 Sinaent. Welcome to the eighth meeting of 2016. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting so that is because we provide papers in an electronic format. Apologies have been received today from Cara Hilton. Our first item on the agenda today is to decide whether to consider item 4 in private at this and future meeting item 4 is in relation to considering a draft for our legacy report. Are members agreed? Our first substantive item, item 2, is evidence on the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. I welcome Bill Thompson, Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, and Brenda McKinney, Investigations Manager, Office of the Commissioner for Public Life in Scotland. Mr Thompson, would you like to make any opening statement? Thank you, convener. I submitted a letter. I think it stated the 11th of February, which I presume members have access to, and for the moment I have nothing to add to that. I'm just happy to move to questions and do my best to answer them. First of all, we can see from the report that the amount of complaints has dropped. Do you think that that's because there are less problems out there, or is that because the public, many who have complained previously, feel that their complaints have not been acted upon? I have no information to suggest that there are people who feel that their complaints have not been acted upon, although you may be about to provide me with some. Nor do I have any way of gauging whether the range and number of problems is more or less than it has been in the past. Although the number of complaints has dropped, you'll be aware that in the year covered by the annual report, the figure for the number of complaints was, I would suggest, distorted by a very substantial number relating to one particular issue that was dealt with as a single case. I projected the number of cases that we have to investigate this year on the basis of the figures that you have up to the end of December. That suggested that the total for the year would be 121. That is in relation to councillors and members of public bodies. In fact, as of the end of February, which we have just passed, we already have 121 cases. The volume of business that we are dealing with does not seem to me to be reducing significantly. How would you respond to a member of the public who may say that reporting anything to yourself is a waste of time? It's a scenario that I've come across in a number of occasions of late. I'm not sure how I would respond to that. I think that I'd like to know why the member of public thought it was a waste of time. I don't see how I can answer it unless I have some indication of why that person thought it was a waste of time. In terms of your responses to members of the public after an investigation or after you've come to a decision, do you think that you explain the situation well enough in the communication to the complainant about why it is that you've reached the decision that you have? I always do my best to do so. I accept that improvement is always possible. I also would draw the committee's attention to the fact that approximately a fifth of the complaints that I receive are based on allegations of failure to comply with the key principles that are set out in the code but that are not part of it in terms of being rules that can be breached. In those circumstances, although I always write and ask people if they have anything else that they wish to suggest by way of a breach of the specific rules of the code, there are many circumstances where people don't have anything else to put forward. So the chances are that around a fifth of the people who submit complaints are dissatisfied and that is not because of failure on my part to explain things, that is simply because they think they have a valid complaint but the way the code is drafted it's not. So do you think that there needs to be changes to the drafting of the code which would maybe satisfy members of the public in that regard? There are different views on that. For what it's worth, I would prefer that the key principles were not included in the code. It's not the time suggesting for a moment that they're unimportant but it misleads a lot of people so far this year at least 48 into thinking that somebody has breached the code and it's not at all clear other than to those who read carefully paragraph 2.1 of the code. It's not at all clear that failure to observe the key principles is something other than a breach of the code. I think that that is confusing for a lot of people. I also think that it takes up a lot of time and energy and produces nothing at the end of the day so I can appreciate people in those circumstances feel frustrated and dissatisfied. So the key principles that are written into the code where folk think that there have been a breach because the archie principles paragraph 2.1 blows all of that out of the water. Is that what you're saying? It does. So what attempts have you made to get the code changed so that people are not being led up the garden path and thinking that they have been ignored, that the breach that they have reported has been ignored and which leads them to what I've already said, thinking that actually complaining in the first place was a waste of time? I'm not sure why you're putting the question in that form, convener. That form, Mr Thomson, because basically where you have led to me in terms of your answers actually leads to some of the things that have been said to me by members of the public in recent times. Okay. My statutory role is to investigate. It's a narrowly defined role. I have a view, which I have just expressed to this committee, that the inclusion of the key principles