Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2022. I remind members who are participating virtually to put an R in the chat function on BlueJeans if they would like to speak on any issue.

Agenda item 1 is for the committee to agree to take item 4 in private. At item 4, the committee will discuss the evidence that we will hear during item 3. Do members agree to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That is helpful.

That was not a complaint about a councillor or an MSP—it was a complaint that was levelled at the office.

Please move on to those, Bob.

That is helpful.

There are a few fairly specific points on which I would benefit from your opinion, relating to requests that were made in the Deloitte report. The report contains a section where Deloitte has numbered some recommendations, along with the responses both from you and from others. Towards the end of that section, the report mentions engagement

“with the SPCB and Parliament to determine the reporting route for concerns about a Commissioner.”

Would you like to take the opportunity to comment on that? The management’s response in October 2021 said:

“Agreed although all we can do is engage with the SPCB following the publication of this report.”

As you say, you “have no locus” in respect of that. How did you feel about being asked to do something that was not your locus? Other than being able to ask about it, there is nothing much that you can do about it.

Therefore, you are not saying absolutely no to an external adviser, or whatever they would be called. However, in some sense, that is not the question that is immediately in front of you, without a manual, and there are other factors that play into that with regard to the independence of the commissioner, the independence of the commissioner when those decisions were made and the protections that are built in, in respect of councillor complaints to the commission and in respect of MSP complaints to this committee. There is a structure, and the issue is how such a review would interrelate with that structure and, indeed, the statutory requirements of independence. Is that fair?

That is very helpful. It is right to say, for the record, that the Deloitte report, although it was not published until October, covers the period up to the end of March 2021, which was the point at which you became acting commissioner.

What is your current assessment of your office’s capacity to move forward?

Item 2 is for the committee to agree whether its consideration of its approach to a review of the code of conduct should be taken in private at future meetings. Do members agree to take that in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is for the committee to hear evidence from the acting Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. I welcome Ian Bruce, the acting commissioner.

We move straight to questions. As convener, I will take the privilege of going first.

As acting commissioner, you have published an annual review, which has come to the committee to be addressed. Several other matters are outstanding, not least of which is a section 22 report from the Auditor General for Scotland. There is also a report from Deloitte, which I understand was produced at the request of the commissioner. We will look at some aspects of all of those and hope to clarify some issues that have come up.

Concerns about the effectiveness of the office’s statutory functions were revealed by your auditor and raised by the Auditor General. What actions have you and your senior colleagues taken to address those concerns since you took up your position as acting commissioner?

I am sorry to interrupt, Tess, but Sue Webber wants to come in on one of Ian Bruce’s answers.