Whistleblowing in Local Government (PE1488)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of four current petitions. The first is PE1488, from Pete Gregson on behalf of Kids not Suits, on whistleblowing in local government. Members will have a note by the clerk and various submissions.
Do members have any questions, comments or views?
This is a substantive petition. As far as practices are concerned, we are trying to open the windows and let in some fresh air, and I have made a point in another place about the need for management training with the change in the settlement agreements. I think that the recommendations are appropriate—at least, until we open up all public bodies to full scrutiny of their actions.
Although in its response Audit Scotland says:
“However, Audit Scotland would recommend that all councils comply with the guidance and ensure that robust whistleblowing arrangements are in place”,
it does not outline what powers are in place to deal with councils that do not comply with the guidance. After all, guidance is only guidance. The petitioner has asked what happens when somebody raises a whistleblowing issue and is then dealt with or is seen to be dealt with unfairly by the employer. The issue is the powers that are in place to ensure that guidance will be uniformly applied throughout Scotland.
As a result, there are issues about how we take the petition forward. As we know from other petitions that are before us, people are afraid to come forward because of the actions that employers might take. The fact that, in its response, Unison highlights
“the very limited protection in the legislation”
for individuals who provide information in a way that is deemed whistleblowing clearly indicates that there are wider concerns about cases in which staff feel unable or unwilling to raise issues because of the lack of legal support available to them should an employer decide to take action against them.
11:00
John Wilson has made an interesting point about Unison, and I should declare my interest as a member of that trade union.
In his response, Dave Watson of Unison makes quite an interesting point about an amendment to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 that he says has introduced “a public interest test” and which he is concerned will cause
“further legal uncertainty and discourage whistleblowing.”
The submissions from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Glasgow City Council use almost identical phrases. With regard to the statement in the COSLA submission that
“The policy and practice in this area is a matter for local determination by locally elected politicians”,
I have to say that, like one or two other committee members, I have been a locally elected member, and I am unaware of locally elected members being involved in the day-to-day management of staff. In fact, the advice that I received regularly from senior officers in the local authority that I served on was that the day-to-day management of staff was up to the managers, not the politicians. Politicians are responsible for overseeing policy, but we are not involved in day-to-day management. When I received approaches from individual members of staff about such issues, I was advised that there was a procedure for dealing with those issues via their line managers rather than through elected members.
As I have said, COSLA and Glasgow City Council say almost the same thing about accountability and the relevance of locally elected members in the decision-making structures. I suggest that the committee write back to both organisations to seek clarification on the stage at which elected members become engaged in the whistleblowing process, because my understanding is that individual employment matters are dealt with through line managers and that, under employment legislation, elected members are not line managers per se when it comes to whistleblowing by staff.
John Wilson mentioned some of the correspondence that we have received. He is right that our role is to set policy and that the bodies involved—local authorities, for example—carry out those policies and achieve the agreed outcomes.
I am somewhat concerned by the reference in the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman’s submission to
“Our lack of direct experience in this area”.
I am not suggesting that we get involved in the legalities of settlement agreements and so on, but if the SPSO does not have this kind of experience, it should hurry up and get some. As part of the landscape of public service, it should at least have an understanding of what is going on.
John Wilson also mentioned the Audit Scotland response, which says:
“The Audit Scotland guidance does not go as far as recommending specific arrangements or processes.”
If the policy is in place, we must ensure that there is—and secure a means whereby there is—some consistency about the processes for securing the interests of those involved and diminish, if not eliminate, the problems that create the need for whistleblowing, or at least eliminate the fear felt by somebody who whistleblows. The same issue has come up in the health service, and major steps have been taken there to deal with the matter.
I also note that the minister’s letter says that local authorities are
“expected to have in place appropriate policies”.
They should not be expected to have policies in place—they should already have policies in place. If we are to secure the society and openness of Government that we wish, such scenarios are, frankly, wholly unacceptable.
There is a suggestion that we write to the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland to ask about their scrutiny of local authority whistleblowing policies, and I think that John Wilson also suggested that we write to COSLA and Glasgow City Council.
