 Good morning and welcome to the 12th meeting of the committee in 2015. If you wish to use tablets or mobile phones during the meeting, please switch them to the flight mode as they may otherwise affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the course of the meeting. This is because we provide meeting papers in a digital format. We have received apologies this morning from Alec Riley. Agenda item 1 is to agree to take agenda item 4 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Agenda item 2 is consideration of petition PE 01534. This is by Claire Simmons on behalf of planning democracy on equal rights of appeal in the planning system. The petition was lodged with the Parliament on 3 September 2014 and has been referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the current rights of appeal within planning and other consenting processes that give deemed planning consent considering the benefits of widening the scope of appeal and providing an equal right of appeal. We have a paper from the clerks setting out the background to the petition and the written and oral evidence to the Public Petitions Committee received on this petition before they referred it to us. Do any members have a view on the petition? Ms Hawthorne? I have a lot of sympathy with the petition. It is something that needs to be explored further, because it looks at the moment that there is a bit of an imbalance in the system. I do think that local communities and local people are losing out to some extent, so I think that it is something that we should look at if we can progress somehow. Any other members? Ms Adamson? At this stage, because it is very early in terms of when the new regulations have come in, we write to the Government and ask what the timescale is for reviewing the planning. Can I suggest that we write to the Government and ask about the petition and ask what its plans are to review it? We wait for the response back from the Government, and if we do not feel that that response is the right one, we should ask the Cabinet Secretary to appear in front of the committee. Would that satisfy members? In which case now we move on to agenda item 3, which is an oral evidence session with the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, Bill Thomson. Bill is joined in the panel by Helen Hayne, Investigation's Manager at the Commissioner's Office, and I welcome you both here today. Before we move on to questions, do you have any opening remarks? Mr Thomson? With your indulgence, I would like to say a few words, first of all, to thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you about the annual report for the year to 31 March 2014, and also for giving me a little bit of time to settle into the post before doing so. That is appreciated. As you have just heard, I am accompanied by Mrs Helen Hayne, whose role as Investigation's Manager includes responsibility for our case management system. In addition to being fully up to speed with our current cases, Helen offers a significant degree of continuity, having worked in the role for a number of years in addition to a detailed knowledge of the internal aspects of our investigative processes, so I hope that between us we will be able to answer any questions that you may have. In anticipation that you would be as interested in what has happened since 31 March 2014, as in the details covered by the annual report, I have submitted updates to some of the tables and I believe that they will have been circulated to you. The information has been supplied as at 18 March. It may therefore be subject to some revision before it is published in the next annual report in a few months' time. If I can just run through that information briefly, table 2 shows the total number of complaints received and the breakdown against councillors, members of public bodies and those that did not come within my jurisdiction to investigate. You will see perhaps that these figures have been somewhat distorted by a large number of related complaints that have been dealt with as a single case. What I suggest is that it might be more helpful for comparative purposes to look at the final row in the table that shows the number of cases considered. There is a further breakdown of complaints in table 3 and I imagine that you may well have some questions on that. Table 4 details the number of complaints received from members of the public, which is the vast bulk of complaints, or from councillors. You will see that there are also very much smaller numbers of complaints that we receive from officers of a local authority from MSPs or, in a few cases, are submitted anonymously. I would like to draw your attention to table 6, which gives comparative figures for the numbers of complaints that progressed during the year. I hope that there was a spike in the numbers of complaints that received during 2013-14. There were still 76 complaints outstanding at the end of that year and I am pleased to be able to report that, despite receiving a significant number in the course of this year, even allowing for the 254 that were dealt with as a single case, we appear to be heading towards having a smaller number outstanding at the year end. That figure will have to be adjusted to take a gandolf what has happened between the 18th and 31st of March. I would just like to say that I have been impressed by the steady and continuing effort of all the staff involved in progressing those cases over the course of the year. Finally, table 7 lists the outcome in terms of my findings. As you know, my word is not final, as all breach cases involving councillors or members of public bodies are reported to the Standards Commission who generally arrange a public hearing at the end of which they may or may not agree that there has been a breach of the code. In the course of the year and because of the volume of complaints received during the previous year and in this year, there have been more public hearings than in previous years. So far, eight have been concluded. One of those involved two councillors and one hearing has been continued until later this month. In