Seòmar agus comataidhean

John Swinney has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 54, paragraph 1—

Original text—

The first thing that I would say is that I do not consider our position to have a discernible effect on middle-income earners in Scotland. Essentially, the steps that we are taking are affecting individuals who are in the top two quartiles of the population in terms of earnings. We are concentrating the measures that we are taking on the top two quartiles—we are not discernibly affecting middle-income earners.

Corrected text—

There is a careful balance to be struck between legitimate expectations of performance and support and inappropriate conduct. I am mindful of that a great deal. There are times when I am frustrated by things that are put in front of me, but I always express my frustration in an appropriate and courteous fashion. I need to be supplied with accurate information—if I do not use accurate information, people complain about that. If I do not think that I am getting accurate information, I will press to get it, but I will do so in an appropriate fashion. There is a careful balance between setting out legitimate expectations of performance and behaving in a fashion in which your conduct is not acceptable. Ministers have to be very careful to calibrate that balance in the right fashion.

There are none, full stop. Our complaints handling process has been in place since February. That is the process as it stands. For total completeness, I set out that we have had no complaints submitted on the basis of the procedure that was put in place in February. The changes that I am explaining today will potentially give rise to further change to the procedure in due course. At that moment, the points that I am raising today will be included in the procedure. As I said in response to the convener’s points, if the committee thinks that we are not getting this right, I will be interested to hear that from the committee. Notwithstanding that, with any complaints that are received after that moment of application, we will reflect any changes in the procedures.

The issue is not that I judge that not to be appropriate; it is that we do not have a basis for so doing.

It is about an initial consideration of the substance of the issue and whether it should be considered as a complaint. Some voices will say that that provision should not exist and that every issue should be considered fully but, in my judgment, it is appropriate that we have that initial consideration, given the context that Liz Smith puts about other scenarios.

Yes.

Essentially, we need to have procedural arrangements in place that enable that to happen. Those arrangements did not exist prior to the changes that I am putting to the committee this morning.

On that last point, yes, it is all former ministers.

In relation to cases where a complaint is not upheld, just to be absolutely clear, we would not publish any details about the case, other than the name of the minister and the fact that a complaint had not been upheld.

I will not say to the committee that I think that that is an absolutely certain judgment. I hope that I have left enough scope for the committee to consider the point. Indeed, Mr Lumsden, in his question, presented a different argument from the one that the convener and Liz Smith potentially present to me. I understand the arguments that are made. I have wrestled with those very questions, and I came down on the side of the preference for absolute transparency. However, I accept that there is an alternative argument that could be applied in these circumstances, and I will, of course, consider it should the committee make that point to me.

I accept that, if any complaints are received, it has to be acknowledged that there have been complaints—I do not think that there is any issue with that; indeed, it has been part of the demand that has been made of us in terms of transparency, and it is the point that lies at the heart of Mr Lumsden’s question. In a scenario in which we receive a complaint and it is not upheld, we would disclose that a complaint has been received. If we were to say that the complaint had not been upheld but it was not clear whom it was against, there would be a question mark across all current and previous ministers in that process.

There is a very careful balance to be calibrated here in deciding what information should be available in such circumstances. I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that, if a complaint has been made and upheld, a certain amount of detail should be disclosed, but with protection of the names of complainants and witnesses. The committee is alighting on an issue for which there is no absolutely certain answer.

I will go back to the point that Liz Smith raised, to which I did not respond in my earlier answer, about what the approach says to people who might think about becoming involved in politics. We are of course all familiar with the degree of public commentary that can go with the work that all of us are involved in, and that adds to the mix.

The key thing is the question of transparency, because I regularly hear calls for the Government to be transparent about absolutely everything, and, obviously, we have statutory and legislative provisions in place that require us to act in such a fashion. The judgment that I have come to on the matter is that this is the right balance to strike, given that, to ensure that we provide an entirely transparent picture, we will report on the fact that we have had a certain number of complaints. It is a matter of dialogue and scrutiny. The Government is trying to respond to legitimate calls for transparency. As I indicated in my earlier answer, if the committee judges that that is a step too far, I will of course listen to that feedback.