leads to confusion and dissatisfaction. I'm not convinced that it is necessarily part of my role to seek amendment to the code, but if anyone were to ask me in what way I think it could be amended, that would certainly be one suggestion that I would put forward. Okay. So you don't think that you should be making suggestions about changes to the code? That's not what I said, convener. I said that if anyone were to ask me, that is something that I would suggest. I think that you said that it wasn't up to you to ask for changes to the code just prior to that deal, Mr Thomson. I said that it's not part of my statutory remit. It may not be part of your statutory remit, but there are often things that are not parts of statutory remit, but that doesn't stop folk from suggesting various things at various points. No, indeed, and I've done it to the committee this morning. Good morning, Mr Thomson. Good morning, Ms McKinney. I just to follow on from the convener's comments, doing some calculations from the 1st of April last year to 31 December, the number of breaches and the number of complaints made. If you start taking these figures, then you find that less than 4 per cent of the complaints made actually led to—was identified as a breach. When you start going into the other figures, you then find that roughly 9 per cent of the total number of cases that were taken forward are identified as breaches. I never want to speak for the convener, but my understanding of where the convener was trying to come from is that, when members of the public or others make a complaint—what you've told us today is that, because the key principles—people misinterpret the key principles in terms of the code—that they make a complaint based on what they think is there and yet what they find out once they've made the complaint and the response they get is, well, that's not part of the code therefore doesn't form part of a breach. Would it not be easier to make it more understandable for the public and others to understand exactly the areas where there is a—could report what they perceive to be a breach, rather than a large number of complaints being made in this situation in the nine months that I've cited? You find that only 10 per cent are taking forward, and, basically, you end up with very low figures in relation to identified breaches, and the rest of them, no, not pursued further than you get out with jurisdiction and then withdrawn. Would it not be easier—I note further on in your report that you talk about the pressures that are on the delivery of the service because of the financial constraints that may be in coming years, but would it not be easier to try and adapt the guidance that's issued to the public or made aware to the public in relation to what they can report as a breach? I agree entirely. Would you, in your position, want to make that recommendation? If code could be simplified and made clearer, that would make everybody's life better. I think that it would be better for councillors who have to observe it, and some of it is quite difficult, frankly. I have no role in this—a convener may come back to me—but I have no role in terms of issuing guidance, as you be aware, under some of the statutes under which I operate. I'm actually specifically disbarred from giving advice, and that is because I'm the person who would have to investigate a complaint. However, the standards commission to whom I report on those matters do issue guidance, and I'm aware that they are in the process of revising it. However, although that may improve the guidance, the issue—I think that this comes back to where the convener started—is the code itself. If the code itself is complicated or not clear, then that cannot be remedied by guidance. If she is saying that the code is not fit for purpose, then how do we make it fit for purpose? I didn't say that it wasn't fit for purpose. I'm taking from what you're saying at the present moment, and it's my term that I'm using, that it's not fit for purpose. How do you, as a commissioner, to put the person responsible for enforcing the code, make sure that we actually have something that is workable, and doesn't take up a lot of time, effort and energy on behalf of you and your staff to deal with cases that are not competent to be dealt with? I'm sorry to be hesitant, because I don't think that the answer is simple. As you're well aware, the code is promulgated by ministers. Ministers would have to agree that there was a reason to review the code. As it happens, I suspect that that will be done at least for the narrow purpose of making sure that it is sufficient in relation to integration joint boards, which are active now. You've asked me quite a wide question, and I apologise for taking a little bit of time to answer it. Obviously, councillors or representatives of councillors would have to have a say in any adjustment to the code, since it affects their behaviour and their conduct and how that might be complained about. I would have thought that the major players in that would be representatives of the people who might complain, with an interest specifically in local government bodies, perhaps individual councils and the appropriate minister. I'm certainly happy to contribute. If you're asking me, I think that there are other areas that require attention. Would that not be more appropriate for the Standards Commission to bring forward recommendations to the Scottish Government? As you said, it's up to the Scottish Government to either reject or accept the recommendations from the Standards Commission. While I mentioned earlier about the time and effort that is spent by you and your staff, I know that when there is a complaint made