summary, that is the current state of play in respect of that part of my work that falls within the remit of this committee, and we are happy to take questions. Thank you very much, Mr Thomson. On the 524 complaints that relate to one issue, I have an inkling of what that would be, but could you tell the committee what that actual case is, please? Yes, convener. It is a complaint by a number of members of the public, 85, I think, about actions taken by a number of councillors in the political administration in the city of Aberdeen. I reported to the Standards Commission that there had been a breach of the code. The Standards Commission set a hearing that started in February and was adjourned and is resuming on the 15th and 16th of this month. For reasons that I am sure you will understand, I cannot really go into the detail of the issue. I would not ask you to go into the detail, because I realise that that is a live situation. I would say to members that, in terms of our questioning, we have to be careful and take cognisance of those cases that are live. In terms of the spike that there has been in 2014-15, it seems that a large amount of that is due to that one case. Is that correct? That accounts for the bulk of the numbers in 2014-15, but the spike to which I was referring in my introductory remarks is in the previous year, the year that was covered by the annual report. It is up from 181 in the previous year. I think that there were 311 in the report. Oh, sorry, there are 311. I am only looking at the councillors. I beg your pardon, Mr Thomson. Even if you look at the number of cases—I am sorry, that is potentially confusing—the number of cases is effectively the number of separate issues that we have progressed. In very simplistic terms—and I realise that this is not mathematically correct—between 2011-12 and the following year, there was roughly a 10% increase—I think that it is actually 7, but roughly a 10% increase in the number of cases. In the following year, there was a further 20% increase. That was in 2013-14. This year, we looked to be heading back to the sort of levels that we experienced in 2011-12. That is why I say that I hope that there was a spike and that we are heading back to a slightly lower level. In terms of his appearance before the committee the last time, Mr Allan was questioned about allios and complaints about those folks who sit on those outside bodies. Obviously, councillors are covered by the code when they sit in allios, but non-canccillors, external members of that allio, are not. The committee felt that that was a little bit of anonomally—anomally, even—a word that I can never say. Can you tell us if anything has been done to try and bridge that anomaly? The short answer is yes, although I am not sure that it will appear very much in published documents. As I am sure you are aware, the code of conduct for councillors does endeavour to cover the situation in which councillors are appointed to other bodies, at least in terms of the specific rules on registration and declaration of interests. It gives guidance. The Standards Commission, who conducts a certain amount of outreach, is aware of the issue of allios, arms-length organisations, originally set up by councils and has been involved in some discussions, including specifically with one authority who asked them to come and address the particular issue. I know that it was also discussed at a recent meeting involving members of the Standards Commission and monitoring officers from a fairly substantial number of authorities across the country. It is a live issue. My impression is that, although there may be concerns in some council areas, there do not seem to be concerns in other council areas. I am sorry that I do not have enough information to be able to explain why that is. One thing that may be related is the question of integration joint boards, which, as you know, have to be in place from today in terms of health and social care. I had the opportunity to ask one of the Government solicitors last week whether any consideration had been given to the position on those joint boards that have councillors on them as well as representatives of health boards. My understanding is that the Government, if it has not already done so, intends to add integration joint boards to the list of bodies covered by the Ethical Standards Act 2000 under which I conduct these investigations, which would mean that they will have to have, by the time they come fully into operation in a year's time, their own codes of conduct. That solves one problem in that all the members of the integration joint board will be covered by the same code of conduct. It does, of course, leave open the issue that councillors will be covered separately by the councillor's code. I am hoping that, in the way that those new codes are drawn up, there will not be any formal, as I used to call, accordities between the two codes. That is very interesting. Even though there has not been many complaints about outside non-cancelor members of allios, it would be wise to extend your regime to cover those folks too, just in case there were a spike of complaints about those folks. That is a difficult question to answer, convener. I am not trying to be evasive. One thought I have is that, if there does not appear to be a problem at the moment, there would be a little point in trying to fix it. On the other hand, I can appreciate that there may not be a problem at the moment because there is no code for those people to breach. I have had, in the year I have been in post, very few complaints that relate to the behaviour of anybody on allios. It certainly appears to me on the evidence available that it is not a particular problem. My suspicion is that it is more likely to become a problem, particularly in terms of conflict of interest, as the resources available to councils and bodies funded by them are further constrained, because that may well bring councillors into a position where they have a problematic conflict of interest. Thank you. John Lawson, please. Thank you very much, Mr Thomson. Good morning, Ms