Welcome to the first meeting in 2005 of the Standards Committee. I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. As far as I am aware, we have received no apologies.
I would like to submit apologies on behalf of Bill Butler, who might be late. I understand that there have been problems with the Glasgow trains this morning. However, he is on his way. He was trying to catch a bus.
In that case, we look forward to seeing Mr Butler a little later this morning.
I will be brief. I thank the committee for inviting me to the meeting. I am pleased to have been invited in these circumstances rather than in other circumstances. I am also glad that I managed to make it through the interesting door system.
Do members have any questions about the proposals?
I have a specific question. I understand the logic behind the recommendations, which make sense, but one recommendation is that the equalities strategy should come to the Standards Committee. I understand why, in the interests of tidiness, the Standards Committee should be the commissioner's main reference point, but I would have thought that it would be better for the equalities strategy to go to the Equal Opportunities Committee.
The recommendation is for the Standards Committee to be the lead committee on issues to do with public appointments, but that would obviously not prevent other parliamentary committees from being involved. I would have thought that the Equal Opportunities Committee would wish to be involved with the equal opportunities strategy. However, as you hinted, the logic is that the Standards Committee—as the lead committee—should have the final say in determining such matters, as it would have to deal with breaches of the codes.
Advising or reporting on the code of practice is straightforward, but did the Procedures Committee or the commissioner think about what the Standards Committee would be expected to do when there are cases of non-compliance or cases that the commissioner has a concern about? When an issue is reported to us, there is normally a set series of procedures and a three or four-stage investigation. I take it that that procedure is not being suggested and that the commissioner would simply draft a report if she thought that the Executive was not complying with the code, pass it to us and expect us to investigate it. She would not, for example, expect us to refer the matter to the Parliament's standards commissioner.
No, the suggestion is not to refer matters to the standards commissioner. The Standards Committee would consider reports from the commissioner for public appointments and determine whether it wanted to take any further action on them—for example, evidence could be taken from the relevant minister on why the code appeared to have been breached. Obviously, determining how to conduct an investigation into any report from the commissioner would be a matter for the Standards Committee.
That is fine—such things would be a matter for us.
There was no parliamentary involvement where there was non-compliance. Matters were resolved between the commissioner—Dame Rennie Fritchie—and the department or ministers involved. The Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 introduced the parliamentary aspect of scrutiny. I was a member of the committee that dealt with that act and I believe that giving the Parliament the ultimate role in supervising the code was a sensible way forward.
What are the alternatives to the Standards Committee taking on the workload?
The primary alternative would be to establish a public appointments committee. To be frank, however, the workload is not sufficient to justify the establishment of a separate committee. Other than the initial workload of assessing and approving the draft code, the workload—which will consist of dealing with breaches of the code—will not be huge. There would be no merit in establishing a separate committee to deal with such a small workload.
I assume that the Procedures Committee will consider changes to the current remit of the Standards Committee and put proposals to the Parliament in due course in a report.
That is correct. We will issue a report that recommends a course of action, including amendments to the Standards Committee's remit to add the public appointments aspect.
The note that we have suggests that it is unlikely that the Standards Committee will have to investigate breaches of the code particularly often. When Karen Carlton gave evidence to the Procedures Committee, did you pursue that issue with her? Can you say how often she has raised concerns with the Executive about its public appointments procedure?
I do not recollect that specific question being asked, but the evidence that Dame Rennie Fritchie gave in the previous session of Parliament during the consideration of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill suggested that there were few cases of non-compliance and that most of them were resolved through discussions between the commissioner and the relevant ministers and departments. It was thought to be unlikely that a breach would be so serious that the commissioner felt required to report the matter to the Parliament. I am not aware of any breaches that were serious enough to result in a report.
If it is unlikely that such matters—should we take responsibility for them—will come to the Standards Committee's attention, does the safeguard need to be in place?
The parliamentary aspect—I am not now speaking as the Procedures Committee convener—was introduced as a final safeguard to ensure that the public appointments process is open and fair. The parliamentary involvement makes it even less likely that ministers will breach the code. We want to introduce procedures because, in the unlikely event that a breach occurs and the commissioner feels the need to report the matter to the Parliament, it would be more sensible to have procedures in place rather than to invent them on the hoof to deal with the situation.
I assume that the principal work that will be involved for the Standards Committee will be scrutinising the draft code and placing it before the Parliament for agreement. The committee may also have to update the code in the light of experience, but it is not anticipated that many cases of a breach of the code will come before the committee. Therefore, there may be an impact on the committee's workload in this calendar year, but beyond that the commitment will not be large. Are members content with the proposals?
I have a query about the content when a report of non-compliance is published. I get the impression from the note and from what Karen Carlton said in evidence to the Procedures Committee that any report that she passes to the committee will be private. However, I am not sure whether there is an expectation that names will be removed and that the report will be anonymised, or whether, at the end of the process, a report will be published with all the details, both from the committee and the commissioner.
Privacy is one aspect that is still being considered by the commissioner's office and the Parliament's legal advisers. The latest information that we have is that most reports would be about the process rather than about the individuals involved in the process. Therefore, there would not be much information relating to individuals or confidential information and the committee's consideration could take place in public. However, if any reports from the commissioner contained information that would breach confidentiality, it would be for the commissioner and the Parliament's legal advisers to advise on which aspects the committee should take in private and which in public. We are fine tuning those aspects of the changes to standing orders.
If the Parliament gives the Standards Committee responsibility for dealing with the code, we will address such issues in our investigation of the proposals for the code and draw our own conclusions. However, that is a matter for another day. Today, we are being given the opportunity to consider the circumstances of our potential involvement in the process. Therefore, I take it that no member objects to our taking on that proposed role and to my writing formally to Mr Smith to say that we are content with the proposals. Is that agreed?
I thank Iain Smith for attending.