Chamber and committees

The whole point of the system is to be fair to all parties: to the person who makes a complaint and to the person who is complained about. You have outlined the procedure that you have gone through for the person who is making the complaint and how they can find out about and in due course see the progress of their complaint through the system. That is very important, because it gives you a certain amount of strength to argue your case that you are taking each complaint seriously—I know that you do that, but it lets you prove it.

Although you have to be impartial in how you investigate a case, are you happy that you are giving advice to the person at the sharp end of the complaint about what they can do? After all, it is quite nerve wracking. I had a complaint against me. It was struck off, as it happens, but I can tell you that it is a nerve-wracking procedure because most—I would say all—MSPs want to do the best they can. It is quite daunting when you get a letter, especially if you are a new MSP, which in my case I was. Do you feel that you are doing as much as you can for the person the complaint is being made about and that you are giving them the correct advice on where they can seek support and help.

I will perhaps leave it there, convener. I am sure that it is work in progress that everyone considers to be important, because the process should be fair for all—not just the complainer but the person who is complained about. I welcome your comment that you think that more could be done.

It would be helpful for me to see it. This is one of the things that I feel very strongly about. I do not want to discourage anyone from making complaints, but a speedy and fair resolution is absolutely critical for the person who has received the complaint against them. If someone is informed that there is a complaint against them, I believe that it goes against natural justice if it then takes months to sort it out. The pressure on that individual is huge. I am keen to see that that procedure form is there and there are review dates so that, if a complaint sits there for more than a set period of time, that is flagged up to the next level of management until eventually it lands on your desk with a flag saying, “If I don’t resolve this tomorrow, it might be my job on the line as well.” Is that procedure in place?

I am sure that that is good news. I stress that I am not trying to discourage people from complaining, but I am thinking about the pressures on individuals with a complaint against them.

Convener, I have a question about the advice that is given to people who have a complaint against them. It may be appropriate to put that later in the session.

You will not be surprised that I am asking this question, because I have pushed on it before. Whether or not a complaint meets the requirements to be investigated is quite formulaic under the legislation. I would like some assurance that, when a complaint comes in, the simple tests of admissibility are ticked off on a spreadsheet or a covering sheet and that there is no delay in doing that, because it appears to me that that might have been a failing under the previous system. Is that covered in the manual that is referred to in recommendation 3.4 in the Deloitte report?

Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2023 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

The first item on our agenda is to make a decision on whether to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private. Item 4 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on the outcomes of the 15th United Nations biodiversity conference of the parties—COP15—item 5 is consideration of a draft report on the Energy Bill and item 6 is consideration of the committee’s work programme. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

There are still quite a few questions to go and time is short—it flies when you are having fun. We have some questions from Jackie Dunbar, followed by Mark Ruskell and Mercedes Villalba.

I think that Jackie Dunbar’s question is for Deborah Long, so I will bring her in to see whether we can tie the questions together.

Mark Ruskell and Jackie Dunbar have supplementary questions on this issue, and then we will move on to Mark’s other questions.

Given that Deborah Long mentioned agricultural subsidies, it is only fair that I remind the committee that I am part of a family farming partnership. We are in receipt of agricultural subsidies, and we manage land, including woodland. I have made that declaration to the committee previously, and it is noted in my entry in the register of members’ interests, but I just want to point it out so that there is no dubiety.

Our next item of business is evidence on the outcomes of COP15. I refer members to the committee papers.

At the summit in Montreal, a new global framework was agreed for halting and reversing biodiversity loss across the world. To take stock of COP15 and what its outcomes mean for Scotland, the committee will hear from a panel of Scotland and United Kingdom-based experts in biodiversity policy.

On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to welcome Dr Daniela Diz, who is associate professor of international ocean governance at the Lyell Centre, which is based at Heriot-Watt University and Professor Colin Galbraith, who is the chair of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I would have liked to have welcomed Professor Peter Hollingsworth, but he is unable to attend because of a family bereavement. I am sorry for him and I am sorry that we will miss his evidence. We are also joined by Dr Deborah Long, who is the chief officer of Scottish Environment LINK. Joining us remotely we have Dr Ruth Mitchell, who is head of the biodiversity and ecosystems group at the James Hutton Institute.

Thank you all for accepting our invitation. We are delighted to have you here. We have a series of questions for you, the first of which will come from the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop.