Official Report 792KB pdf
We now turn to agenda item 3, which is an evidence-taking session on the annual report of the Standards Commission for Scotland for 2023 to 2024. We are joined for this item by Lorna Johnston, executive director of the Standards Commission for Scotland; and Suzanne Vestri, convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland.
When we come to questions, we will direct them to Lorna Johnston, but Suzanne Vestri should feel free to contribute. There is no need to turn on your microphones—we will do that for you, so that is one less thing to think about.
I invite Ms Vestri to make a short opening statement.
Thank you for inviting us here today. I am the convener of the Standards Commission. I have been a member of the commission since February 2022 and was appointed convener from May 2024. For the particular benefit of members who might be new to the committee, I set out that the role of the Standards Commission is to encourage high ethical standards in public life, including the promotion through a wide range of means and enforcement of the relevant codes of conduct, and to issue guidance to councils and devolved public bodies on how the code should be interpreted. The commission is also responsible for adjudicating on alleged breaches of the codes and, where a breach is found, the application of a sanction.
Following the conclusion of any investigation that he has undertaken into an alleged breach of the applicable code by a councillor or member of a devolved public body, the Ethical Standards Commissioner sends a report to the Standards Commission outlining his findings and his conclusions. The Standards Commission must consider his findings and then independently decide whether to hold a hearing, direct the commissioner to carry out further investigations or do neither, which essentially means that no further action will be taken on that complaint. We aim to make those decisions within five working days of receiving them from the Ethical Standards Commissioner. The commission will decide to take no action if it does not consider that it is in the public interest or proportionate to hold a hearing.
Hearings to determine whether the councillor or member concerned has breached their respective code are conducted by a panel comprising three commission members, and are usually held in public. If a breach is found, the panel is obliged to impose a sanction, which can either be a censure, a suspension or a disqualification.
The commission has five part-time members appointed by the parliamentary corporation with the agreement of the Parliament. As convener, I am contracted to work the equivalent of three days a month, while the remaining members work two days a month. Members also sit on hearings panels as and when required.
In the year 2023-24, the Standards Commission received 50 referrals from the Ethical Standards Commissioner and held hearings into 16 of these. We aim to hold our hearings within six to 12 weeks of making the decision to hold a hearing.
The Standards Commission has one full time member of staff, Lorna Johnston. As the executive director, she is the accountable officer. She is assisted by a case manager, an office manager and an administrative assistant, all of whom are part time, with the overall staffing complement being equivalent to 3.1 full-time members of staff. As you will see from our annual report, we have a small staff team and budget, but get through a large volume of work.
I hope that this has been a helpful introduction and summary of the commission’s remit. We very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work and are happy to answer any questions that the committee may have on the commission or any general issues concerning the ethical standards framework.
Thank you. It was useful to hear the detail of the process and how you pick up and process the work from the Ethical Standards Commissioner.
Lorna Johnston, I have a broad question around the fact that the Standards Commission’s annual report states that the organisation has had a positive impact on ethical standards in public life. Can you tell us specifically what has occurred for the Standards Commission to be able to state that?
10:00
Of course. The main thing that we do in terms of the positive impact is our training and promotional work, which involves going out and doing training events for members of devolved public bodies and councillors. We ran a number of such events last year. We also do that through our guidance and advice notes. When we get intelligence through inquiries or cases that are referred to us, we can see the types of issues that arise, whether they involve confidentiality, respect, social media or whatever, and we can create relevant guidance and e-learning. We held a couple of joint webinars with the Improvement Service last year that were targeted at some of those issues. We did one on social media and one on assisting constituents, and we have done one recently on confidentiality, because those are three areas where we were seeing a rise in complaints.
We have key performance indicators and service standards in place, but we also get a sense of our impact from the number of inquiries that we receive, through which we are able to help prevent breaches of the codes from occurring, which is, again, what we try to do with our training events. One of the things that shows that impact is the reduction in what I would describe as more inadvertent breaches of the codes. That is where the issue is less of a behaviour-type breach and may be, for example, a failure to register an interest within the time that is allowed or someone not deciding not to declare an interest that probably is a declarable interest—that is, a case in which there has not been a deliberate attempt to conceal the interest but the person has interpreted the code differently from the way that we would.
The types of cases that the Ethical Standards Commissioner receives tend to involve behavioural issues—for example, somebody has posted something on social media that they have not thought about, because they were angry or were responding to something. Our impact comes about through the work that we do to raise awareness of the codes and how to interpret the provisions.
