Agenda item 3 concerns detailed draft directions to the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner—I think that this is the first time that we have considered them. The committee has a duty to issue directions from time to time, once it has determined its position. We have determined our position in respect of giving the factual element of the commissioner's report on any complaint to the complainer as well as to those against whom complaints have been lodged. The draft directions following from that are before us.
They are perfectly acceptable. However, on a point of clarification about the terminology, are we talking about the draft report that is circulated to the committee?
No. I stand to be corrected, but—
Does that report become a final report?
It is the report that is currently issued to the person against whom the complaint is lodged.
It is the final draft report.
I would like the terminology to be clarified for me and for everyone else. The commissioner should prepare a draft report and then circulate it to both parties for comment or whatever. He will then receive recommendations or comments from those parties and, at the end of the day, the report will be his report. He will prepare a final report and decide whether to accept any or all of the proposed changes. He will then circulate that report to the committee.
That is right. It is the final report.
At that stage, he will circulate the report only to the committee and not to the other two parties.
The member who is the subject of the complaint will receive a copy of the final report. Under the procedures, the committee must invite them to make representations, but the report is sent to the member only once it has been sent to the committee. It is not sent to the member by the commissioner.
At that stage, the committee is free under the existing rules to give a copy of the report to the complainer. There is nothing in law to stop us doing that.
There is no provision in the code for giving a copy to the complainer.
Right.
The code spells out how we should deal with things and, if it had wanted that to happen, it would have said so.
One thing that concerned me about a previous case with which we dealt was that, when we reached stage 3, we took evidence from both the complainer and the MSPs who were complained about, but the complainer had not seen the final report. That seems a bit daft and unfair to me.
One of the options that we gave in the paper that was considered by the committee last time was to give a copy of the report to the complainer if the committee decided that it wanted to take oral evidence at stage 3. If the committee wanted to proceed down that road, it would be possible to produce a draft direction to give effect to that. I do not know whether our legal adviser wants to say anything.
However, that is not what we were asked to do.
I accept that. I am not in any way challenging these draft directions as far as they go; I am just seeking clarification. If we decided that the complainer should get a copy of the report on a complaint on which we wanted to take further oral evidence at stage 3, I presume that we would need to issue draft directions—or would that just be written into the code of conduct?
Rather than a draft direction, a change to the code of conduct would probably be required.
Okay, so will that change be forthcoming?
It would be a decision for the committee to choose to do that. If the committee wanted to make that practice a regular occurrence, it would be advisable to incorporate it into the code of conduct.
There would be no requirement to put it in the code of conduct, given the fact that we have discussed the matter in the past and agreed that we could also make a decision on a case-by-case basis.
It would be advisable to make it clear in the code of conduct because, at present, the code is not absolutely clear on that point.
Just so it is absolutely clear, because that is not the matter that is before us today, is it the advice of the legal advisers and the clerks that we need to produce a change to the code of conduct now to include that as an option for the committee to consider at stage 3?
My advice is that if the committee wants to implement such a policy, it should be put into the code for clarity.
In that case, I suggest that we include the matter in the work programme so that we can determine it. I am happy to receive representations from members of the committee as to when the matter might appear in the work programme. Does that clarify matters for you?
Yes, I just wanted to make sure that we are absolutely clear about the matter.
Do other members want to comment?
It might be helpful to clarify as well that, as Alex Neil pointed out, it is up to the commissioner whether he accepts any of the representations that he receives on the draft report. However, he has to annex to his report those representations that he does not accept, so that the committee can see what has been accepted and what has not.
So all the information is there anyway. Having moved into an area that is related but not the same as the one under discussion, are members content that I send these directions to the standards commissioner?
Members indicated agreement.
I also acknowledge that, without having had direction, the standards commissioner has already taken note of the committee's view in dealing with outstanding cases.
Is that in the week that Parliament is not sitting?
That is absolutely right.
So that gives us another week.
I would guess so, but it depends on how heavy the agenda is. I will adjust the time if the agenda is a little heavier. That is also dependent on which other committees might or might not be meeting. I hope that that will become clearer fairly soon and I will issue advice on the date and the time, if not necessarily on the details of the agenda, as soon as possible. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for their attendance today.
Meeting closed at 11:24.
Previous
Annual Report