use
your
phrase?
Did
they
go
on?
Did
any
of
them
go
on
to
appear
as
formal
complaints
on
the
creation
of
the
procedure
in
2017-18.
B
G
Thank
you,
convener
and
good
morning
to
mr
houston,
mr
houston,
you
you
spoke
in
detail
about
the
informal
process
around
dealing
with
any
concerns
and
in
your
written
submission
to
committee.
In
paragraph
2.29,
you
said
that
where
a
formal
complaint
was
brought
against
a
minister,
formal
procedures
would
be
followed.
Can
you
just
talk
us
through
how
such
a
formal
procedure
in
your
time
is
perm
sec?
How
that
would
look.
B
Well,
the
formal
procedure
that
existed
in
my
period
in
as
permanent
secretary
was,
of
course,
based
on
the
fairness
at
work
process
that
its
self
is
based,
of
course,
on
employment
law
and
good
practice
advice
and
had
we
had
a
formal
complaint.
That
is
what
we
or
indeed
a
known,
egregious
act.
That
is
what
we
would
have
followed.
G
Okay,
the
scottish
government's
written
evidence
states
in
paragraph
19
that
its
review
of
2017
found
that
none
of
the
policies
in
place
allowed
consideration
of
complaints
against
former
ministers.
So
that's
obviously
a
reference
to
policies
in
your
time
as
permanent
secretary
can
I
ask,
did
you
ever
consider
expanding
policies
to
include
former
ministers.
B
G
Okay
and
in
paragraph
2.31
of
your
submission,
you
and
you've
already
spoken
today
about
that
structural
imbalance
of
power
and
asymmetry
and
accountability,
but
you've
also
acknowledged
that
ultimately,
ministers
are
accountable
to
to
parliament
and
I
wonder
if
you
can
explain
how
a
stronger
external
accountability
for
ministers,
via
as
you
suggest,
through
an
independent
parliamentary
standards.
Commissioner,
perhaps
how
that
could
be
implemented
to
complement
and
support
ministerial
accountability
to
parliament.
B
I
think
that's
a
very
important
issue.
It's
also
very
technical-
and
I
am
five
years
after
the
fact,
particularly
an
expert
in
how
that
would
be
articulated
and
what
its
relations
would
be
to
the
existing
policies,
because
it
seems
to
me
quite
clear
that
any
independent
element
would
not
be
a
substitute
for
good
hr
policies
on
the
ground,
but
would,
if
you
like,
stand
as
the
guarantor
and
a
place
of
last
resort
for
a
complainant
to
go
to.
B
I
also
think
it
would
have
a
symbolic
and
material
effect
on
the
climate
in
which
people
were
working.
The
fact
that
these
things
could
take
place,
I
think,
would
be
important,
but
I
wouldn't
go
any
further
in
terms
of
specifying
how
that
might
be
done,
because
again,
that
would
just
go
beyond
my
expertise.
G
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
and
my
final
question
convener.
Given
your
range
of
experience
across
public
services
in
different
settings,
I
wondered
if
you
had
a
view
about
whether
or
not
you
think
the
separation
of
pastoral
support
for
staff
in
event
of
a
concern
and
that
that
should
be
very
separate
from
more
investigative
roles.
G
Well
committee's
heard
a
fair
amount
of
evidence
of
the
government's
attempts
to
provide
support
where
staff
have
raised
concerns
and
formally,
and
I'm
asking
whether
it's
really
important
or
not,
in
your
view,
that
those
processes
around
pastoral
support
around
more
informal
concerns
that
they
are
kept
separate
or
not.
In
your
view,
from
more
formal
investigative
processes.
A
We
have
heard
that
the
scottish
government
decided
to
put
into
their
policy
about
former
ministers
that
this
was
the
first
in
the
uk
and
that
no
other
administration
has
followed
that
lead
and
the
union
trade
unions
were
particularly
strong
on
discussing
that,
and
I
just
wondered
what
your
opinion
was
about.
It.
B
Well,
I've
referred
to
me
too.
I
think
one
of
the
most
powerful
pieces
of
learning
for
me
and
for
I
guess
many
others
was
being
to
understand
the
kind
of
issues
and
pressures
on
women.
Who've
experienced
sexual
assaults
that
can
in
many
cases
defer
or
prevent
them
from
coming
forward
to
recount
their
experiences
in
a
formal
way
and
the
kind
of
triggers
that
enable
them
to
do
that,
and
it
can
be
argued
that
a
formal
procedure
is
one
of
those
safeguards
that
would
make
it
more
likely.
B
H
Thank
you
very
much.
Convener
and
good
morning,
sir
peter
fairness
at
work
was
obviously
the
policy
that
applied
during
your
tenure
as
permanent
secretary,
and
it
still
does
for
staff
other
than
ministers
and
former
ministers.
Is
there
anything
wrong
with
the
fairness
at
work
policy
that
you
would
change.
H
No
okay,
thank
you.
Could
I
ask:
were
you
consulted
by
the
current
permanent
secretary
about
the
wisdom
of
introducing
a
retrospective
harassment
policy?
No
okay
and
finally,
let
me
encourage
you
to
answer
this
one,
because
I'm
not
asking
you
to
name
people
who
reported
concerns,
I'm
not
asking
you
to
even
name
the
people
who
concerns
were
reported
about
and
I'm
not
asking
about
particular
ministers.