It is great that you make all that training provision. Do you have quite a good level of attendance?
We do. I should have also said that we have standard training presentations and videos on the website that councils can use to train councillors, which means that our training provision does not necessarily involve us going out to see people. So far this year, we have been to two councils—Perth and Kinross Council and South Ayrshire Council—and we had really good attendance at both of those events. We have really good attendance when we do training for boards of public bodies as well.
I was quite interested to hear the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s response to the questions about mandatory training. Most councils provide training on the code around the time of the election and when councillors first come into post, whereas we get training requests almost continually from boards of public bodies because of their turnover of members. My slight concern with the mandatory training for councillors is that they get a great deal of information straight after the election. It is really difficult for them to deal with, and it covers a wide variety of subjects, some of which are quite technical, especially if the councillor is going to be on a planning or licensing committee. They have to take in quite a lot of information, so I am not convinced that mandatory training at that stage is appropriate. However, refresher training and having training available that they can access at any time is important.
The other thing about training is that the code covers a lot. There are seven sections to the councillor’s code. It is quite wide-ranging. We have tried to break down some of our guidance and advice and training material—our e-learning modules for example—on specific topics that councillors can dip in and out of. For example, if they are concerned about whether or not they have to declare an interest, they can access quite a small part of the code at that time and that might assist them.
I will bring in Emma Roddick briefly. She has a supplementary question on mandatory training.
I wanted to pick up on the issue of councillors getting quite a lot of information when they begin. Are you picking up that that is consistent in all places? It certainly has not been my experience. I think that, in some places, and particularly if you are elected in a by-election, you might just be handed the code and the standing orders, and that is it.
My understanding is that, after the main election, almost all councils offer and provide that training. I am not sure about what happens in relation to by-elections but, as I say, we have training videos on the code available on our website that those councillors could access. All council monitoring officers are aware of that, so they should be telling their councillors about it. However, I can pick that up with monitoring officers.
On the mandatory training process, I hear what you are saying around information overload. I certainly experienced that when I first started in this role as an MSP. Maybe there could be a drip-feed process over time that makes sure that, over a number of months, they do the training and are aware of the sections that are relevant. Getting a lot of information all at once is not useful because it does not necessarily go in.
In our guidance on the code, we include scenarios and case examples. It is one thing to read or hear the information, but you need to apply it to the situations that you might find yourself in, and I think that that comes with experience as well. If you are getting an overload of information on day 1 about scenarios that you have never actually been in, it might be harder to take it in than it would be if you had training a bit further down the line, or when you had an opportunity to refresh your training.
When you joined us last year, you told us that it is hard to know whether standards of behaviour are deteriorating or if the public are just more aware that they can complain. We are interested to understand whether the commission has been able to do any research over the past year that provides further insight into this.
Unfortunately, the answer is no. It is a capacity issue. We have not managed to do any research. We get a lot of information from the complaints that are referred to us, from the inquiries that we receive from councillors, officers, members of the public and from going out and doing our training events. As the Ethical Standards Commissioner mentioned, we hold a workshop with monitoring officers once a year, and one with standards officers of public bodies once a year. We tend to always ask them at those workshops what their experiences are. There is sometimes an impact with behaviours in a minority administration where perhaps colleagues are less inclined to call out behaviours because votes are needed. We hear anecdotally that the issues are not necessarily between parties; they can be within the same party. It is a bit of a mixed bag with behaviours.
The number of complaints that is being received is not necessarily the only indicator of behaviours because, as the Ethical Standards Commissioner pointed out, some of them—quite a large percentage—are simply not admissible. A better indicator is how many breach findings are being made, and the committee may be reassured to know that they are fairly consistent. We are not necessarily seeing huge increases in the number of breach findings.
Thanks very much for that. I will bring in Alexander Stewart.
You say in the report that you held 16 hearings and that the annual costs were about £337,000. On average, that is about £21,000 per hearing. Is that the case? Does each hearing cost as much as that? Are some hearings lengthier than others, or do they all follow the same structure and process? What value do you place on the hearing process? How do you ensure that you are spending the money in a proportionate way and getting best value for money?
Our overall budget is £337,000. That is not the cost per hearing by any stretch of the imagination; that figure is our overall budget. Last year, our cost per hearing was around £1,800, and I think that 89 per cent of our costs were staff and members’ costs. The members’ costs involve their time at hearings.