against a councillor, there is a lot of council officer time that is taken up with dealing with a complaint as well. That's why I'm making the comment about if we were to simplify the code or make the code more understandable, then that would save a lot of unnecessary effort. That's why I agree with you entirely. The other factor in that, of course, is the private energy, if I can put it that way, which goes into this. There are public resources in dealing with it in my office, in councils and, for that matter, the Standards Commission, if I report to them that there's been a breach. However, there's the private energy and time of individuals, and I appreciate that people do not complain lightly. It's not an easy thing to do. If that could be channeled better, that would be a good thing in itself. You said during that last exchange that there are other issues that could be dealt with. Can you tell us now what issues you think need to be dealt with and what needs to be changed to make all of this more effective? In fairness, convener, I cannot give you a comprehensive answer right now, but the thing that is top of my list is the way in which the code applies to statements that are made in social media. That's where some folk will make an opinion known or maybe throw an insult at somebody and then claim that that account is a personal account and they can do what they like. Is that the kind of thing that you're talking about? That's a slightly extreme version of it, but yes, precisely that. The code only applies, as you're well aware, to the actions of councillors where they are acting as councillors. It doesn't apply, nor should it apply, to their private conduct. The most problematic grey area is in relation to what is said on social media. You said that you cannot give us a full list today. What we require then is a comprehensive list of the areas where you think that there are difficulties so that our successor committee can look at all of that and bring that to the attention of others if they deem that to be necessary. We're never going to resolve some of those difficulties unless we know exactly what they all are, get them all on the table and then look at it from that point. If we could have a comprehensive list from you, I think that maybe our successor committee won't be grateful for it, but at least it gives them a starting point. Sorry, John, do you want to come back? Yes, just to follow up on that, convener, just to ask Mr Thomson of his view, when is an elected member not an elected member? There's no simple answer to that. I'm tempted to respond humanously, but that wouldn't be appropriate. It's actually quite a difficult issue. If an elected member gives a quotation to a newspaper that is then published, certainly if it relates to council business—I'm talking here about members elected to councils—my position has been that that is covered by the code. It has featured in one or two hearings, and that has certainly been the position that the Standards Commission has adopted or agreed with so far. If they would make the same comments on Facebook or on their Twitter account, it is much less clear whether they are acting as a councillor and covered by the code. I'm quite surprised by that, because in terms of the, I'll give you a case reference, LA forward slash NL forward slash 1862. An issue was raised at a full council meeting, and you'll know the local authority by the coding. I won't name the individuals and I won't name the local authority to save their embarrassment in terms of how to deal with the issues. In relation to that, a legal letter was submitted to a full council meeting, which then stopped the discussion of a motion. The understanding of the proposers of the motion was that that issue could not be discussed at full council, but two weeks later a councillor took the opportunity to comment in the press. That was reported to your office and dealt with in your office. You indicated at that time that it was a commentary on the motion and an expression of opinion as to the underlying motivation of the proposer and seconder. When does something like that in terms of the public domain, when a full council agrees not to discuss something to seek further legal clarification? Then you get elected members commenting in the local media. Based on your issue, if the person had commented on social media, then there wouldn't have been potentially a breach, but the person commented on the local press. What you said earlier was that if it was a press comment that may be subject to investigation, but if it is social media, then that would be outwith the scope at the present time for further investigation in relation to that complaint. Some difficulties here. I have to make it clear that I didn't say that comments made on social media could not be covered. What I said was that it is not clear that they are necessarily covered by the code. The specific case that Mr Wilson raises, which I have some reservations about discussing, is obviously open to question by anybody. The circumstances there where the complaint was made that a ruling of the convener in a committee meeting or a council meeting had been ignored. What I would ask Mr Wilson is if the convener in this meeting were to make a ruling, would that necessarily apply to those members of this committee who then go out and speak to other people about it? Unless it was a ruling, I would suggest to you that some business that you are dealing with is confidential and therefore must not be discussed. I think that there is at least a question as to whether the ruling would have any effect outside this committee meeting. That was the problem in the North Lanarkshire case that you