Okay,
I'm
asking
a
process
question
that
isn't
prohibited
by
the
civil
service
code.
H
B
H
H
Yes,
so
I'm
seeking
to
understand
what
is
a
senior
minister?
It's
not
it's
not
by
dint
of
somebody's
age
or
longevity.
You
know
in
office.
It
is
clearly
you
are
referring
to
a
type
of
minister
and
I'm
assuming
that's
not
the
entirety
of
the
shadow
cabinet.
So
I'm
seeking
to
understand
your
own
words
so
peter
well.
H
B
H
Okay,
I
I
think
jigsaw
identification
applies
to
people
who
are
complainants.
I
am
simply
interested
in
a
process
question
about
who
you
would
alert,
so
I
I
will
make
an
assumption
that
senior
ministers
in
my
book
are
the
first
minister
in
the
deputy
first
minister.
Would
that
be
an
unwise
assumption
to.
C
A
H
I
I
If
I
can,
and
can
I
just
go
back
to
your
your
written
submission
where
you
talk
about
how
informal
resolution
was
generally
considered
by
all
parties
to
be
more
to
the
to
be
the
most
appropriate
and
effective
solution
and
you're
going
to
say
where
there
were
individual
ministers
whose
behavior
was
a
cause
for
concern,
the
expectation
was
that
the
permanent
secretary
would
manage
these
situations
without
recourse
to
formal
procedures.
Confidentiality
requirements
preclude
me
from
chilling
the
particulars
my
experience,
but
I
took
actions
on
these
lines
in
a
number
of
settings.
I
B
Now,
I'm
not
using
it
in
that
strict
formal
sense,
I'm
talking
about
things
that
you
would
do
to
in
the
way
that
I've
described
to
move
a
situation
forward.
So
how
frequent
were
these?
Well,
the
number
of
ministers
who
were
involved
in
my
time
in
public
service,
which
was
a
long
period,
would
be
almost.
B
Single
figures,
single
figures
and
the
recurrence
of
the
persistence
of
the
issues,
of
course
varied
between
that
very
small
sample
of
ministers,
but
they
could
be
part
of
the
everyday
life
of
engaging
with
a
particular
minister,
but
again
just
to
re-emphasize
that
they
were
part
of
the
universe
of
working
with
that
minister.
They
did
not
define
what
working
life
was
like,
but
that
there
was
always
that
possibility
in
the
background.
So
that's
the
kind
of
circumstance
I'm
talking
about.
Okay,.
I
I
Okay,
thank
you.
We
heard
in
previous
sessions
from
the
trade
unions
about
how,
if
concerns
were
raised
by
staff,
often
the
resolution
would
be
that
that
individual
who'd
raised
a
concern
would
be
moved
to
another
department.
Is
that
something
that
you
encountered
personally
or
you
facilitated
as
permanent
secretary.
B
B
Some
of
them
were
not
as
a
result
of
egregious
behavior,
but
just
somehow
a
failure
to
click,
so
the
minister
and
the
individual,
just
you
know,
they're
all
sorts
of
vocabulary
for
all
this,
but
it
was
a
just
a
mutual
agreement
that
it
would
be
best
for
that
individual
to
come
to
come
away
now.
I
was
aware
that
those
kind
of
things
would
happen.
One
two,
those
of
you
with
that
experience-
will
understand
perfectly
well
that
it's
a
very
high
pressure
environment
for
the
minister
and
for
the
staff
working
for
he
or
she.
B
B
I
Thank
you
and
we've
heard
from
other
witnesses
about
how
informal
arrangements
could
sometimes
be
made
to
complement
formal
procedures.
So
without
going
into
specific
cases,
are
you
aware
of
any
changes
in
working
practices
that
were
made
in
relation
to
ministerial
offices
as
a
result
of
concerns
that
were
expressed
by
staff.
B
So
all
the
time
we
talked
about
arrangements
about
fine-tuning
about
what
he
or
she,
the
principal
private
sector
was
doing
in
the
environment
to
get
things
to
work,
and
this
would
rarely
very
rarely
be
about
behavioral
issues
per
se,
much
more
normally
about
the
shifting
current
of
government
business.
So
what
would
help
the
first
minister?
B
B
B
B
As
I've
mentioned
before,
we,
there
were
conversations
from
time
to
time
with
senior
union
officials
about
the
circumstances
in
the
first
minister's
office.
At
no
stage
did
those
crystallize
into
a
complaint
either
an
individual
complaint
or
a
collective
class
action
type
of
issue
around.
I
think
the
I
shouldn't
speak
for
them.
They've,
given
evidence
to
you,
but
the
culture
in
which
we
were
operating
was
very
much
one
of
informal
handling
of
these
situations.
B
So,
yes,
those
conversations
were
around
and
I
always
tried
really
to
be
sympathetic.
Ministers
didn't
raise
questions
with
you
because
they
were
trivial.
They
clearly
mattered
to
the
minister
concerned,
but
to
emphasize
the
importance
of
actually
how
hard
staff
worked
on
their
behalf
and
the
importance
of
morale
and
motivation.
B
B
No
and
that
really
wouldn't
be
necessary
or
part
of
well
you'd,
be
an
awful
long
way
down
the
track
and
the
conversation
would
not
be
going
very
well.
