Standards Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 31, 2000

Official Report 129KB pdf

---

Models of Investigation

At our previous meeting, we agreed a four-stage model for the investigation of complaints. The clerks have been drafting a report for submission to the Parliament. It is incomplete at this stage, as it must incorporate our conclusions on the appointment of an investigating officer. Our discussion was suspended pending further legal advice, which has now been received. We have been told that the Standards Committee has the power to summon witnesses in regard to matters within the committee's remit. On the basis of that advice, we can decide whether to appoint a standards commissioner or a standards officer/adviser. I remind members that we have just agreed to appoint a temporary adviser and that we are now discussing whether to have a permanent commissioner or a permanent adviser.

I apologise for not coming to the previous two meetings of the committee. I had to attend a committee that was considering a bill. I have read the Official Report of the meetings in detail, but I would like our discussion of this issue to be postponed for two weeks. That would allow me to catch up and take soundings from colleagues. Our decision is important and I want it to have the greatest possible support.

I have consulted the 19 members of the Conservative group, who are strongly in favour of having a commissioner. They think that it would enhance the Parliament's status; they are against downgrading the Parliament. The independence that the committee has agreed that the investigating officer should have could enhance the status of the post. My group believes that the investigating officer should have statutory powers of investigation.

This is an important decision. We have had some experience of conducting investigations but I would welcome a bit more time to allow us to think things through further and to discuss the decision with colleagues. I am undecided on the matter.

I welcome the legal advice that has been given and the clarity that it has brought. I agree that we have to make a major decision. If my colleagues feel that we need more time to ensure that we are in a better position to make our decision, I am happy to wait a couple of weeks.

As we are asking for a temporary adviser, there is no great rush. It would be better if we took time to consult our fellow MSPs. The next meeting of the Standards Committee is scheduled for 14 June. I propose that we deal with this matter then. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.