³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 10 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 868 contributions

|

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

Of course. In addition to looking for gaps, we are looking at whether there are ways of consolidating or imitating models that are used in other countries. We want to ensure that we have all the functions that we require to maintain standards in public life, with the system performing as it should, but we are looking at whether those functions need to be in quite so many places. Could you imagine the investigative and adjudicative functions being part of the same body, or is it really important that there be separate bodies?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

I will come back to that in a second. In relation to public trust, I will loop back to the earlier discussion about your objections around the potential combination of an adjudication function and an investigative function. Your objection to that proposal seemed to be not so much structural but about routes of appeal and public trust. If we were to come up with a framework that combined those functions, provided that public trust could be maintained and there were straightforward one-stop shop or portal routes for appeal, would that structure even be feasible, or is there some major objection to that?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

That is brilliant. I liked what you said about the portal and the one-stop shop. The committee should continue to consider that, including whether that might mean creating, for example, an office of public trust that has all those things, so that people do not need to know whether they have to go to the ombudsman or the Standards Commission, for example.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

I want to look in more detail at the relationship between your organisation and the Ethical Standards Commissioner. We have talked about the investigative function versus the adjudicative function, and you feel that it is really important that those are separate. I wonder how much of that is packaging. You said that your organisation performs as the board for the Ethical Standards Commissioner. You are already part of the same organisation, but there is this sort of separate—

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

My final question is one that I raised earlier with Mr Bruce. You might have a view on it, as well. He said that possible issues with consolidation of bodies include the maintaining of public trust and having straightforward routes of appeal. Have you any thoughts on those?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

You have. It was on your concerns about routes of appeal were bodies to be combined. That is great. Thank you.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

I have two more questions. You have already spoken about your office situation, your resources and so on, so I will not go into those.

My first question is a little bit like the question that I asked Mr Bruce about gaps. You do not adjudicate decisions about ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ or lobbyists. Should you? I know that there has certainly been debate in Parliament about the potentially political nature of some of the decisions of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Is that a gap? Are we insufficiently independent in that adjudication?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

Brilliant. You also described your advisory function—your more proactive function in relation to the ethics of appointments. Is there anywhere else in public life in general where you feel that an advisory function is missing and would be useful? In looking at the commissioner framework, as well as considering overlaps and whether there are too many commissioners, we are trying to find gaps and where things are missing. It seems to me that, especially in the light of more and more complaints being made, a proactive function in providing advice might be useful. What are we missing?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

I will pick into what you said about your role as compared with that of the Standards Commission. You described your role as being an investigatory one in providing evidence, with decisions then being made by the Standards Commission or, for MSP matters, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Is that a sort of pass-through process, with the Standards Commission or the MSP group making a recommendation, or does the information go to different places, depending on who is being investigated?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Lorna Slater

I am thinking about structure. Let us imagine a larger commissioner body—let us call it the commissioner for public trust—within which you would have ombudsmen, standards and so forth. Is that even feasible, or are the bodies just so different that they are really performing different functions?