If
you
got
to
that
kind
of
circumstance,
ministers
were
perfectly
aware
of
the
terms
under
which
they
are
appointed
and
of
the
overall
climate.
So
no
you
don't
get
into
those
kind
of
conversations.
J
But
the
ministerial
code
has
since
been
revised
since
your
time,
do
you
think?
Well,
I'm
assuming
that
perhaps
you've
you've
looked
at
both
the
fairness
and
work
policy
and
the
ministerial
code
currently
do
you
think
that
they
reflect
the
current
situation
in
terms
of
working
relationships?
If
you
like
in
government
and
civil
service,
I'm.
J
B
Well,
I
I'd
seen,
for
example,
in
the
procedure
used
for
complaints
against
the
first
minister,
the
use
of
independent
advisors
on
those
questions
and,
of
course,
in
the
years
since
I've
been
away
in
westminster
and
beyond,
we've
seen
independent
commissioners
of
different
kind
kinds
being
appointed
and
going
about
their
work.
So
it
seems
to
me
as
a
general
proposition
that
has
some
interesting
things
to
commend
it.
D
J
B
In
post,
let
me
take
the
two
parts
of
your
question,
then.
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
an
independent
commissioner,
more
important
than
the
precise
focus
of
their
experience
and
background
is
their
standing,
so
they
need
to
be
people
of
self-evident
high
integrity
who
would
command
respect
amongst
here,
msps
and
the
wider
community
point.
B
One
point:
two
you'd
need
to
make
very
sure
your
point
that
they
had
access
to
the
highest
quality
of
legal
and
hr
advice,
and,
in
my
submission
too,
I
think
they
would
also
understand
what
it
is
like
to
work
in
a
democratically
accountable
environment
as
you
do,
and
similarly,
what
large
complicated
organizations
alike.
So
I
think
you
could
work
a
person's
specification
up
on
those
lines
and
get
some
really
powerful
people
coming
forward
to
do
that
kind
of
thing.
B
I
think
that
there's
a
different
set
of
considerations
in
terms
of
staff
within
the
body
of
the
scottish
government
hr,
as
you
know,
from
your
experience
of
course,
is
a
very
wide
church.
It
covers
things
like
leadership
development,
all
the
way
through
to
the
formalities
of
grievance
and
discipline
procedures,
be
what
that
may.
So.
B
B
We've
all
worked
with
people.
Who've
got
a
lot
of
qualifications,
but
lack
judgment
and
experience.
So
you
want
a
mixture
really
and
you
need
to
be
sure
that
in
those
circumstances,
they've
got
an
appropriate
balance
and
that
they're
well
supported,
because
we
all
reach
the
end
of
our
technical
competence.
We
all
need
somebody
to
actually
run
propositions
past,
say
I'm
seeing
this
this
way.
Do
you
agree?
So
I
think
it's
quite
a
rich
canvas
about
thinking
about
how
you
reach
a
view
about
the
fitness
for
purpose
of
an
individual
in
a
particular
circumstance.
A
K
L
B
So
we
would
look
at
those
kind
of
circumstances,
talk
to
the
trade
unions,
but
when
I
looked
last
point
when
I
looked
at
the
comparative
levels
of
bullying
and
harassment
reporting
across
this
very,
very
wide
civil
service
survey
that
was
published
every
year,
our
figures
didn't
stand
out.
They
were
better
than
some
higher
than
we
would
have
wanted,
of
course,
but
considerably
better
than
some
organizations.
So
they
they
didn't
say
to
me.
There
is
an
endemic
problem
around
under
reporting.
L
Okay,
thank
you.
You've
in
responding
to
colleagues,
you've
noted
that
you've
spoken
of
informal
means
to
address
areas
of
concern,
and
you
know
reflecting
on
whether
these
means
were
effective.
You
you've
said
in
the
short
term,
sometimes
and
in
your
written
submission.
You
say-
and
I
think
you
mentioned
this
to
murder
fraser
too,
in
considering
our
general
approach.
Informal
resolution
was
generally
considered
by
all
parties
to
be
the
most
appropriate
and
effective
solution.
B
B
That
was
the
presumption
that
I
think
I
said
in
my
evidence
that
it
fell
to
the
permanent
secretary
to
use
informal
mechanisms
to
move
those
situations
forward
in
the
best
way
that
he
or
she
had
so
you're.
Quite
right,
do
I
say
that's
a
cultural
thing.
That
was
the
expectation
that
was
on
a
permanent
secretary
when
he
or
she
took
up
post
and
that
and
that's
what
happened,
and
I
think
that
and
the
work
of
this
committee,
I'm
sure,
will
contribute
a
further
step.
B
That
would
enable
them
to
reach
a
decision,
and
I
think
that's
the
important
thing.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
it
will
be
a
decision
for
the
individual
employee
to
make,
and
it's
a
big
one,
as
I'm
sure
your
evidence
will
have
brought
to
the
table
if
it
needed
any
underlining
it's
a
it's
a
very
significant
thing
to
do.
But
the
important
thing
is
that
you're
creating
the
conditions
where
people
can
take
those
decisions
soundly.
L
Written
submission
you
note
that
culture
will
remain
the
critical
factor.
However,
so
perhaps
we
need
to
move
away
from
a
culture
where
there's
almost
a
determination
to
have
that
informal
process
rather
than
rather
than
a
more
formal
process,
and-
and
you
know
too,
that
the
climate
now
is
much
more
sensitive
to
to
these
issues,
and
rightly
so,
but
you
do
say.