were mentioning. As a sector, I didn't want to name the local authority, but Mr Thomson has. In terms of the ruling, the ruling was that the council was seeking further legal advice on the issue at hand. That is one of those areas where you are right in terms of if a convener, and I would expect the convener and others to, if they made a ruling such as that, the members would at least respect that ruling until further legal advice had been given. You quite rightly said that your interpretation may be open to question, but at the present moment there is no, as I understand it, no right of appeal in terms of your decision. However, can I move on, convener, in relation to— Can you let Mr Thomson talk about right of appeal first before we do move on? Can I just come back to that? Obviously, there are political issues at play here, not necessarily in this room, but there are in many of the complaints that I handle. Rulings by the chair or convener about the application of standing orders apply to council business. They do not necessarily apply in a wider sense. There is no right of appeal against a decision on my part that there is no breach. I am trying to put that in positive terms and avoid double negatives. If I decide on the basis of a complaint that there is no evidence of a breach, I make a decision and that is that. Unless somebody is minded, as they can do, to apply for judicial review, which of course would be a resource-intensive process, it has not happened yet. It is not to say that it will not happen, but that is the only way, other than people writing to me as they frequently do and saying, well, you have not properly given attention to this or that issue. We are now collecting statistics about the volume of what you might call post-decision correspondence, and it is reasonably significant. Many people do question decisions, and I try to deal with the points that they make. If I decide that there has been a breach, I report to the Standards Commission, and this is something maybe to come back to in terms of some of the earlier questions. They then decide whether or not to hold a public hearing, they do so in 90-odd per cent of cases. At that point, the matter is considered a new, and they make a decision on the basis of the evidence that comes to the public hearing. The percentage that has become a breach at the end of the day may be even less than the figures quoted by Mr Wilson, but there is a right of appeal against the decision of the Standards Commission at a public hearing. Just for clarification, you said that if someone was not happy with the outcome of your decision, they could go for judicial review, and that judicial review process would be via the court of session? I think that it is the court of session. Yes, it has not happened yet. The other thing that some people do is complain to the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman that my office has failed to administer their complaint correctly. How many reports have been made to SPSO? Last year, there has been one so far. Thank you very much indeed. Just referring to Mr Wilson's point, I just wanted to ask you about this social media. Are you monitoring social media? Your other point was that I was not quite clear of the definition as to when an elected official is no longer an elected official, particularly when you were reporting privately on social media, like Twitter or whatever it is. Does that mean that it is very difficult to judge that category? Yes, it is. Until it is clarified, if it can be clarified, yes, it is a matter of judgment, and that is why I mentioned that it is the issue that I think is most in need of attention. My office does not monitor social media as such, but we receive a number of complaints that specify alleged breaches in the course of some sort of social media correspondence. Sorry, and are any of those complaints of social media post-complaint after you have made your decision coming back, post correspondence, as you called it? I am sorry, I was talking about different things. Post-decision correspondence is where I have said, for example, that there is no breach, and the person who complained then comes back. Does that concern social media or not? I am sorry, I might not be understanding correctly. It does not generally come to me through social media, but the issue might be about social media. Mr Thomson will correct me if I am wrong here, but Mr Thomson will only deal with any social media thing if a complaint comes in from someone about a post that an elected member has put on that media. There is no monitoring or censoring or anything like that. Mr Thomson has to sit back and wait and see if any complaints come in, probably crossing his fingers and hoping that there aren't any complaints. Thank you. On that same point, I could probably give you a number of examples of councillors who, probably from one neck of the woods and not necessarily my party, who have rather poisonous blogs and are rather aggressive and robust on social media, but nothing ever seems to be done about it. How do we get to our position where, because it is back to the question that John Wilson asked, when is an elected member not an elected member? It is a serious point, it could almost be a punchline when you say it that way, but it is a very serious point because we are 24-7 effectively elected members and people will read your blog and will interact with your social media because you are an elected member, so should there not be some form of responsibility that councillors take on board? First of all, I accept that elected members probably are always elected members in the sense that you are available as our councillors all the time. The code