in Public Life in Scotland
COMPLIANCE OPINION– INSTRUCTIONS
GUIDANCE ON THE PURPOSE AND USE OF THE COMPLIANCE OPINION
General
Public Appointments Assessors use the compliance opinion to provide a view on the extent to which the activity that they have overseen during stages of appointments rounds complies with the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland (the code). The other purpose of the opinion is to identify good practice that can be shared or practices that would benefit from improvement.
A different template is used to provide an opinion for each stage overseen:
- Planning
- Early stages of assessment
- Final stages of assessment
- The review of the round overall
The opinion should be used to clearly record the key messages that the assessor has for the panel and the Commissioner about what they have overseen. Nothing should appear in the opinion that has not already been discussed with and clearly communicated to the panel.
The assessor and the opinion - purpose
An essential role of the assessor during rounds is to use their knowledge and expertise to assist panels to achieve compliance, good practice and, wherever possible, the ideal outcome. Where panels are amenable to and take on board the advice the assessor gives, the preceding discussions should not be detailed in the opinion. Where the assessor considers that a summary of such advice may be beneficial for future or other appointment rounds it should be included. This is so that panels are encouraged to learn from round to round and do not have to reinvent the wheel.
Wherever possible, a clear distinction should be drawn between compliance and practiceissues. Compliance issues must be raised by making a clear and unambiguous reference to and citing one or more of the principles and/or paragraphs of the code. More general practice issues can be referred to without necessarily citing the code.
These terms are defined overleaf for ease of reference.
Ideal outcome, good practice, practice issues and non-compliance
- Ideal outcome – a very strong and very diverse field of applicants suitable for appointment. A set of applicants who, regardless of their success, will comment positively on their experience of applying.
- Good practice = going beyond the code’s basic requirements. Adopting practices that others can follow in future to improve on outcomes.
- Practice issue = just meeting the code’s requirements but adopting practices that are questionable and/or unlikely to produce the ideal outcome.
- Non-compliant = adopting a practice that is clearly and demonstrably incompatible with the code’s principles and/or requirements.
Responsibilities and responding to opinions
Directorates and selection panels are asked to bear in mind that the statements made by assessors in this form offer only an opinion on compliance.
The responsibility for ensuring compliance during an appointment round lies with the chair of the selection panel.
Where an assessor offers an opinion during a round to the effect that the code is not being or will not be complied with should a particular action be taken, the chair of the panel has an opportunity to take corrective action.
So, for example, any instances of potential or actual non-compliance identified at the planning phase will be referred to the panel chair. If action is not taken by the panel chair that, in the assessor’s view, will bring the round into a compliant state they will raise their concern with the Commissioner. The Commissioner will decide whether and what action to take as a result of concerns reported to him. The same rule will apply to each stage of an appointment round overseen.
The final arbiter of whether or not the code has been complied with is the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s office welcomes enquiries from anyone with a question about code interpretation.
Changing oversight levels
It should be noted that, at the planning stage, the assessor is asked to provide a score against a range of factors, including a miscellaneous “other” factor, to inform the level of oversight for the remainder of the round.
In any case where a stage of the round has been deemed to be compliant but where the assessor has concerns regarding future stages of the appointment round the Commissioner may review the level of scrutiny with a view to ensuring the round continues in a code compliant way. This would be normally be by asking the assessor or another representative to provide contemporaneous oversight of one or more of the further stages.
Equally if PACE or a panel has concerns for any reason about future stages of a round, they can make a case for the Commissioner to provide contemporaneous oversight of one or more of those stages in order to provide assurance.
1