The
key,
however,
will
be
political
will,
so
it
is,
you
know
I
think
you've
just
alluded
to
it
there,
where
political
will
might
be
lacking
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
L
B
As
I've
indicated,
the
perception
that
we
needed
a
more
robust,
formal
process
to
enable
members
of
staff
to
have
confidence,
the
way
I've
been
described
was
not
there
in
my
years.
So
the
cultural
expectation,
as
you
rightly
identify,
was
that
these
cases
would
be
moved
forward
as
best
they
could
be
informally.
B
So
it's
not
a
good
thing
that
people
leap
immediately
to
procedures.
You
need.
You
know,
of
course,
the
opportunity
to
understand
and
to
see
just
how
serious
this
is
and
where
we're
going.
Your
point,
I
think,
is
that
that
needs
to
be
underpinned
by
a
clear
pathway
in
which
people
have
got
confidence
that
if
they
do
want
to
take
an
issue
forward,
they
can
do
so
and
I'm
just
identifying
strongly
with
that
as
a
proposition.
B
L
B
Good
question:
I
think,
to
start
where
you
concluded,
there
will
always
be
an
element
of
perception.
Clearly
I
think
it's
the
job
of
the
organization
to
make
sure
that
the
individual
is
concerned.
Everyone
in
the
organisation
has
access
to
a
really
good
manager,
who's,
empathetic,
clear
supportive
in
all
of
those
ways-
and
I
know
in
my
time
I'm
sure,
beyond
work
to
train
line
managers
at
all
levels
in
those
skills
was
intense.
We
also-
and
here
again
the
staff
survey
was
extraordinarily
helpful.
B
We
also
could
target
places
in
the
organization
where
the
evidence
suggested
this
was
an
issue,
so
the
broad
staff
engagement
score
could
be
broken
down
to
quite
a
level
of
granularity
in
terms
of
divisions
and
directorates.
So
you
could
identify
areas
where
there
was
an
issue
and
see
what
was
open.
That
box
see
what
was
actually
happening
in
those
circumstances
and
take
steps
to
improve
it.
That
was
that
was
enormously
helpful,
so
it
wasn't
just
a
scatter
gun.
L
And
finally,
you
suggest
a
number
of
preventative
measures
that
could
be
considered
and
we've
discussed
some
of
them
during
the
session,
but
you
speak
about
enhanced
ministerial
induction
and
on-the-job
training.
You
know
maureen
what
you
know
raised
the
question:
did
you
have
to
make
ministers
aware
of
how
staff
should
be
treated,
but
could
there
be
more
done
in
that
regard?.
B
B
That's
how
people
learn
so
a
rich
environment
that
you
adventure
as
elected
members,
feel
in
charge
of
so
this
is
your
product,
rather
than
something
you're
being
required
to
do
seems
to
me
most
likely
to
help
in
this
environment,
but
last
point:
at
the
end
of
the
day,
people
will
watch
very
carefully
what
the
most
senior
people
do,
weren't
they
and
that
that's
what
I
mean
about
example,
so
you
can
have
all
all
of
this
apparatus,
but
they
will
watch
what
people
do
so.
That
too,
is
a
very
important
component.
Thank.
F
F
I
hoped
it's
become
obvious
to
everyone
by
now
that
the
line
of
questioning
I'm
seeking
to
establish
if
there
was
sufficient
concerns
about
mr
simondon
in
in
the
upper
echelons
of
the
civil
service
that
that
characterized,
the
design
of
this
new
procedure,
and
if
that
was
done
specifically
to
fit
the
concerns
around
mr
simon,
then
I
think
that's
important
for
us
to
know
so
in
order
to
establish
that
I've
pursued
a
line
of
questioning
which
asks
about
the
concerns
that
were
held
about
mr
salmond.
At
the
time.
A
A
A
And
can
I
welcome
barbara
allison
former
director
of
people
at
the
scottish
government
from
2009
to
2016.?
Miss
allison
remains
a
civil
servant
as
director
of
communications
and
ministerial
support.
Can
I
begin
please
by
inviting
ms
allison
to
take
the
oath.
If
you
would
raise
your
right
hand,
please
and
repeat
after
me,
I
swear
by
almighty
god.
I
swear.
A
K
I've
worked
with
the
scottish
government
since
2008
following
14
years
with
the
scottish
prison
service
latter.
Latterly,
as
director
of
hr
there
for
five
and
a
half
years,
I
was
asked
to
join
sg
as
head
of
hr
in
january
2008
and
was
subsequently
promoted
to
director
of
hr
and
corporate
services
in
2009.
K
Since
june
2016
I've
been
director
of
communications
minister
of
support
and
facilities.
I
thought
it'd
be
helpful.
If
I
summarise
what
my
involvement
has
been
in
matters
which
have
interested
the
committee
to
date,
I
was
in
charge
of
hr
when
the
fairness
at
work
policy
was
developed
and
introduced
in
2010.
K
K
However,
I
was
individual
asked
through
that
period
to
take
on
the
role
to
provide
pastoral
care
to
staff,
if
required,
to
be
clear,
that
role
is
different
from
the
role
of
the
confidential
sounding
board,
which
has
been
discussed
at
the
committee.
