Members have before them a paper on the acting standards commissioner, who was commissioned to continue beyond his initial contract period to work on the complaint against Kenny MacAskill and Tricia Marwick. That work was recently finished and this is the first opportunity that the committee has had to deal with the matter. I suggest that we confirm to the SPCB that no further assistance is required from the acting standards commissioner so that a line can be drawn under the subject.
I have no difficulty with that recommendation other than to say that I have been told—entirely anecdotally—that following the case that is outlined in paragraph 4 of the paper, there is a possibility that further complaints might arise. If that is the case—the convener might be better informed on that than I am—would the acting standards commissioner be required to be involved yet again? I would consider that to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
If there are further complaints—even complaints of the same nature—those will be a matter for the new commissioner, rather than for the previous acting commissioner. As I understand it, the previous acting commissioner had his contract extended on an hourly basis to deal with the particular complaint or series of complaints that we are discussing.
That is fine.
Alex Neil has raised some questions about this issue.
I am happy to accept the recommendation, but I do not understand who took the decision to extend the acting commissioner's contract beyond 31 March, when that decision was taken, why it was taken and why we ended up having two commissioners, instead of one, for six months. I have lodged questions about those matters and am still awaiting an answer from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
Can our clerking team answer any of those questions?
It is for the corporate body to respond on those matters. As I understand it, there was not an extension of the contract as such. The original contract said that the acting commissioner would serve until the permanent commissioner took over, but that if there were one or more outstanding complaints subject to investigation at that time the acting commissioner would continue to deal with those complaints.
The acting commissioner told at least two people who were involved in the saga of Kenny MacAskill, Tricia Marwick and Dorothy-Grace Elder that the new commissioner would take over from 1 April. The original complaint by Dorothy-Grace Elder was made on about 27 February and the acting commissioner's contract was due to expire on 31 March—at a fairly early stage in the inquiry. As late as 19 March, he informed at least two people that he would retire on 31 March and that after 1 April all correspondence should be directed at the new commissioner.
As the clerk indicated, these are matters primarily for the corporate body.
Again this committee has been bypassed. It was not asked about the extension.
Does the rest of the committee share Alex Neil's view that these questions need to be answered? Can anyone suggest a remedy that will enable us to get answers? Is this a matter that Alex Neil should pursue with the corporate body, or should the committee do that?
These are questions that require answers. I seek the guidance of the convener and the clerking team on whether it would be appropriate for the committee to seek answers to questions that were first raised by a member of the committee—Alex Neil. If that is an appropriate way of proceeding, we should proceed in that fashion and get answers quickly.
I have nothing against that suggestion. I do not know what the decision-making process in this case was, but everyone worked under the assumption that Mr Spence would stand down and that the new commissioner would take over. When the matter was examined closely, it dawned on people—as often happens in such situations—that that was not possible and that Mr Spence would have to deal with the outstanding cases. Members will recall that the first session ended in March and that we were in the period running up to the election, when much other business was suspended and temporary arrangements were made.
The question is, who did that dawn on and who took the subsequent decision? To the best of my knowledge, it was not this committee. I have checked the minutes.
Is the committee minded to take up Bill Butler's suggestion that we write as a committee to get the answers to the questions that have been posed?
I was struck by one thing. How long ago did you ask the questions, Alex?
It was very recently.
I started asking them about six weeks ago.
That is long enough.
The answers became available last week.
No—I have not had answers to most of the questions. They have not come through to me.
Have they not?
Not that I have seen.
I was under the impression that they have been answered.
I have had the answers.
I was having to—
You were ill at the end of the week, and I came to talk to you about the matter.
If the answers have come through, that is well and good, and I am happy to ensure that they are circulated to the committee.
Some of them have certainly been answered. Will you leave it to the discretion of me and the clerks as to how we, on behalf of the committee, sensibly pursue the questions that have not yet been answered by the corporate body?
Yes—as long as they are answered satisfactorily.
We will judge whether or not the answers are satisfactory when they are presented to the committee.
This raises a wider issue. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body seems to be a rather unaccountable body, as well as a corporate one. Can we take action in relation to the SPCB? Can people complain about the corporate body and, if they do, will those complaints come to us?
We would consider a complaint only if it was about an individual member's actions. However, we might consider one if the corporate body took an action that was contrary to the code of conduct. As was rightly pointed out earlier, I could be in the same position: if there was a complaint against me, who would deal with it? We could also be in the same position if someone made a general complaint about the Standards Committee. To whom are we accountable? We might have to wrestle with that question. No member is above the law or the code of conduct. If I have got that wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected by the clerks.
No, that was correct.
We will pursue the questions that Alex Neil asked. In the meantime, let us return to the area for which we have responsibility. I take it that members are content with the recommendation that we inform the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that we no longer require the acting commissioner's services, as he has completed the task before him.
I am absolutely happy with that. However, taking up the points that Donald Gorrie and others made, on which we are agreed, I think that we should say to the corporate body that the committee does not intend to be bypassed on any issue relating to the contracts of the standards commissioner or whomever. We should be involved as appropriate, and we should certainly be kept informed by the corporate body about what is going on if there is any change in resource allocation and so on. We should not have to weed our way through the corporate body's minutes.
Is that a general view?
I would agree with that, although we could perhaps say that we wish to work in the closest possible partnership with the corporate body. I think that that is what Alex Neil is pushing towards. If we expressed things in that way, I would agree. After all, we elect the corporate body.
Well, it is Christmas.
I take that as a vote of confidence in the convener and clerk to find an appropriate form of words in which to put that.
By acclamation.
I suggest that the committee formally thanks Mr Spence for his contribution as acting parliamentary standards commissioner. It was a difficult post to take up, and I think that he handled it very well.
I take it that the committee would wish to write to Mr Spence in those terms.
Yes.
As we agreed earlier, we will move into private session in order to deal with item 5. Would the press, public and aabodie else who shouldnae be here kindly disappear?
Meeting continued in private until 12:30.
Previous
Work Programme