Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks very much. My next question is for Paul Blaker and Peter Stewart-Blacker. I think that you almost come at my earlier question in reverse. You refer to the high rate of complaints that have been upheld—they are, therefore, complaints that have gone through the SPSO’s investigation stage—and you suggest that that indicates that many public bodies are still “getting it wrong”. Could you elaborate your thinking on that?

I thank all the witnesses for their evidence so far. Last year, before I was a member of the committee, the ombudsman told the committee:

“we see good complaints handling in the first instance.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 5 December 2023; c 9.]

That was in relation to public bodies. Do you agree that that is one of the reasons why complaints are not fully progressed through every stage? Before you came to the meeting, I said that that is not what I, as an MSP, tend to see, but, given what the witnesses on the previous panel said, I am quite willing to accept that that might be because I see only people who are very unhappy and come to me for a bit of advice and support. However, my experience as an MSP does not back that up.

I will direct that question to Jan Savage, Adam Stachura and Fiona Collie, because my second question will probably be for Peter Stewart-Blacker and Paul Blaker, who can come in at that point.

I want to ask you something else before I bring in Fiona Collie. Is there an impact based on the scale of seriousness, if that is the right term? Is the ombudsman able to say with confidence that investigations by public bodies are, in the main, done well? Is there a seriousness scale? The cases that eventually come to me, as an MSP—I am sure that it is the same for the charities that are represented today—seem to be quite serious and complex. Is there an issue in that regard? Is it the case that public bodies deal with the less serious cases pretty well and quickly but that things become more difficult as you go up that scale?

I am just wondering whether the charities that you and Fiona Collie represent have seen evidence of that.

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?

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?

It has been well documented that licensing authorities have made it clear—they have told the committee this—that nine months is not a sufficient amount of time to process the most complex applications. Minister, what consideration are you giving to extending that deadline?

Good morning to the minister and to his team. I will follow on from the last line of questioning. Licensing authorities have asked for clarity on the operation of licence transfers, provisional licensing and also on home swaps. Minister, do you intend to provide additional guidance or update regulations in those areas and, if you are, do you know when that might happen?

I was going to ask a follow-up question, but you have answered it. Thanks very much.

There are not a lot of repeat offenders—for want of a better term—or individuals who consistently come back to you.