Previously,
I
had
some
early
contact
with
the
two
individuals
who
ultimately
became
complainants
under
the
policy
for
handling
of
harassment,
complaints
other
than
this
early
initial
contact.
K
I
had
no
involvement
in
the
investigation
finally
has
been
set
out
by
others
in
previous
weeks,
I'm
giving
evidence
to
the
committee
on
behalf
of
ministers
and
not
in
a
personal
capacity
convener.
As
the
committee
appreciates,
this
is
complex
legal
territory
and,
as
I
have
explained,
I
am
privy
to
certain
information
that
was
subject
of
legal
proceedings
and
the
confidentiality
of
which
is
now
protected.
K
I
asked
the
committee's
patients
I'm
cautious
and
answering
questions
certain
matters
or
I've
had
to
stop
and
seek
advice
or
follow
up
questions
and
writing
with
detail
to
ensure
accuracy
and
to
ensure
that
all
the
government's
legal
duties
are
fulfilled
in
line
with
approach
of
other
attendees.
I
would
wish
to
declare
that
I'm
a
member
of
the
fda
union.
Thank
you.
Kavina.
A
C
C
K
So
perhaps
it'd
be
helpful.
If
I
was
absolutely
clear,
I
was
not
aware
of
any
issues
about
sexual
harassment.
I
just
quite
like
to
be
clear
about
that.
So
so
just
for
clarity,
but
I
so
I
did
not
raise
any
issues
about
bullying
harassment
with
either
the
permanent
secretary
or
the
deputy
first
minister,
okay.
F
Thank
you
convener.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
to
see
us
today.
Bob
rosen,
ms
allison,
so
peter
houston
revealed
to
us
that
of
his
life
in
the
very
inner
sanctum
around
alexander
was
often
punctuated
by
incidents
of
bullying
behavior.
That
was
his
word
by
mrs
mr
simon,
and
he
would
seek
to
handle
those
issues
on
an
informal
basis
and
did
he
ever
discuss
his
approach
to
these
problems
with
you
as
director
of
people?
K
I
would
like
to
say
for
fairness
that
people
also
expressed
that
they
enjoyed
working
for
him.
He
was
visionary,
he
was
dynamic,
it
was
about
the
roller
coaster,
so
I
know
I
think
there
was
lots
of
shades
of
grey,
so
there
were
rumors
of,
as
I
said,
have
been
demanding
and
difficult,
but
I
think
you
know
people
had
different
experiences
of
working
with
them.
F
And
so
you
never
just
for
clarity.
You've
never
heard
any
kind
of
rumor
around
sexual
misconduct
on
the
part
of
it.
Okay,
that's
fine!
Just
moving
on
to
the
your
role
as
a
pastoral
care
officer
for
the
complainers
and
I'm
glad
to
hear
there
was
such
a
post
put
in
to
help
them.
You
said
you
had
early
contact
with
people
that
would
go
on
to
make
complaints
under
the
new
procedure.
When
were
you
first?
When
did
you
first
learn
about
their
allegations
in
terms
of
it?
F
Okay,
so
that's
when
you're
very
signed
and
then
finally
I'll
take
a
break
after
the
next
question
to
let
other
people
in,
but
I
do
have
a
few
follow-ups.
So
do
you
just
for
clarity?
Are
you
as
the
sort
of
chalk
face
role
in
terms
of
the
day-to-day
management
of
people
in
the
organization?
Were
you
ever
aware
of
informal
circumstances
where
people
were
moved
around
or
working
practices
changed
because
of
friction
with
mr
salmond.
K
K
Well,
I
would
call
it
chemistry,
so
I
think
particularly
in
private
offices.
I
think
it's
it's
very
important
that
there's
good
chemistry
between
ministers
and
their
tribe
office
and
that
you
know
they
gel
well.
So
you
know,
if
either
in
private
office,
another
area
it
was
appropriate
to
move
somebody
on
an
informal
basis.
I
think
that's
perfectly
appropriate.
K
I
mean
we
certainly
would
engage
widely
with
trade
unions,
obviously
with
networks,
and
so
we
have
a
lot
of
staff
networks
around
lgbti,
race,
disability,
etc.
So
we
would
share
drafts
with
them.
I'm
not
aware
of
sharing
with
any
particular
individuals,
but
certainly
we'd
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
were
taking
views
of
staff
widely.
K
I
mean
I'm,
I
am
aware
of
or
my
understanding
of
why
it
was
shared
in
this
case
was:
had
this
policy
been
in
place,
this
procedure
been
in
place
at
the
time.
Would
this
have
helped
in
terms
of
raising
an
issue?
You
know,
I
think
that
you
know
so
in
terms
of
with
this
have
made
a
difference.
So
that's
my
understanding
of
why
it
was
shared
in
this
occasion.
Okay,.
L
You've
you
said
that
you
were
aware
of
issues
being
raised,
but
that
no
formal
complaints
were
made.
So
do
you
have
any
concerns
that
staff
were
reluctant
to
take
that
next
step
in
our
earlier
session
this
morning,
and
with
mr
houston,
you
know
he
made
the
the
point,
which
is
quite
reasonable-
that
you
wouldn't
always
want
to
go
to.