On getting value for money, we undertake a review after every hearing. Standards Commission members undertake a review at their next meeting following a hearing to discuss how it went with the decision making and how efficiently it was conducted.
We have in place a range of measures. We hold pre-hearing meetings to try to resolve any procedural issues and to make sure that the parties are aware of what the panel thinks is relevant evidence so that they are not trying to introduce—
New things.
Yes—stuff that is completely irrelevant.
We make improvements on how we conduct hearings all the time. We also carry out a review of the hearings at the end of each year.
I have lost my train of—
If we can hold the hearing online—if there are no witnesses, for example—we will do so. Obviously, that cuts down—
Costs.
—time and money for everybody, but we are always very conscious that justice needs to be—
Seen to be done.
—seen to be done, and that people who have complained or people who have an interest need to be able to attend to see that happen.
We recently carried out a review in which we compared online hearings with in-person hearings, and we did some research on the advantages and disadvantages.
As Suzie Vestri said, the online hearings can be very useful and a really good tool in cases in which there is no real dispute about the factual basis and maybe the respondent accepts that they have breached the code. However, there is always the risk of technical difficulties if there are lots of witnesses. Someone’s wi-fi not working can really throw the hearing and make it quite inefficient.
We also think that, with online hearings, gravitas might be a bit of an issue, with people perhaps not taking it quite as seriously. As Suzie Vestri said, it is about going out and justice being seen to be done. We hold our hearings in the locality where the respondent is based, so members of the public from that area and the local press can go along to watch, and they do.
It is important that the opportunity is there for everyone—not just for the individuals involved but for those from the wider community—who wants to be involved in the process, whether that is local people or the media.
How many of the hearings are online?
I think that five of the 16 hearings that took place last year were online. The decision to hold a hearing online is based very much on whether there is a dispute about the facts and how many witnesses there will be. It is not based on cost issues associated with, for example holding a hearing in Orkney, the Borders or somewhere further away.
We give a lot of information to local journalists before hearings. We publish that we are holding the hearing and we try to engage with local journalists to get a bit more coverage of the codes. I do not know whether that also contributes to awareness of the whole system or whether our doing a bit more media engagement contributes to a rise in complaints as well. However, we think that doing that is important.
That is an important process.
Yes.
Speaking of things online, we have the opportunity in our committee to have members join us online. We will now go to questions from Willie Coffey, who joins us online.
Lorna Johnston, I want to ask you a bit more about potential emerging trends in the complaints process. Ian Bruce talked earlier about social media being one area where we are seeing a rise in complaints, and that their nature is more personal, with, for example, personal attacks and councillor-on-councillor complaints. Will you expand on that for the committee and explain what the emerging trends are in the whole complaints process or in the complaints domain?
10:15
Yes. Of course, we do not see the complaints that are rejected as inadmissible by the Ethical Standards Commissioner. The ones that we see are those that he has undertaken an investigation on. As he said, with social media, we are seeing certain behaviour towards council officers. My understanding is that that is driven, in part, by some of the issues that we were talking about earlier, especially budget constraints and councillors perhaps being seen as trying to distance themselves from taking difficult decisions.
We have seen a couple of cases in the past year on breach of confidentiality and, again, those tend to be linked to difficult decisions that the council is having to make because of budgetary constraints. We are seeing a few cases on declarations—this is, where someone has failed to declare an interest—but not as many. The complaints that we are seeing more of currently are about respect, bullying and harassment.
Are you seeing a regular increase in complaints in those areas that should give us cause for concern? Are there rising trends in some of those emerging issues? I will come back to you on the issue of training and whether that should be made mandatory.
Over the past five years, we are gradually seeing more respect-type complaints, and within that is councillors’ behaviour towards members of the public, their colleagues and council officers, as well as councillors perhaps getting a bit involved in operational management of the council.
We target training at those areas. The two webinars that we held with the Improvement Service last year were targeted. One was on assisting constituents, which was to explain how councillors can best go about assisting their constituents without getting involved inappropriately in operational matters while still being respectful towards officers. The other one was on social media. The Improvement Service led on how best to do things in that medium, and we covered what councillors could fall foul of and what they should avoid doing. Those webinars were well attended, and we had good engagement with the councillors who attended them.
I turn to training. Is training on the code of conduct for councils mandatory, or is it optional and they can choose not to participate in any such training?
