Procedures Committee, 24 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Official Report 230KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner (Reappointment)

At the beginning of the meeting, I failed dismally to say that Chris Ballance had sent his apologies; he is ill.

Our next meeting will be on 8 February. We will meet on a Wednesday rather than a Tuesday to accommodate people who will be with us for that meeting.

That will clash with a meeting of the Justice 1 Committee.

I would like clarification from the convener. When you were talking about the agenda for the meeting on 8 February, you said that we did not yet know whether someone from the SPCB was going to be here—I understand why. I have a concern, however, so I seek the convener's guidance. The minutes of the SPCB from some time ago indicate that it intended to interview the standards commissioner before Christmas as part of an administrative reappointment process. I understand that that interview did not take place and has been rescheduled for some time in the next few weeks. I am concerned that we are using that procedure before the Procedures Committee reports to Parliament. I seek your guidance about what potential inquiries or actions would be taken in such a situation. It is strange that the procedure is being enacted when the committee is still considering it.

Strictly speaking, our main consideration did not include the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner but, because he was somewhat relevant, we tried to bring him into the discussion. The main thrust of the inquiry was about the other commissioners. That does not answer your question fully.

Given that the inquiry considered the issue, and that it was suggested that the inquiry should consider it, it seems that there is a grey area around the administrative process for reappointment of commissioners.

My concern is fundamental. We have disagreements about how we should go with this; I accept that, and I accept that I am in a minority at the moment. However, it would concern me if the reappointment was being progressed by the SPCB before Parliament had made a decision. The committee has not yet come to a conclusion and Parliament has not had the chance to debate the matter. I might be entirely wrong, but it seems that the SPCB is already part of the way through the process. I do not know whether it is the convener's role to inquire about that, or what the exact procedure should be, but it seems to me that there is a potential problem.

Do we have any information about that?

What the convener said a moment ago was correct. The committee's inquiry was directed at the people who are appointed by the Crown—the standards commissioner is not in that category. The most that is being proposed is some relatively minor changes to the rules that relate to the standards commissioner, which would address one or two minor points. The issue of the reappointment or otherwise of the standards commissioner is a matter for the SPCB. That SPCB is working to a timetable that is determined by when that commissioner's first term of appointment comes to an end, which is before the terms of office of any of the Crown appointees come to an end. At the moment, it is entirely up to the SPCB to progress the matter as it sees fit. It would thereafter be up to Parliament to express a view on any motion that was lodged by the SPCB. It would also be for Parliament to consider separately any report to the committee. At some point, those things will have to be brought together, but the SPCB is operating to a separate timetable.

I accept that, but I am concerned because we were asked to consider the matter and—without going into what the report says—it seems that it is not clear whether the SPCB has the power to go through the reappointment process with the standards commissioner. Why on earth is the issue on our agenda if the SPCB has the power to go through an administrative process of holding a non-competitive process that is not open?

I understand that we are considering the issue because it is not clear whether that is the process that could be followed for either Crown appointments or for the standards commissioner's post. It is strange that the Procedures Committee and Parliament are being asked for their views on whether the process can be adopted at the same time as the process is being adopted.

As I understand it, the Procedures Committee invited itself to consider the matter. The inquiry was about Crown appointments but, in order to be tidy and to do everything in a similar way, it was suggested that we should also consider the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner and whether the rules could be brought into line with changes that we made to other rules. However, as the clerk says, the SPCB is correctly carrying on under the current rules because it has a timetable to which it has to deliver either a reappointment or a new commissioner. I do not think that the SPCB is doing anything wrong. We can certainly get clarification about the SPCB's position on that point.

Okay.

To return to the meeting on 8 February, I have already recorded my apologies because I have a Communities Committee meeting on that morning.

Yes. I am sorry about the clash, but we thought it was a good idea to give the members a different time in the week to come in and make their points.

Meeting closed at 12:11.