Henn. Just to go back to the issue raised by the convener in terms of allios now, I tried to assure us that things were working well in terms of allios, and you had not received that many complaints. Can I recall a story that I heard last week where one local authority committee had to take a vote three times because they were unsure whether committee members, councillors sitting in the committee could actually participate in a vote because they were members of various boards and allios that were established by the local authority. On the third attempt, they think that they got it right in terms of who should be participating and who should not be participating. If council officials and councillors are unaware of whether or not they can participate in the decision-making structures of local authority when it comes to allios, how assured are you that there are not mistakes being made through local authorities in Scotland that have allios because not every local authority has allios in place? My concern is that if council officials are unaware and councillors are unaware of whether or not they are breaching the code of conduct, then how do we know that those breaches are not taking place on a daily basis? I do not know. It is as simple as that. I am not presuming or assuming, but the answer that I gave to the previous question included a reference to the problems that may occur with conflicts of interest, which is precisely the issue that troubled the local authority to which you are referring. I think that the code is actually quite complex in terms of registration and declaration of interest, and it is particularly complex for councillors who are involved and other bodies. The issue does not just arise in relation to allios, by the way. It has arisen even in hearings in situations where councillors are involved in different sorts of bodies, sometimes bodies that are not set up by the local authority itself. The whole business of registration and declaration is possibly the most complex and difficult part of the code. I am assuming that the situation that you described is accurate. It may not be completely unusual, but I do not go looking for trouble. I will only deal with complaints that come to me, so I am not in a position to say, despite having had discussions with monitoring officers recently, that there are problems in other parts of the country, but they may well be. I understand that you do not go looking for trouble, but when trouble does come to you, then it is trying to assure everybody concerned, including the public, that the standards are being applied across the board. If you are saying in your own words that the code is complex, then has there been any discussion about simplifying the codes so that not only officials, council officials and elected members, but the public understand what is expected of local authorities, especially elected members, when it comes to making decisions on behalf of local authorities while sitting as members of economic development forums, allios and various other public bodies that may derive income from the local authority. I think that that is a fair point. I am not aware of any such discussions. Thank you, but would you undertake to go and have some discussions with the particular standards commission to look at the issue? I think that it is a concern that you have said that you do not go looking for complaints, but my fear is that people, if they are making complaints, may be complaining to the same council officials who do not understand the code and therefore cannot advise the public whether or not there are good grounds for a complaint to be made or other elected members. I am happy to take it up with the standards commission and give you that undertaking. As I have already mentioned, I know that they are aware of the issue. I would be deeply concerned if local government officials were not clear on the code. My earlier example was where three times they attempted to take a vote and the officials were in present at that vote and could not advise the members whether or not they were taking the vote correctly and whether or not members could participate in that. On the number of complaints that has been received in the number of complaints dealt with those cases, it is basically in table 7 that 291 total number of complaints have been indicated and 146 have been dealt with. Roughly less than half of the complaints that have been received are then progressed and dealt with those cases. Is there a reason for that? I think that I need to explain that a bit better. If I could take the committee back to table 2—I am not avoiding the issue, this is an attempt to explain it—there are footnotes, one with an asterisk and one with two asterisks under table 2. The procedure of which we operate means that each individual complaint is treated as a single complaint against each individual councillor. You asked convener about the 254 complaints that are being dealt with as a single case. That is the prime example of the difference between complaints and cases. It is why I was suggesting, for comparison purposes, that it is probably better to look at the number of cases. What table 7 indicates is two separate things. The total number of complaints was 291. They were all dealt with, but because of the multiplication exercise, when you undo that, the total number of cases was only 146. I am sorry that that has not been wholly clear. I am raising a question, because when you look at table 7, it looks as though there is a glaring less than 50 per cent of the complaints that are being progressed. It may be in terms of the reporting mechanism. I know that you referred us to table 2, and I have made that distinction, but it is whether or not somebody scanning through the annual report looks at the annual report and says, by the way, that there are almost 300 complaints made and less than 150 complaints are dealt with. It is just trying to get clarification on the record in relation to that. I am aware of that confusion. I am trying to find the best way to resolve it, but if I can go back to table 7, the position