does not, and for that matter the MSP code should not apply to everything that you do as elected members, but I entirely agree that there is a problem with social media. It is not straightforward, for a number of reasons. One that I have not yet mentioned this morning is article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which, as I understand it, as interpreted by courts, allows, if you like, additional leeway to those who are engaged in political dialogue in the things that they might say by way of freedom of expression. That is something that is a difficult thing to take into account when you are making a judgment, not so much about whether the comments in social media are covered, but whether they are then a breach of the code. So there are two steps. Talking about language, it is just unacceptable in the modern political landscape that is getting used. The terms and people that do not agree with them get called various unacceptable names, but every time there has been a complaint it is not found in favour of this individual in particular, mainly I need to just carry on. It has got to the stage now where no one actually complains anymore because the behaviour just seems to be the same. That goes across the country, because let us be honest with you. I could probably tell you some of the cases that you have dealt with without reading in-depth, where it seems that certain folk think that they have the right to insult the people who elected them using blogs, Twitter, Facebook and all the rest of it, which in my mind is unacceptable. I am sure that in the mind of most others it is unacceptable, and yet in terms of the code, as it stands, it seems that nothing could be done to deal with that. Well, language used as well, which is unacceptable. I have no disagreement with the points that you are both making, but I am not convinced, and the reason that I mentioned it, I am not convinced that the code deals clearly with that situation at the moment. Again, if that can be highlighted in the correspondence that you will have, we will pass that on to the successor committee. Because, like Mr Adam and probably many others around the table at this moment in time, that is certainly something that has been brought to my attention in a number of occasions. George, do you want to come back? Willie Coffey, please. Thank you very much, convener. Hi, good morning, Bill. I wonder if I could turn again to page 4 of your report. On the table of outcomes and of complaints received, John Wilson led us in a discussion about that. What I can see in the table, Bill, is that something like 75 per cent of all the complaints raised are either not pursued any further, they are outwith your jurisdiction or they have been withdrawn. Three quarters of them in those categories, does that mean that it is giving you an incredible amount of work in dealing with quite a large volume and percentage of complaints that really go no further? Is that an issue for your office? Or do you dismiss them at a fairly early stage in your assessment of them? Some are dismissed at a fairly early stage. Despite the implication behind some of the questions, I endeavour to give as much support as possible to people who wish to complain and to make the position as plain as possible to people who wish to complain. I often issue a letter that indicates to the person who has complained that I am not minded to pursue it because, and it may be that it is back to one of the other issues, simply about the key principles, or because it appears to be entirely outside my jurisdiction. That letter invites people if they wish to come back and give me further information or explain why I should take it further. I do not have the percentage here. Some of those we do take further, and then, even though we have looked into it, we discover that there is still nothing that could amount to a breach. Obviously, it is important to be fair not only to the person who is complaining, but also to the person about whom the complaint is being made. There is a balancing exercise there, but, of course, it takes up quite a lot of time and effort. Half of them are, according to the table, half of them are not pursued further. Is that effectively the same as no breach, in a sense, if you know what I mean? It is. I mean, when you are looking at the data there, there is only about 30 or about a quarter of them result in a no breach determination, but half of them are just not pursued any further. It is to tease out with you if you are not pursued any further. I am sorry, but that is not helpful or clear. They are described as no breach when they have actually been investigated. Those who are in the other category, yes, there is no breach, no there is no breach, I do not know whatever the language is, there is no breach, but that has been resolved because, in many cases, there could not be a breach. The circumstances at an extreme do not involve a councillor. I mean, sometimes we get them about officials who are not covered by the code, either in local authorities or in public bodies. Sometimes we get them about things that are simply not covered by the code at all, and sometimes it is key principles. I will say this in a letter that the conveners required of me. I do not think that it would be good for anybody in my role, either me or any successor, to have to make judgments on whether or not people have complied with the key principles, because principles are so wide that I think that puts you into an invidious position. I think that they would have to be determined if they became part of the code and could be breached, would have to be determined by a broader tribunal of some sort, standards commissioner, whatever. But