K
I,
I
am
a
I'm,
a
great
believer
in
informal
resolution
and-
and
I
don't
think
that's
I
I
suppose,
I'm
concerned
slightly-
that
it
feels
like
it's
an
easy
option,
or
I
mean
I
think
if
you
can
get
in
early
and
resolve
an
issue
between
two
individuals
nip
it
in
the
bud.
You
know
clarify
so
from
lack
of
communication
or
misunderstanding.
K
Then
I
think,
as
a
and
the
fairness
of
work
policy
supports
that
so
the
individual
contact
with
the
line
manager
and
to
see
if
they
can
resolve
it
in
formal
contact
with
hr
and
if
they
can't,
then
you
can
go
on
a
formal
basis.
So
I
am
a
trained
mod,
a
mediator
and
a
part
of
the
mediation
network
that
we
use,
and
I
I
am
a
huge
advocate
for
the
informal
resolution.
However,
if
it
can't
be
resolved,
then
absolutely
people
must
have
recourse
to
a
formal
process
and.
L
K
They
want
somebody
to
hear
and
to
share
an
experience
with
I
mean
I
mean
I,
as
I
said
to
mr
hamilton.
I
mean
I
think,
if,
if
there
is
an
issue,
the
best
thing
is
to
resolve
it.
An
answer
may
be
to
move
people.
I
don't
think
that's
necessarily
a
bad
option.
You
know
I
am.
I
think
it's
me
portrayed
as
I
said
that
it
is
that
it's
wrong.
Sometimes
that
is
you
know
if
people
aren't
getting
on,
you
move
somebody.
It's
a
very
large
organization.
K
L
What
are
your
views
on
the
efficacy
of
a
process
that
doesn't
have
an
independent
element,
and
I
think
mr
penman
from
the
fda,
I
I
think,
was
quite
clear
that
the
lack
of
that
independent
investigator
has
had
well.
We
understand
the
impact
in
our
current
work,
but
what
are
your
views
on
the
lack
of
that
independent
investigator.
K
I
think
I
think
when
it's,
if
it's
an
employment
contract,
you
know,
I
think,
there's
ultimately
there's
an
employment
tribe.
You
know
I
am
externally
somebody
can
go
to
I
mean
I.
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
ways
where
people
can
have
their
their
issue
raised
and
looked
at
and
out
with
the
line
independently.
Still
within
the
organization
I
mean,
I
I
think
we
will.
Obviously
you
know,
look
at
and
the
fullness
of
time
and
with
the
lord
and
lord
review,
and
you
know
some
committees
and
considerations.
K
You
know
whether
we
need
more
independence,
but
I
think
you
know
when
you're
dealing
with
an
employment
situation.
You
know,
I
think
you
know,
there's
informal,
formal
and
appeal
mechanisms
and
there's
external
appeal
mechanisms.
So
I
would.
I
would
hope
that
there's
a
sufficient,
you
know
impartiality
within
the
organization
to
to
to
ensure
that
people
feel
they've
been
dealt
with
an
impartial
basis
and.
K
So
when
we
introduced
it
in
2010
it
was.
We
took
the
dignity
of
work
policy
which
had
come
in
in
2003
and
was
updated
in
2007..
So
there's
a
number
of
steps
brought
in
in
2010
with
that.
I
am
a
clarified,
unacceptable,
behavior,
the
rules
of
the
lane
manager,
the
roles
of
counter-signing
manager,
and
it
really
emphasized
the
importance
of
mediation,
etc.
I
mean,
I
think
it's
right.
K
K
You
know,
I
think
that,
with
ever
with
with
policies,
I
think
time
scales
are
an
issue.
You
know,
I
think,
how
long
it
takes
to
resolve
things.
So
I
think
that's
an
issue,
but
I
mean
I,
I
think
the
fairness
of
work
policy
in
and
of
itself
provides
mechanisms
to
resolve
issues.
I
I
think
it
is
fit
for
purpose.
You
know
I
think
like
like
any.
It
should
be
reviewed
at
a
point
in
time,
though.
Okay
thank.
G
You
know
such
as
a
parliamentary
standards.
Commissioner.
Now
he
did
say
that
this
would
not
be
a
substitute
for
good
hr
practice
and
that
there
were
details
in
and
around
governance
issues
about
accountability
of
ministers
to
parliament
and
such
like,
but
he
felt
that
there
could
be.
You
know
a
significant
merit.
It
could
have
a
material
effect.
It
could
be
a
guarantor
and
a
place
of
last
resort,
and
I
just
wondered
miss
allison
what
your
views
would
be
of
an
external
independent
process
and
actually,
how
could
that
be
made
to
work
to
good
effect.
K
I
think,
as
peter
said,
I
think
I
think
the
issue
about
governance
around
how
such
a
process
would
work
with
the
ministerial
code,
etc
would
be
really
important,
and
I
know
that
some
of
the
work
that
the
people
directorate
are
looking
at
and
had
started
was
to
look
at
how
our
current
policies
worked
work
with
the
ministerial
code.
So
I
I
think
it's
really
understanding
how
these
you
know
these
various
processes
would
dovetail
into
one
another.
I
mean
I
think
that
would
be
quite
important.
K
I
don't
in
wisconsin's,
you
know,
obviously
having
been
a
minister
yourself.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
the
relationship
between
civil
servants
and
ministers
is
really
important
and
you
know
there's
a
there's,
a
lot
of
trust
there
and-
and
I
think
you
know,
if
there's
you're,
bringing
an
independent
person
into
that
you
know.