The adherence to the code is mandatory, so when they sign their—
I do not mean adherence to the code; I am asking about training.
No, training on the code is not mandatory. My understanding is that when councils offer that training at the outset, quite often, they make it sound like it is mandatory and they really push and encourage councillors to attend it. I also understand that most new councillors attend and that there are not huge difficulties with regard to people refusing to attend. Sometimes, it can be the case that more experienced councillors do not go to refresher training because they think that they know it and that they do not need it. That tends to be more of an issue.
We have a policy on the application of sanctions, which includes the aggravating and mitigating factors that we take into account if we find a breach of the code at a hearing. One of the aggravating factors in that is if training on the code was offered and not taken up.
That is really interesting.
You will be aware of the committee’s support for the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee recommendations on councillor salaries and so on. If that recommendation is accepted, does that present an opportunity to introduce some of the training elements and make them mandatory?
I know that you said that we do not want to burden a newly elected councillor just coming in the door or after a by-election with a whole host of training requirements. However, could there be a managed training process, with mandatory components, during the first year of their being elected, for example? Is that something that we should perhaps look at in trying to embed some of that training in local authorities?
I would not have any issue with that; that is a good idea. However, as the Ethical Standards Commissioner alluded to earlier, it is not necessarily about making people go along; it is about making the training compelling and interesting, and ensuring that there is buy-in is the more important bit. As the commissioner said, anyone can click on a button to say that they have watched the training or they can say that they went along to a session. However, were they concentrating, were they focused on it and was it interesting enough?
We try to include case examples in our guidance and in our advice notes to make things interesting. When we do our training events, we ask councillors to break into smaller groups to discuss various scenarios and whether those would be a breach of the code, and then we get them to consider what they would do if a certain factor was different. That way, we get them to really think about the provisions and how to apply them to themselves and to the situations that they might find themselves in.
The committee will recall that, when the councillors’ and model codes of conduct were revised towards the end of 2021, one of the main changes was to write them in the first person. That was to try to create more engagement. Instead of being a written document saying, “You must do this. You mustn’t do that”, it became one that said, “I will do this” and “I understand this”. The feedback that we have received is that the revised code is much easier to understand.
Suzanne Vestri indicated earlier that she wanted to come in.
I wanted to comment on the trends in hearings. Lorna Johnston mentioned that behaviour towards officers was an issue. Last year at the committee meeting there was a question about councillors feeling that they were not able to scrutinise effectively. We have taken that on board, gone away and then briefed on that specifically. Some councillors were struggling to know how to scrutinise without being challenging and disrespectful. We have tried to work with councils to enable councillors to challenge and scrutinise more effectively.
Tied into that is the right to access information and how councillors go about ensuring that they have the right information to do their role but are not asking for so much detail that they are then becoming involved in operational matters. That was one reason why we created, jointly with the Improvement Service, an advice note for councillors on the right to access information
Lorna Johnston flagged up breaches of confidentiality. That aspect is a concern. Where we have held hearings on breaches of confidentiality, those breaches have not always been inadvertent; sometimes, they have been deliberate. Again, that goes back to the point that Lorna and the Ethical Standards Commissioner made about councils having to make difficult decisions about service provision. We would be really concerned if that deliberate breaching of confidentiality was to continue.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
I bring in Meghan Gallacher.
I am looking at a table from the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s annual report titled “Exhibit 8—Details of reports referred to SCS in 2023/24 and their outcome”. That shows that four cases were referred to the Standards Commission for Scotland, in which the commissioner had assessed that a breach had taken place but no further action was taken by the SCS. Will you talk us through certain scenarios that would lead to that outcome? Are there any trends as to what those particular cases could be?
I looked up those four cases before coming to the committee. One thing to point out is that, when we are deciding whether to hold a hearing, the threshold is whether it is proportionate and in the public interest to do so. It is not whether there has been a breach, because that would be looked at in a hearing.
In two of the cases, it was considered that a hearing would not be proportionate. Those were registration of interest cases in which the people concerned were a bit late in registering an interest, they had apologised and they had placed the interest on the register. It was considered that it was not in the public interest and proportionate to hold a hearing in those cases.
In the other two cases, we disagreed with the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s conclusions. On one, we did not agree that the code even applied; on the other, we did not agree with how he had interpreted a provision about the registering of election expenses.
Do disagreements on outcomes happen often or is that rare? There were only four cases here, and I appreciate that two of them were not taken forward for other reasons, but I take it that that is a rare occurrence.
