Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Official Report 311KB pdf

---

“Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - Complaint Investigation”

Item 3 on the agenda is consideration of a report from the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland, in relation to a complaint about appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. You have before you a note by the clerk, the commissioner’s report and the response of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who was the appointing minister.

The complaint related to a number of aspects of the appointment round. Not all the points have been upheld by the commissioner, but there are some aspects in relation to which the commissioner has found that the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies has not been complied with. Those aspects are: the candidate summary that is provided to the minister; the recording of the minister’s appointment decisions; and the lack of an appropriate complaints procedure.

The cabinet secretary has accepted the commissioner’s findings on those points. He has indicated that the finding on the candidate summary will be taken on as a learning point and that the officials in the justice department will work to ensure full compliance in the future in relation to recording the minister’s decisions.

On the lack of an appropriate complaints procedure, the cabinet secretary indicates that a revised procedure has been put in place. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s public appointments centre of expertise will now be responsible for the handling and co-ordination of complaints.

Do members have any comments to make on the commissioner’s report?

It is disappointing to learn that this is not the first time that the issue of people failing properly to record things has been raised. I have read the cabinet secretary’s response, and I hope that the steps that he outlined will address the situation and prevent it from happening again.

Yes; it was drawn to his attention a year ago.

I support what Margaret Burgess said. Would it be appropriate for the committee to write to the minister to echo the concerns of the commissioner? As Margaret said, the fact that it has happened before and was not corrected at that point is disappointing. I feel that it merits stern action.

I think that it would be in order for the committee to do that, if it were so minded. Do members agree to write to the minister expressing our concern that the matter was brought to his attention and that although, according to the report, discussions were under way to prevent its happening again, it happened again anyway? It looks like the problem has been corrected, but we might want to emphasise that point. Are members happy for me to write on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I notice that paragraph 8 of the clerk’s note suggests that we might want to note that the commissioner has commented on the clarity of the drafting criteria for selection. The commissioner’s comments are not material for the purposes of the report, but we might want to explore the issue further with the commissioner at a later date. Would that be valuable to members?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. We will do that as well.

There are no other comments, so we will move into private session.

14:21 Meeting continued in private until 17:45.