is more stark than Mr Wilson is suggesting to me, because if you look at the 2013-14 figures, 200 of the 291 complaints did not proceed beyond initial investigation, so that is two thirds, obviously. I was not there at the time, but that is because my predecessor and the office reached the view that there could not be a breach of the code. That tends to be the pattern that we receive many more complaints than those in which we find breaches, which, on one view, is good news. I know that there is a crossover between ethical standards and the Standards Commission in relation to codeic conduct, but one of the issues that I have raised in the past is the issue regarding the registers of interest and how up-to-date elected members' registers of interest are. I know that, in this place, Mr Thompson will be well aware of the procedures within the Parliament in trying to ensure that elected members keep their registers as up-to-date as possible. However, in some cases, I have heard that some of the local authority registers for elected members are well out-of-date and are very seldom updated. When elected members try to update their registers, they can take several months before any update and any registrations that they wish to see being made appear on the council websites. Thank you. I do not have a composite picture of the whole country, but I am certainly aware that that has been a problem in some areas. There is a statutory instrument from 2003 that sets up the rules about registers of interest for councillors. It requires councillors to update them within a month of any change, which is the same position as for members of the Scottish Parliament. However, I am not sure how widely that is appreciated. The guidance issued by the Standards Commission refers separately to annual reviews and six-monthly reminders to councillors. I am not convinced that that is adequate. Thank you. Before I take in Claire Adamson, you have talked of monitoring officers. How many of the complaints that you have received have come from monitoring officers? A handful is the answer, convener. The tables record the numbers that are received from council officials. They tend to come from the chief executive, but they tend to be put together by the chief executive working with the monitoring officer. It has been two or three a year for some time now. So, not a substantial amount at all, that would be fair to say? I heard it described by one of the monitoring officers at the meeting that I referred to, which took place last week, as the nuclear option. I think that it is very much a last resort for council officials to make a complaint to me. A nuclear option that is not taken very often, could that be because there is maybe a little bit of fear among certain officials about taking that nuclear option, as you describe it? I do not know the answer, but it is self-evident that, if you have a role in which you have to work with elected members for the period between elections, reporting to the standards commissioner is not something that you would resort to very readily. I am sure that most senior officials, I have been one myself, would seek to deal with things by agreement, or at least behind closed doors, rather than reporting on the risk of it coming to a public hearing. Is there an argument for taking monitoring officers out of the norm of the council executive set-up, creating independent monitoring officers to take overviews and councils, rather than it normally being the case to the person in charge of legal? I am not sure that I would immediately support that suggestion. I am not sure that you are actually asking me to. My own experience is that it is better if things are handled by the people who are there. I think that we would put a chief executive in a very odd position if there was an independent monitoring officer who could interfere with, however, a difficult situation was being dealt with. I do not imagine that local authority officials would welcome that. As per usual, I am playing devil's advocate, Mr Thomson. Ms Adamson, please. I want to ask about the public perception of how the complaint system operates. Go back to the position of allios. As most allios are set up as charities, I wonder if the public would go to the Charities Commissioner to make complaints rather than to the Standards Commission. I wondered whether you had any interaction at all with the Charities Commissioners about complaints to them that may involve councillors sitting on allios? I have not had any such interaction. I confess that it had not occurred to me until you asked the question, but it is maybe a good idea for me to do so. The second question is about the publication of the complaints process when a complaint is made against a councillor. My understanding is that, as soon as the complaint is made, it is published from the website. Is that correct to say that there has been a complaint? No, or is it only after an investigation? That is not the process. During our investigation, it is to receive the complaint, inform the respondent as soon as possible that we have got the complaint to give them an opportunity to respond. It is not until the decision is made by the commissioner that it goes on the website. If there is a decision to take no further action, is that still published on the website? We would publish all decisions that the commissioner thought was in the public interest. If it was trivial and not of public interest, it would not go on the website. Anything of substance that would be of interest to the public, we would put on the website. It was just that I wanted to clarify that point because I know that sometimes, if you search for a particular councillor's name, the first thing that comes up is a standards commission, and very often it is a no further action result, as you have shown from your statistics. I just wondered if that maybe gave the perception to the public that there have been significant complaints against particular councillors. Are you to concern in that area about how it is published? I think that I would rather answer that. Helen, to answer that. That is a possible perception. I would, however, suggest that even if there were multiple complaints against a particular councillor and if none of them was found to have amounted to a breach of the code, I do not see it that that could reasonably be portrayed as a slur on that councillor's character. Not all the complaints that we receive are politically motivated, but some of them are, and it would appear that there are some councillors who are more prone to such complaints than others. I will leave it at that. I think that I will leave it there as well. Thank you. Willie Coffey, please. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, Bill. I wonder if I could risk asking you a question on table seven again, please, on the extra sheet that you gave. Do you see the number of the 540 outcomes that are deemed to be breach? Do they relate to the same case that is all capturing all multiple numbers of cases together, or are they individual breaches? 524 relates to the one case, which has been referred to twice. Of course, that is public knowledge because it is down for a public hearing. If I could add to that, in relation to the 540 complaints, that relates to eight cases. The one that Bill is talking about is 524's one case, and then the remaining complaints relate to a further seven cases. If 100 people complain and the complaint is upheld, is that 100 breaches? Say that it was about one councillor, is that counted as 100 breaches? Sorry, convener, if I can. This is back to the confusion that Mr Wilson referred to and which does bother me. Technically, if there is a complaint and it is found to be a breach, then if there are two, they are found to be breaches and that is correct. There are 524 breaches if that is what the ultimate position is. We haven't got to that point yet, of course. I am going to contradict myself if I may be permitted to do so. This is the problem with the confusion. It is the number of people who have lodged a complaint who have an impact on the total number that we report. I think that we have to do that because it shows how many people have submitted complaints. However, there are in fact only seven councillors involved in the 524. Even supposing that, at the end of the process, the Standards Commission agree with me that there has been a breach and, of course, they may not agree with me, the maximum number of breaches would be seven. I will pick up on a point that the convener introduced about the allios there. As we all know, many councils are in the process of transferring assets to communities and so on. Formally substantial public assets and so on. Those are allios. Those are effectively independent groups of people that will now run and will run substantial facilities. Has there been any sense of a code of practice or guidance for those members of the public who may serve in running those bodies? I am pretty sure that they will not be covered by this code, but are they covered by any code? I am not aware of any such discussions. I hope that some are taking place, but I certainly have not been involved. I know that I was asked before I came here to consider what I might say about the community empowerment bill. My rather glib answer was that I did not think that it would impact very much on the work of my office. However, of course, one of the reasons for that is that, as of now, those community bodies to which assets might be transferred are not covered by any code, which I have a remit to investigate. It is a fair point, and I am sorry that I do not know the answer. I am pretty sure that in assisting the communities to take ownership of some assets, there will be discussion around this area, convener, but it would be something that we might be interested in having a wee look at at some point in the future, perhaps. Bill, is there any distinction drawn between, say, a counsellor, honest, forgetfulness about declaring something and actually acting improperly? Is there any distinction drawn between the two in terms of sanctions that can be imposed for failure to declare an interest? Convener, the sanctions, of course, are the preserve of the Standards Commission. Both of those situations would, as far as I am concerned, involve a breach of the code. If I had the information to show that the first counsellor had been involved in a breach through an honest mistake, I would report that in my report to the Standards Commission. I think that I would be fairly unlikely to report that I thought a counsellor had done so dishonestly, unless it was very blatant, because I would need to be clear that there was evidence of that. I am not setting out to defame anybody in a report. But in both cases, if the Standards Commission hold a hearing and they agree that there has been a breach, they will invite the counsellor, or however is representing them, to make any statement that they wish to make in mitigation. At that point, I would expect the two different situations to come out. I think that it is reasonable to assume, although it is not my responsibility, that that might be reflected in any sanctions imposed. Do you think that there is anything that local authorities could do to further help counsellors who will genuinely, honestly, forget to declare certain things from time to time? Is there anything that we can do to help motherland just to constantly remind them that they have to be aware of the code? Do you think that there are any other areas that we can influence that? I am sorry that I do not have any bright ideas. Just to go back to the 524 issue, and just to drill down as to how those complaints were received, because what is running through my head is that if you could get somebody, a vexatious character who decides to take on-bridge at a particular elected member who then goes out and gets all their neighbours and family to sign a petition complaining against a counsellor or an elected member, would that petition be taken as one complaint, or would it be the total number of signatures and people listed on that petition be listed as complainants? That raises an interesting question. The legislation under which I operate requires, so far as possible, or where possible, I think is the wording, complaints to be made in writing and to be signed by the person who complains. We are trying to move to a position in which we will accept online complaints, which of course takes you nearer to the situation of online petitions with which people are already familiar. I think that it is fair to say that we have not had any as yet, but we have had some complaints where effectively a standard letter has been available and it has been signed by a number of different people who have then submitted. We treat each of these as an individual complaint, but the number of people who complain about something does not influence my decision as to whether I investigate or, assuming that I do investigate, does not influence my decision as to whether there has been a breach or not. It is the facts that matter, not the number of people who complain and not for that matter, the motivation of the person or people who do complain. On that point, you say that you will make a decision or decide to take forward based on the facts. Recently, and I know that there was a complaint made against a particular councillor and I will not go into the details of the complaint made, but the facts relied on what was said at a full council meeting and allegations that were made about particular comments. In a situation like that, where a complaint was made, who do you rely on for the facts because you have one councillor who is complained against and the other councillor who makes a counter claim, so who would you rely on in the facts for that? The short answer to that is the witnesses, but I am sure that that is not what you want to hear from me. It is what I expected you to say, but the problem is that it goes back to your earlier point about the council monitoring officer. If the council monitoring officer is a senior legal officer of the council, to paraphrase what you said, they might not want to upset anybody or be seen to be upset in anybody, therefore they may earn the side of discretion and not provide any evidence to verify the facts, as you described it, where complaints have been made against the councillors and conflicting councillors. I am very reluctant to impute those motives to any monitoring officer who is a witness to something that has become a complaint, but I think that what I come back to is the standard of proof which I have to observe and which is relevant in any public hearing is on a balance of probabilities. If the only available information is councillor A saying that councillor B said something and councillor B denying that he said something, if there is no other information on a balance of probabilities, I cannot make a decision that councillor B did say anything. In that regard, those councils that are now webcasting and things like that, have you taken that into account during the investigation? Absolutely. Sometimes we are given a transcript. Even where there isn't a webcast available, some proceedings are actually recorded. It is not the quality of the official report. Spear Janice blesses, but certainly not that quality. That is part of the issue. It is not just councillor A versus councillor B. It is when it is said in a public forum such as a full council meeting or a committee meeting, where there is not a verbatim record of what is said, and we rely on other witnesses. As you said, it is trying to get the facts of the case to make sure that you are dealing with the facts, rather than a group of potentially elected members deciding to make a case against another elected member of a different political persuasion or none, to then say that we are registering a complaint against this councillor, because she said something derogatory against a particular member or against a council, and it is then how you deal with those facts and how you deal with that case in those circumstances. I have no argument at all with what you are saying. That is one of the challenges of my job, and I do my best to exercise my judgment. I am not claiming that I will always get it right, but I can only do so impartially and to the best of my ability. That is technology moves on. Your job may be a little bit easier. I always remember a case long before the days of the Standards Commission. It has to be said of a story of a northeast councillor, where one councillor accused another of calling him a baboon, and the other councillor stood up and said, for the record, I call them a buffoon, not a baboon. I would never insult baboons in that manner. I understand that there was a verbatim record, but no Standards Commission. Now we have no verbatim records per se, but a Standards Commission. Webcasts, radio broadcasts may be helpful in that regard in the future. The other thing that they are helpful with, and it is terribly important, is the context in which remarks are made. Indeed. That judgment must be difficult at certain points for you, too. Cameron Buchanan, please. Thank you very much. In view of what you said earlier, are you concerned about the announcement that there are very few anonymous complaints? How do you judge if they are anonymous? I was not quite sure what you were saying. It is hardly any but come up. The announcement seems to defy the whole system, in a way. Some people are unwilling to put their name to a complaint, and those are quite simply anonymous. You will appreciate that there is no way in which we can get in touch with the person who submitted a complaint if they do not disclose their identity. They have to remain anonymous, as far as I am concerned. There would have to be exceptional circumstances for me to progress a complaint of that nature. The answer is that you tend not to progress the anonymous complaints. That is the rule, yes. Okay, thank you. It was really a supplementary on the technology issue. Obviously, different councils have adopted different policies with regards to this at the moment, but is this something that you can have any influence on? Would you suggest that best practice should be that full council meetings, for instance, would be recorded in a webcast of some kind? I really do not think that is for me to say. I think that it is a matter for councils, by the way. We have even had YouTube video evidence used, so there are all sorts of technology that may or may not be relevant to particular circumstances. If we could stick to the technology aspect, because many, many more folk are now using social media, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram—lots of other things that I do not understand at all. We have seen circumstances where complaints have been made about individual councillors, about comments that they have made to constituents on social media. I suppose that you have the difficulty in some regards of whether somebody is insulting someone in an official capacity, such as my last story, or as an individual. Can I ask, in terms of the social media stuff, where there have been breaches or found not to be breaches because somebody is acting in a personal capacity, how difficult is it for you to make judgments in those regards? Some are very clear, some are very unclear. In some cases, it is very difficult. I think that it is an area where, at the very least, further guidance would be helpful. I have discussed it with the Standards Commission. I know that they are aware of it being a developing problem area. Helen has a number of cases. I think that we have got roughly 20 in the course of this year. We have had 20 complaints received this year in relation to social media. How many of those have been deemed to be breaches thus far, and how many are still under investigation? We have not concluded a breach in that area. I could not give you the exact figures of how many were under consideration. I just have the number that has been received. I can certainly provide that for you, if that is of interest to the committee. I think that that would be extremely useful for us to be kept up to speed with what the policy decision of the commission is going to be round about dealing with social media. I recognise that there is a certain ruffin tumble that goes on, but it is a casual observer of Twitter. I have to say that sometimes I feel that some of the stuff that is happening on there is a little bit beyond the pale. I would also mention that article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights may well have an impact in some of those cases or may be relevant to some of those complaints. For the record, could you tell us what article 10 is, Mr Thomson? In effect, article 10 defends the right of freedom of speech. As I understand it, it is interpreted more liberally in the context of political debate and, for that matter, reporting through the media than it would be as between any of us who just happened to have a discussion outside this room on a private basis. Quite offensive comments have been held by the courts to be protected under article 10 of the European Convention. It would be interesting for us to be kept up to speed with what decisions are made around that, certainly in terms of some of the things that I have seen and some of the comments that have been made to me by members of the public. That is a matter of concern for some people. If I could go back to a previous discussion that we have had around community empowerment, where participation requests and asset transfers may create some tensions, particularly in the initial stages as they are bed in, are you prepared to deal with any spike and complaints regarding that when it comes into play? To Prince, what do you mean by prepared, convener? I am not expecting a spike for the reasons that I gave before in that I am not convinced that there will be, at least in the short term, a relevant code of conduct under which complaints could be made to me, but I am hoping that there will not be a further spike for any reason. It is quite uncomfortable to deal with, frankly. I know that the figures that you gave us from comparative figures were 2011-12. My understanding is that there was a number of complaints just before the 2012 election in local government election, so you are not expecting a spike just prior to 2017 in relation to complaints coming forward, particularly given the public highlighting the case in Aberdeen, where the number of complaints that have been made about misuse of council resources could be replicated in other authorities, either against the incumbent majority or against individual councillors. I have not been worrying unduly about the period for 2017, just simply because it is a little bit further away. I think that most of us would expect that, at times of heightened political awareness or, for that matter, heightened political tension, it is more likely that that would generate certainly politically motivated complaints. What has surprised me is that the level of complaints coming in does not seem to correspond directly with, say, the period before successive elections, which suggests to me that the majority come from the public for whatever reason they are motivated to do so. That is a more important factor in terms of the total number of complaints that we receive. Do you think that maybe elected members have stopped coming to you about other elected members because so many of the cases in the past have been dismissed and have been deemed to be political? I need to be careful how to answer that. I have not dismissed any complaints on the grounds that they were political. I do not know why councillors have reduced the numbers that have come in. I am happy to see that the number has gone down, but I cannot tell you why. You would say that a complaint from a councillor would have the same effect as a complaint from a member of the public? Absolutely. Any other questions? Is there anything that you would like to add, Mr Thomson? No, thank you. I think that we would be grateful if we could get updates on certain aspects of this, particularly as things progressed around about social media, because there does seem to be a certain amount of interest in that area. I thank you very much, Mr Thomson and Mrs Hayden, for your evidence today. I suspend and move into private session.