No, not necessarily. At hearings, the panels can—I think that this happens fairly often—reach a different conclusion to the Ethical Standards Commissioner, or they reach the same conclusion but for different reasons. I do not think that there is necessarily anything concerning in that. That is why there is a separation of functions and why a second look at something is taken.
Sometimes that can be because people might give evidence to the Ethical Standards Commissioner differently to how they give evidence under oath or affirmation at a hearing, which can come across really differently. Sometimes, it is a matter of interpretation. Many of the provisions in the code are subject to interpretation. Respect, bullying and harassment are subjective. It can be that there is a difference in how things are interpreted. That is an important reason why there is the second line of scrutiny of those decisions at hearings.
That is an interesting point about evidence and the difference between that given under oath and that not given under oath. It is interesting to hear that that is part of the process and is another reason why we might need the two stages that the process goes through.
I will bring in Emma Roddick with a couple of questions.
The table in exhibit 8 also shows that the Ethical Standards Commissioner referred nine reports in which he had assessed that no breach had taken place but the Standards Commission held hearings on those nevertheless. Will the witnesses talk us through the reasons for that?
Included in those cases where the Ethical Standards Commissioner found there to be no breaches are ones in which he has, on the face of it, found a breach of the code but, in taking account of article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which is on the right to freedom of expression, he has said that a formal finding cannot be found.
In some of those cases, the Standards Commission considered that it was proportionate and in the public interest to hold a hearing to explore the article 10 issues. The table is slightly misleading. For a number of those cases—I cannot remember the number that I worked out; I think that it was four of them—the Standards Commission found no breach in respect of some of the issues, taking account of article 10, but, because no breach was found in the other issues that were considered, they have been logged under that table as a no breach. Apologies that that table is slightly misleading.
It can be the case at hearings that the panels interpret the provisions or, in particular, article 10 differently to the Ethical Standards Commissioner. We talk to the commissioner all the time. We obviously send him the findings and discuss those with him with a view to everybody trying to learn from decisions and how cases are presented.
That is really helpful, and leads on to my next question. Your annual report refers to one of the cases in which article 10 comes into play. Can we get a bit more information on that situation and whether you believe that the code needs to be rewritten?
I do not think that the code needs to be rewritten. The code requires councillors to behave with courtesy and respect when they are acting in that capacity or when they could be perceived as acting in that capacity. However, when assessing a formal finding on the code, the law says that you must take into account someone’s right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the ECHR. That involves interpretation. We would prefer not to have to apply article 10 in that we would prefer that everybody behaved with courtesy and respect, and that we did not have to do that balancing act between courtesy and respect and the right to freedom of expression, but we do and that is the law. I do not think the code necessarily needs amending.
Matters are subject to interpretation. You cannot say, “In this situation, article 10 would provide protection, and in this situation, it would not.” It is dependent on the individual facts and circumstances—whether the conduct was directed towards a fellow councillor in a political environment where you would expect more protection for your freedom of expression or whether it is individual correspondence from a councillor to a constituent in which less protection would be afforded to them. It is fact specific. Does that answer the question?
10:30
Yes. Do you feel that, in every case where article 10 of the ECHR has been relevant, there has been a consistent approach and that it is clear to everyone involved where the line is?
I like to think that hearing panels have adopted a consistent approach. It is something that we are really careful about. We have guidance on article 10 and how panels apply issues surrounding article 10 at hearings. We like to think that it is consistent.
Article 10 is a really complex subject. Is the line clear to everyone? Probably not. However, the code is very clear on the behaviours that are expected on courtesy and respect. My view is that anyone who is behaving with courtesy and respect will not fall foul of the code, so they do not need to worry about article 10, essentially.
The fact that these complaints have been made and it is then found that there has not been a breach thanks to article 10 shows that, at least on the part of complainers, there is not that understanding. What more can be done to promote that?
As the Ethical Standards Commissioner said, both organisations are doing more work to promote public understanding of the codes. We produced a card that councillors can give to constituents explaining what the councillors’ code does and does not cover. That has been really well received. We have information on our website and videos for the public on what the codes cover and what they do not cover. We are doing as much as we can to educate the public.
It is subjective whether someone has been disrespectful. There are certain situations in which you will see complaints and think, “How could anybody think of that as being disrespectful?” I think that those people will make that complaint almost regardless of the information that you put out there.