Would
that
change
the
relationship
I
don't
know.
I
certainly
think
it's
something
we'd
need
to
think
quite
carefully
about
and
whether
there'd
be
unintended
consequences.
If
that
was
done,.
G
And
what
about
if
it
was
a
more
tiered
approach,
because
both
you
and
peter
hauser
spoke
about
informal
processes
and
the
value
of
that,
and
then
you
know
there
are,
you
know
more
formalized
processes
and
you
know.
Obviously
there
is
indeed
the
ministerial
code,
but
you
know
is:
is
there
a
place
you
know
for
somewhere
along
the
line
in
some
circumstances,
for
the
benefit
of
an
external
independent
person.
K
I
mean
I
said
there
may
well
be
I
mean
I
think
I
think.
As
you've
rightly
said,
there
are
a
number
of
processes
already
in
place
in
terms
of
of
you
know,
informal
and
formal,
and
you
know
maybe
ultimately
there's
an
independent,
but
I
think
I
think
the
fullness
of
time.
You
know
we'll
be
able
to
consider
these
things.
K
So
yes,
there'd
be
a
twice
yearly
partnership
board
where
senior
officials
would
meet
the
trade
union
officials
and
but
we
would
routinely
have
you
know,
regular
meetings
with
the
trade
unions
on
a
formal
basis,
and
we
would
also
have
reasonably
regular
informal.
You
know
you,
you
have
good
productive
relationships.
So
if
there
were
issues
that
we're
aware
of
they're,
not
usually
shy
of
picking
up
the
phone
and
making
aware
of
things.
J
J
So
in
hr,
there's
always
you
never
know
whether
an
individual
will
go
to
the
line
manager.
First,
the
line
manager
may
be
in
fact
the
person
that
they've
got
some
problems
with.
So
can
you
recall
any
situations
where
you
were
contacted
directly
by
anyone
in
the
civil
service
in
relation
to
their
interaction
with
ministers.
J
J
K
Think
certainly,
I
think,
as
peter
said
I
mean
I
think,
since
you
know
2017,
I
think
people
will
be
reviewing
their
policies
to
ensure
that
if
staff
want
to
raise
complaints
or
issues
that
they're
able
to
do
so
and
there's
nothing
within
you
know
a
policy
that
would
stop
them
doing
that.
I
think
it's
really
important.
H
Thank
you
very
much
and
good
afternoon,
mrs
allison.
Now
I'm
not
interested
in
talking
about
individuals.
So
so
let
me
make
that
clear
at
the
start
and
I'm
happy
to
take
short
and
direct
answers,
can
I
ask
you:
were
you
involved
in
the
edinburgh
airport
press
inquiry,
and
can
you
recall
what
date
was
that
and
what
was
your
role.
K
D
H
K
Is
my
the
pastoral
care
rule?
So
it
was.
I
got
a
letter
from
the
parent
secretary
on
the
11th
of
november
2017
and
the
purpose
of
that
was
twofold,
one
that
a
number
of
people
had
been
contacted
by
the
press
and
she
was
keen
that
and
they
were
given
appropriate
support
and,
if
required-
and
the
second
thing
was,
we
were
conscious
that
there
had
been
as
a
result
of
the
staff
messages
that
permanent
secretary
issued,
that
there
had
been
some
people
coming
forward
and.
K
Because
because
of
of
my
responsibilities
at
the
time
that
it
was
it's
likely
that
that
people
from
the
current
tribe
office
or
comms
might
be,
people
would
come
forward.
So
she
asked
me
if
I
would
just
add
some
support
point
them
towards.
You
know:
support
mechanisms
available,
and
you
know
any
issues
make
hr
aware.
H
K
H
H
Okay,
okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Can
I
move
us
on
to
just
touch
on
the
judicial
review
and
the
commission
of
documents
in
december
2018?
Did
you
appear
before
that?
Commission?
I
did
you
did?
Could
you
ask
me,
could
I
ask
you
even
were
there
documents
or
text
messages
or
anything
that
you
were
involved
in
that
you
had
to
speak
to
the
commission
about.
H
H
H
I
get
that,
but
the
seriousness
of
it
makes
it
something
different.
So
so
just
so,
I
get
the
chronology
right.
You
knew
about
the
press
story
in
relation
to
edinburgh
airport
on
the
6th
of
november,
you
had
a
discussion
with
the
permanent
secretary
on
the
9th
of
november.
Yes,
and
you
were
then
appointed
on
the
11th
of
november
to
your
new
role
with
pastoral
care.
H
No,
I
understand
that
it's
just
so
I
can
get
the
timeline
right.
Can
I
can
I
make
us,
look
just
a
bit
further
ahead
and
I've
got
two
final
questions
for
you,
the
first,
obviously,
by
the
time
we
get
to
august
2018,
there
was
a
police
investigation
underway,
okay
and
I
think
you'd
probably
agree.
It
would
be
inappropriate
for
anybody
to
have
been
in
contact
with
potential
witnesses
or
former
civil
servants.
Did
you
have
any
such
contact?
Were
you
encouraged
to
email?
Anybody?
H
No,
no,
that's
helpful
to
know.
Obviously
we
heard
about
text
messages,
and,
and
last
week
my
colleague
murdo
fraser
raised
a
text
message
from
the
permanent
secretary
which
was
sent
in
january
2019.