Yes, convener—to seek clarification on their policies with regard to elected members becoming involved in whistleblowing.
I have also been following some correspondence about the whistleblowing commission, whose chairman, Sir Anthony Hooper, has just reported on its work. Do members agree to my writing to the various organisations in the terms that have been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
John Wilson suggested that we ask Glasgow City Council for a response, but I am inclined to ask every council to comment on its policy and processes for eliminating the need for whistleblowing.
Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Local Authority Education Committees (Religious Representation) (PE1498)
PE1498, by Colin Emerson on behalf of the Edinburgh Secular Society, is about religious representatives on local authority education committees. Members will have a note by the clerk and copies of submissions.
I understand that the convener of the Education and Culture Committee is keen to consider both this petition and PE1487. I invite committee members’ views. Usually, we try to deal with petitions until they reach the end of the road, but we have allowed petitions to be referred to a committee if it is already considering the issue in question.
I am happy to refer the petition to the Education and Culture Committee.
Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we will refer the petition to the Education and Culture Committee. It makes sense for it to be considered alongside PE1487.
Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
PE1501, by Stuart Graham, is on public inquiries into self-inflicted and accidental deaths following a suspicious death investigation. Members will have a note by the clerk and copies of submissions.
I note that the Law Society of Scotland has made a late submission. I should also tell members that Stuart Graham is in the gallery, along with Willie Rennie and Alex Rowley, both of whom have an interest in supporting the petition.
Before I invite members’ thoughts, comments and contributions from members, I should say that inviting a panel of witnesses to discuss the general issues raised in the petition, including the ways in which families could be more involved and given access to information, is a sensible suggestion. Clearly, it would be sensible to invite the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland, Victim Support Scotland and Police Scotland, but members might have other suggestions.
As we are going to have a panel of witnesses, I think that we should invite Scottish Government representatives to the discussion, rather than just the Crown Office and the Law Society. As the Scottish Government will take forward any recommendation that the committee might make, I want it to be present.
Whether the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or a senior official appears will be a matter for the Scottish Government.
Like other colleagues, I have constituents who would have benefited from the aims underpinning the petition. However, when I have sought to pursue matters on their behalf as an elected representative, I have found existing practice to be quite robustly defended. Although I certainly support the suggestion of having a panel, I think that, if we are sympathetic to some of the views that might emerge from it, we should be prepared to be robust in pursuing matters. As the committee has found, our challenging the status quo in the legal establishment has not always been met with the appreciation that we might have expected.
Thank you for that coded language, Mr Carlaw. Do members agree that we should have a panel that includes the Scottish Government, and are members happy with the individuals and organisations that would be represented?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Graham for the petition, which we are actively considering. I also thank Mr Rennie and Mr Rowley for their attendance.
Ecurie Ecosse Cars (PE1502)
The final current petition is PE1502, by Shonah Gibbon, which is on saving Ecurie Ecosse cars. Members will have a note by the clerk and copies of submissions.
I suggest that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, the committee close the petition on the basis that the collection has been sold and that National Museums Scotland and the Scottish Government have outlined the reasons why an attempt was not made to purchase it.
As the member who asked for further information from the Scottish Government and National Museums Scotland, I appreciate the responses that have been given by both institutions.
However, in agreeing to close the petition, I must voice my concern about the distinction that National Museums Scotland has made about what it considers to be culturally significant to Scotland. It has raised issues about not only the cost and the pre-auction valuation of the collection, but where it could store a collection of that nature in the future. A number of galleries throughout Scotland have been created after collections were gifted or purchased, and National Museums Scotland must be aware that it should make every effort to acquire items of national significance for the people of Scotland. However, the responses from the Scottish Government and National Museums Scotland have been useful.
Do you wish us to take any action, or did you just want to put that on record?
I just wanted to put those comments on the record.
If there are no further comments, do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We note Mr Wilson’s comments and formally close the petition under rule 15.7.
With that, I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 11:11.Previous
New Petitions