Thank you. That is really helpful.
I am just making a note to put that out on our socials in the future.
I will bring in Mark Griffin, who joins us online.
In England, a recent survey showed that 43 per cent of people trusted local councillors to work in the best interests of people in their area. Has similar research been done in Scotland, or do you plan on doing such research? From the Standards Commission point of view, how strong is the bond of trust between the public and our local councillors?
The fact that there has been a reduction in the number of complaints about issues such as failing to declare interests, gifts or hospitality—such complaints relate to trust, because people want to trust councillors to make decisions in the public’s best interests rather than in their own interests or the interests of their friends and family—perhaps indicates that there is a certain level of trust.
Given the rise in the number of cases relating to respect, you could argue that the public do not trust politicians to behave with respect and courtesy, but those types of complaints are different from those that relate to how public money is spent and the decisions that councillors make.
We have discussed the matter in the past. With my previous work hat on, I note that, to get the most effective sample, we would need to buy questions in a wider social attitudes survey but, as a tiny organisation, we do not have the financial resources to do that. The most cost-effective way of getting a sample of 1,000-plus members of the general public would be to include such questions in annual public surveys.
On the comparison with England, it does not have the centralised system that we have. In England, complaints about councillors’ behaviour go to individual councils, because there are no bodies like the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Standards Commission, although there are such bodies in Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Standards Commission sent a joint letter to the Scottish Government to ask that legislation be amended to give the option of finding a breach without holding a hearing. Will you expand on the reason behind that proposal?
It is about trying to secure best value. The proposal relates to cases in which the respondent accepts that they have breached the code, so it would be a way of making such a finding without holding a hearing. The Standards Commission would then have to hold a hearing—whether by letter or in person—only in relation to the mitigation and the sanction that would be applied. At the moment, we still have to hold a hearing in order to make a finding even if a respondent puts their hands up and says, “I should have declared that interest, and I absolutely accept that I’ve breached the code.” We want the option not to have to do that.
It is almost 25 years since the bill that became the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 was passed. The changes that we have suggested are examples of where greater clarity might be needed or where things could be managed more efficiently and effectively. We have learned those things over time. The changes are not indicative of a major underlying problem. They are just ways in which the system could be run better and more effectively for everybody concerned, including us and respondents or complainers.
Thank you.
That certainly makes sense.
I will bring in Fulton MacGregor, who is also online.
Good morning. My questions follow on from Mark Griffin’s line of questioning about the letter that was sent to the Scottish Government. The letter also proposes that legislation be amended to allow the SCS to consider previous breaches by a respondent when determining the sanction to be applied for any new contravention. Could you elaborate on the extent to which repeat offenders are a problem? What impact would the proposal have?
Our sanctions policy already says that we will look at previous contraventions of the code that are of the same type, so the proposal is about making it clear in the legislation that we will do that. As Suzanne Vestri said, we considered what tweaks or improvements could be made to the 2000 act. It is not that we think that an essential thing is missing. We do not have huge difficulties with repeat offenders.
There are not a lot of repeat offenders—for want of a better term—or individuals who consistently come back to you.
Not at all. Perhaps four years ago, we disqualified a councillor, and that was, I think, the first time that we had ever done so. The councillor had been before us twice before for the same type of issues. However, we have not had anything like that since.
That is great. The commission would like new powers to be included and a clear route for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to remove or replace an incumbent SCS member or the Ethical Standards Commissioner. Why is that amendment required?
When we were considering potential improvements to the 2000 act, we thought that that clear route was missing. As the Ethical Standards Commissioner mentioned earlier, it might have been helpful if there had been a clear route to address some of the difficulties that there were with his predecessor. We certainly did not make the suggestion because we think that there is a problem with any of our commission members; it is purely about having a clearer route.
It will be reassuring for your members to have that on the record.
Willie Coffey has a final question.
I should probably have asked Ian Bruce this question, but I will pose it to you. Do we know what proportion of complaints that were deemed not to be relevant came from councillors who had not undergone training on the code of conduct?
We do not see complaints that are rejected as being inadmissible. We should bear in mind that quite a small percentage of complaints involve councillors complaining about other councillors. The vast majority come from members of the public. However, you would have to put that question to the commissioner.
Thank you. We will.
That brings us to the end of our session. I very much appreciate the witnesses coming to give us a bit of detail on their report.
I will suspend the meeting to allow for a change of witnesses.
10:41 Meeting suspended.