Welcome to the 11th meeting of the Standards Committee in this session. At our last meeting, we agreed to discuss how to consider referrals to the committee from the standards commissioner and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. To that end, members have before them a short paper that has been produced by the clerks and Catherine Scott, our legal adviser. I will give Catherine the opportunity to talk to the paper, which gives fairly clear guidance on how we can comply with the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 and the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament" and when certain matters should be dealt with in private.
The paper advises the committee that stage 1 referrals from the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner and referrals from the SPCB should be taken in private. As the paper says, that advice is based on section 5(2) of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 and on section 10.1.7 of the code of conduct. I am happy to answer any questions on the paper.
In paragraph 3, you say that
In my view, section 5(2) of the act and the relevant section in the code of conduct do not leave much room for discretion.
So it really means "must".
My interpretation of those two provisions is that it is appropriate for those matters to be taken in private.
And that it is inappropriate for them to be taken in public?
In my view, were that to happen, the Standards Committee could well be in breach of the code of conduct, which would be quite an unusual circumstance.
What would happen if a member who was the subject of a complaint wished any stage of the investigation to be publicised? For example, a complaint to the SPCB may be dealt with without its becoming public knowledge. That is fine, but what if a member wished a complaint to become public knowledge? The member might have been the subject of adverse publicity and might wish it to be known, for the record, that a complaint was unfounded. Would the member, the Standards Committee or the SPCB have any discretion to publish in such a case?
I think that there is discretion once a complaint has been dealt with by the standards commissioner at stage 1 or stage 2 of the complaints procedure. Under section 10.1.7 of the code of conduct, with a basic standards commissioner investigation, there is a requirement not to disclose details of a complaint only during stages 1 and 2. At stage 3, there is a further provision that, when a report by the standards commissioner has been produced, that report should initially be dealt with in private. There is therefore a further rule relating to such complaints.
So at that point, the committee has discretion whether to deal with the matter in private or to make it public. Of course, it would be open to any member at that point to take whatever steps they considered were appropriate to publicise the matter or otherwise.
Yes. At that point, there is no restriction on the member against whom the complaint has been made.
I would like clarification on something. Is a complaint that is made to the SPCB but which does not make it as far as the Standards Committee covered? If, for example, a complaint goes to the standards commissioner but is ruled out by the commissioner at stage 1 and the standards commissioner or the SPCB has made a ruling, the matter will never get as far as the committee.
In those circumstances, will it not be a matter for people other than members of the Standards Committee? Unless the matter comes to the committee, it will not be a matter for the committee, will it?
The complaint would have started down the process, but it would never reach us.
The code of conduct does not specifically cover such situations; certainly, the disclosure provision does not specifically cover them. In section 10.1.7 of the code of conduct, the disclosure provision seems to envisage a situation in which the excluded complaint has come to the Standards Committee. Of course, many complaints are not referred. In such situations, I cannot see anything that would stop a member from making a statement. There is no specific coverage in the code one way or another. Such a situation would fall between the lines of the code.
I suppose that the presumption is that there would not be public disclosure and that the whole matter would be dealt with in private.
That is what the paper seems to say. However, if a member chooses to disclose a private matter, I presume that that is a matter for them.
I have a question, although it is not on exactly the same issue. During a lengthy investigation of a complaint, another complaint was made that covered some of the same material, of which we learnt only inadvertently. The fact that there had been another complaint and the nature of that complaint might well have affected the committee's judgment on the original complaint. That may never happen again, but there should be some provision that if there are several complaints, some of which have advanced further down the track than others, the committee should be notified that other complaints have been made. Those complaints should not be kept totally secret.
You are right to say that, if there are further matters that are relevant to the complaint that the committee has been dealing with, which might affect how we deal with it, it is appropriate that those matters are disclosed to us before we make a final judgment. Perhaps we should raise that matter with the commissioner. Would that help?
Yes, I think that it would. Having been on the Procedures Committee for a long time, writing reports saying that committees should never meet in private, if at all possible, I approach the issue from the other point of view. However, I am persuaded that, in the interests of justice, we have to go down the private route. I cannot think of anything better, so I accept that proposal.
Does anyone else have anything to say on that matter?
No.
Next
Item in Private