It
said
we
may
have
lost
the
battle,
but
we
will
win
the
war.
Was
that
to
you?
No,
it
wasn't
to
you.
You
didn't
receive
a
text
message
like
that.
It's
interesting!
Okay,
did
you
have
any
discussion
with
the
permanent
secretary
about
that?
No
afterwards,
nothing!
Okay,
that's
fine!
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,.
E
Thank
you.
Convener
you've
touched
on
the
issue
there
about
the
pastoral
support
that
you
provided
and
how
that
became
a
new
part
of
your
your
role
and
some
of
the
evidence
submitted
or
some
of
the
evidence
that
we
have.
There
is
correspondence
and
describing
how
that
pastoral
support
was
provided,
and
particularly
in
the
private
office
and
communications
at
various
points.
And
can
you
explain
more
about
that
and
about
how
that
that
role
worked.
K
E
K
K
K
K
So
that
would
be
general
support
to
you
know:
staff
for
media
handling
the
pastoral
care
one
was
literally
just
to
you
know
to
be
there
to.
If
anyone
to
come
and
say
you
know,
I'm
concerned
that
things
are
coming
out.
You
know,
and-
and
you
know
this
feels
tough
and
we're
gonna
go
for
support,
you
know,
so
you
would
mention
trade
unions.
You
mentioned
welfare
officer,
you
mentioned
the
you
know,
eap,
etc.
Employee
assistance
program.
E
Okay,
can
I
ask
more
generally
a
point
that
came
up
in
conversation
with
sir
peter
just
now,
which
was
about
the
apparent
mismatch,
as
the
years
went
on
between
the
the
concerns
expressed
in
the
staff
survey
and
and
the
number
this
was
the
point
it
was
raised
with
sir
peter.
The
relatively
low
number
of
people
willing
to
come
forward
to
make
complaints.
K
K
We've
got
new
networks,
people
have
mentors
line,
managers,
trade
unions
etc.
So
there's
a
number
of
ways
that
people
can,
I
think,
get
get
support
individually.
If
they're,
you
know
if
they
feel
they
want
and
to
discuss
anything
with
people.
So
you
know,
I
think
that
it's
an
area
that,
over
the
years
in
terms
of
our
culture,
success
of
permanent
secretaries
have
invested
heavily
in
to
being
a
much
more
supportive
environment,
et
cetera.
K
A
K
I
A
F
A
F
And
my
apologies,
so
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
me
back
in
convina,
I'm
very
keen
to
explore
further
your
role
as
the
pastoral
care
support
for
the
people
that
would
go
on
to
lodge
formal
complaints.
Can
I
ask
when
you
were
supporting
them?
Did
you
ever
get
the
impression
that
they
had
been
encouraged
to
formalize
their
complaints
by
other
civil
servants.
K
F
K
F
Yeah,
of
course,
it
is
the
reason
I
asked
this
is
this
procedure
clearly
failed,
the
very
people
it
was
designed
to
serve
it
left
women
exposed
and
denied
both
any
kind
of
recognition
or
any
sense
of
justice,
and
I'm
just
keen-
I
think
it's
really
important.
This
committee
understands
the
impact
that
would
have
on
those
women
and
I'm
concerned
to
hear
that
your
pastoral
role
stopped
before
then.
What
kind
of
pastoral
support
was
offered
to
these
women
after
the
collapse
of
the
judicial
review?
Or
do
you
have
no
knowledge
of
that.
H
K
H
K
H
H
A
C
K
I
think
the
they
raised
with
us
at
the
time-
and
I
think
in
their
evidence,
said
that
over
a
number
of
years
before
the
2010
policy
that
they'd
had
concerns
raised
by
their
members,
they
had
no
specific
concerns
and
they
were
sort
of
those
general
concerns
have
been
raised.
They
didn't
raise
anything
specific
with
us,
but
my
understanding
was
because
of
over
a
number
of
years,
issues
had
been
raised.
K
C
K
K
K
So
you
so
just
to
be
clear.
Sorry,
we
introduced
the
ministers
into
the
2010
policy
on
the
back
of
general
concerns
that
that
were
being
raised
to
introduce
that
policy.
The
permanent
secretary
was
clearly
aware,
because
you
know
he
was
required
to
agree.
The
policy
and
the
permanent
secretary
spoke
to
the
first
minister
at
a
time
to
bring
that
policy
into
into
into
place.
So
that
was
done
in
advance
of
the
the
2010
polls
that
came
into
play.
C
Right-
and
that
was
the
first
minister-
you,
you
didn't
think
it
appropriate,
then,
to
with
the
deputy
first
minister
who,
under
the
fairness
at
work,
revised
polity,
had
there
been
a
written
complaint
and
I
think
that
was
quite
a
stumbling
block
and
quite
a
huge
obstacle
to
people.
You
know
taking
their
complaints
forward.
You
don't
think
it
would
have
been
appropriate
to
to
raise
it
with
with
her.
K
K
K
People
want
to
come
and
talk
to
them,
but
it's
up
to
individual
whether
they
want
to
make
a
a
formal
complaint
or
not,
and
if
they
were,
if
they
weren't
getting
specifics,
then
you
know
they
weren't
having
they
weren't,
getting
anything
to
raise
with
us
and
there's
nothing
that
we
could
take
forward.
Thank.