Official Report 176KB pdf
We now move to the next item on the agenda, which is a discussion of the interim complaints procedure. It was clear at our previous meeting that members felt strongly that a procedure should be put in place urgently. Members have the draft report on the procedure before them. It is proposed that the committee report to Parliament so that our intended procedure is clearly recorded and available to all MSPs and to anybody else who is interested. What are members' views on the procedure and the report?
I would like to combine bullet points 4 and 5 in annexe A. The first sentence of bullet point 5 would be incorporated into bullet point 4, which would then read: "Any complaint should be substantiated by supporting evidence. It should specify the conduct which is being complained about and what rules relating to MSPs' conduct it is alleged have been breached." I would omit the final sentence of bullet point 4 because it is implicit in that revised wording. What I am, in effect, suggesting is that we take out point 5 and incorporate its first sentence into the beginning of point 4, and that we take out the final sentence of point 4. That way it will be clear that when people register complaints they must provide evidence, they must say what the complaint is about and they must indicate what rule or aspect of the code of conduct it is alleged has been breached. If those three things are done, speculation is cut out.
It might not always be the case that evidence for a complaint is available, although more often than not it will be. The complaint might be based only on suspicion and it might be that a member is merely expecting an inquiry rather than making a complaint. We should expect evidence if any is available, but there should be an avenue for somebody who feels that something is gravely wrong but can produce no evidence.
Suspicion is always based on some form of evidence. If there is suspicion of wrongdoing or malpractice, there must be evidence to support that.
That is true, but there may be no tangible evidence to produce. Suspicion can be based on opinion, although that opinion might be wrong.
John Young's point is fair. I will go back on what I said to an extent—after the first sentence in point 4, we should include instruction that complaints should be supported and substantiated by whatever evidence is available.
That would cover John's point.
It would also cover another issue about which we had some reservations; that arose from a previous inquiry in which we had waves of evidence. We should require all supporting evidence to be made available to the committee at the beginning of the process so that we can see what we are dealing with.
That is noted and we will change those two bullet points accordingly.
In bullet point 2, we should delete the words
That is fair, but is not it the case that, in the real world, complaints come out in the press before they are communicated formally to us? The code of conduct working party suggested that all complaints should be channelled through the Presiding Officer in the first instance. Is it the case that we will now be the channel and that the Presiding Officer is happy with that?
I can confirm that I have spoken to the Presiding Officer; he is content that we take this responsibility and that complaints are directed to us rather than to him.
I am not surprised.
We should consider making it clear that the Standards Committee takes a dim view of members going to the press first and that that in itself might be considered a breach of the code of conduct.
There is a difference. Adam Ingram is talking about complaints which are highlighted by the press first, whereas Des McNulty is talking about MSPs going to the press with complaints before bringing them to the committee, which has happened.
In bullet point 8, would it be worth clarifying our position by adding on a new sentence such as, "As a general principle, however, the committee will meet and take evidence in public, but reserves the right to deliberate in private"?
Are members happy with that? I think that it is a good point; we could amend that part of the document accordingly.
That is agreed. Are there any other points about the complaints procedure? Shall we leave it to the clerks to amend those points that we have raised, identified and agreed on, and proceed with the publication of the report so that it is in the public domain as soon as possible?
That is agreed.
I suggest that we circulate the report to members of the committee before it is finally published in case there are any last-minute changes to be made.
That is agreed.
Previous
Cross-party Groups