Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Ian Bruce for joining us. Ian is the acting Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. If it is all right with you, Ian, given that we have already had the pleasure of talking to you and reading through your report, I would like to go straight to questions from members, two of whom join us remotely. Members who have any follow-up questions should indicate that to me and we can take it from there.

The first question comes from Bob Doris. I am not sure whether he can hear us. Are you all right, Bob?

Thank you. That has been raised by a number of people as a fine example of how the process should work. You are right to put it on the record.

I now turn to Alexander Stewart—thank you for your patience, Alexander.

Given the time, I will push for a yes or no answer on this. There are clearly changes in the way that you are reporting, through the contents of the annual reports and the publication of your minutes. We are not going to lose any information that was previously reported in a way that means that trends are no longer trackable over a period of time, are we?

Agenda item 3 is on cross-party groups. We are asked to consider a change of purpose for the proposed cross-party group on independent convenience stores.

Paragraph 40 of section 6 of the code of conduct requires that any proposal to change the purpose of a group must be drawn to the attention of the committee, and the committee can then decide whether the group should be accorded recognition. Paragraph 6 of the clerk’s paper sets out the purpose of the group in session 5, and paragraph 7 sets out the proposed new purpose. There has been a change, and I am very grateful to Gordon MacDonald, who is the convener of the group, for providing an explanation for the change, which is set out on page 8 of the paper.

Before I invite comments, I want to float a challenge that I see developing. In setting out its purpose, the cross-party group stated various facts, and those facts have now changed. As a result of that, the convener has—rightly—written to us to say that things have changed and, therefore, the group’s purpose needs to come back before the committee. I think that it would be beneficial to discuss whether, going forward, we should provide more guidance on that aspect of setting up a cross-party group, to prevent a factual change—be it in the number of people who visit an area, the produce that is landed somewhere or even a style or fashion—requiring the matter to come back before the committee, for discussion of the reasons why the MSPs have formed the group, and whether the purpose of a CPG should be set at a higher level.

I invite comments on the application that sits before us on the change of purpose.

Absolutely. That was very succinctly put.

Is there any desire among committee members not to allow the CPG to reregister? I see no suggestion of that, so I formally ask whether members agree that the CPG on independent convenience stores should still be accorded recognition with its new purpose.

Members indicated agreement.

It is not a simple process of things getting worse. It is more complex than that and there are more nuances in it, but it is interesting that you have seen a rise in a particular view that people have of the respect that, in essence, citizens are showing each other in this place, in councils and elsewhere. Do you think that the figures are sufficient to make a strong conclusion that that is where it is going, or do we need more time?

With fingers crossed, I am going to come to Edward Mountain.

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take the final agenda item—item 4—in private. Under that item, we will consider the evidence that we are about to take from the acting Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. Do members agree to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I understand that the sound is back up and running. If I go back to Bob Doris, it might give those who are watching a more holistic picture of what we talking about. With trepidation, I hand over to Bob Doris.

Can you hear us, Bob? We cannot hear you. He can hear us, but we cannot hear him. We are clearly having technical difficulties.

Without stepping on Bob Doris’s toes, I will ask a question. Today, we are discussing the revised code of practice and our response to it. One of the purposes of the code of practice is to hold ministers to account. How will the revised code do that without stifling innovation through overprescription? There has been a lot of discussion about overprescription in the code and the accompanying notes. Will you explain that to us? More importantly, will you explain your view of how the recommendation on the code, which seems to be opposed by some people, was reached?

I am going to swap hats slightly now. We also want to take evidence from you on your strategic plan for 2021 through to 2024. We have had the benefit of looking at that and, again, the members have questions. I will take the privilege of convener and kick off and ask for an explanation. The words “case” and “complaint” are used a lot. Could you explain the difference between those terms, or could you give the definition of what a complaint is for the purpose of the numerology that we see in these reports and explain how it becomes a case?