Chamber and committees

Right, and that comes to the total of £191 million—

It is just that, if somebody genuinely has not engaged in the activities of which they have been accused, it is good for the public to know why it was a wrong accusation. It helps that person to move on, rather than just to be named and it stated that a complaint was made against them but was not upheld. That leaves just a bit of doubt in the mind of that person.

On that same point, am I right that the procedure that would be followed is very similar to that of the Ethical Standards Commissioner in that, if a complaint is made about somebody, the commissioner is duty bound to find out whether the complaint should proceed by contacting the person and asking for evidence and by asking for evidence from the complainant? It is then the commissioner’s judgment whether it should become a formal complaint. Is that pretty much the same procedure that you are asking for?

Good morning. Can I bring you back to the question that the convener asked about the transfer from capital to resource budgets? As far as I am concerned, for most of the time that I have been in this Parliament, such transfers have not been possible. There are fiscal rules that are directed at ensuring that they do not take place. Can you confirm that that rule has been eased or changed because of the extenuating circumstances that you set out?

It would be helpful if we could have that.

On a slightly different theme, the Scottish Government’s programme for government sets out three distinctive principles around which government policy is devised. One of those is the move to net zero and justice in the green economy. If that is one of the defining principles, it seems a bit odd that there has been such a substantial downturn in the net zero budget. How does that fit with the Scottish Government’s programme for government, when that was very much one of the three identified principles? Why has that happened?

Secondly, if there are to be changes to the principles of Government policy, can we hear a little more about those? I know that you cannot go through every change—it would be unrealistic to ask you to do that—but are there specific criteria on which you are examining government spending in relation to budget spend?

Yes, the £191 million.

My question is about how you came to the £191 million figure rather than anything else.

—that you thought might have to be used but which has not been. Okay—I see the arithmetical calculation. I am just interested in why some of the figures are what they are, but I will leave that for now.

I completely understand what you say about making available information that a complaint has been made and the name of the person. If I were that person, I would like the public to know that the complaint was turned down for certain specific reasons, to clear my name. I would not want a scenario in which there was on-going doubt and confusion. I completely understand why you say that, if the person is not named, all ministers are potentially involved in the speculation but, if someone is cleared of any wrongdoing, it is important to make clear why.

Mr Swinney, I think that the Scottish Government and the ethics directorate have gone a long way to improving transparency. I very much welcome the progress that you have made since you first came to the committee, particularly in relation to complaints that are upheld or partially upheld. That is very good news.

Partly from listening to what the convener said, I have slight concerns about circumstances in which a case has not been upheld and about ensuring that all the information comes out to the public. There has to be a categorical assurance to the person, who potentially could be vilified through social media, as the convener mentioned, or otherwise—it should be very clear exactly what the reasons are for not upholding the complaint.

We all know that, especially if there is a bit of a time delay between a complaint being made and the investigation process, there is scope for individuals in any political party to be vilified by members of the public unfairly. I am slightly concerned that that could have an implication for those who might be attracted into politics, who might feel that the system will name and shame them even when they have not done anything wrong. I am a bit concerned about that process, so could I have your reflections on that?

Secondly, when you mentioned that former ministers could be included in the procedure, I take it that that is all former ministers and that there is no time bar for ministers who have not been in office for 10 years or whatever. Does it apply to all ministers?