if possible breaches are extended to include the key principles, then the whole system will balloon, frankly. In all cases, most if not all cases, you do respond like when you are saying not pursued further, that is half the cases, half the cases, right? You will be an explanatory letter going back to the convener. Well, absolutely, yes. With the circumstances as well. And do those sometimes involve quite a rigorous thorough assessment that takes quite a bit of time as well, because that is half the cases that you are dealing with? Or have they done fairly early on in your examination as well? It is a mixture and I am sorry, I do not have to hand or somewhere in my head the percentage which we go into in more detail. I am very reluctant to dismiss things out of hand, as it were, because that is not fair to the person who has complained. What if it is a vexatious complainer? I have suggested in my letter that that might be a category in which we would not pursue, but it is difficult to determine at a very early stage whether the complaint is vexatious. If somebody is complaining about the same thing again and again and again and again, surely that would be deemed to be vexatious, and that you would not spend too much time on that. I would endeavor not to convener. I was just going to ask a notice in the other page, in page 5 there, Bill, where there are some cases where suspension has been the result, that is the sanction that was imposed. For example, if a councillor is suspended from planning meetings or council committees, is their pay suspended as well from that period? I do not understand that pay is suspended. I do not think that the standards commission has the powers which the Parliament has to suspend payment. So suspension from meetings. There is an option to disqualify. The commission does have that option, and obviously in those circumstances pay does stop. We have concentrated a lot on yourself as the commissioner today. Do you think that the standards commission itself is fit for purpose? I do not think that that is a fair question, convener. Why is that not a fair question, Mr Thomson? Because they are an independent part of the process. I report to them that they then make a decision. It is not for me to determine whether they are doing it appropriately or not. The fact that you will not deem whether they are doing something appropriately or not would lead me to think that maybe there are certain things that they are not doing appropriately. That I think is drawing an inference, which you are not in a position to do, I would suggest, convener. In terms of the hearings that the standards commission has carried out in the last number of years, you say that there has been a gradual but steady rise in the percentage of complaints that lead to a report and then a hearing. How often, in terms of where there has been a hearing situation, has the standards commission gone against the findings in your report? In my period of office, which is now almost two years, only once. How many hearings has there been in that time, Mr Thomson? Thirteen concluded one under way at the moment. In terms of the standards commission, I realise that you are not going to tell me whether you think that it is fit for purpose or not today. In terms of your letter to the committee about improvement to the code of conduct, would you be willing in that letter to state what could be done in terms of helping to improve your own office and that of the standards commission? I am happy to comment on my own office, convener. I really do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment on the standards commission. In that case, do you think that it would be wise for us, as well as to question you on anio basis, to question members of the standards commission? I suspect that that was open to you. I think that it is something that has never been done before by the Parliament, but from what you are saying today, that might be something that our successor committee may actually wish to consider. Can you maybe give us some comment about your strategic plan and your prioritisation of investigating particular things and how you propose to use your discretion in that regard? Yes. As you will have appreciated from the letter that I have sent to you, I am conscious that I need to find some way of preventing there being a continual expansion of the workload, because the resources available to cope with it will not simply expand in parallel. I am doing several things. One is attempting to improve the efficiency of our operation, which I would hope all public bodies seek to do. That has to be done within the context of thoroughness and fairness, and, as you were inviting me to indicate, convener, I am trying to improve on the clarity with which things are explained to those who complain of that matter, those against whom complaints are made. I am also wondering, and I am proposing to set out my stall as to circumstances in which complaints may not be investigated as thoroughly as people might like me to do. That is why I have set out in the letter a list of bullet points of possible circumstances in which I might decline to pursue an investigation as far as I might be invited to do. That is quite difficult, frankly. Not only would I then be exercising judgment on whether or not there has been a breach, but I am then exercising judgment as to whether it is worth investigating or not. That is something that is patently quite controversial, given that the person who has complained thinks that it is worth investigating. It is very easy at the top of the list if it is outside my jurisdiction, if it simply relates to key principles and therefore cannot be a breach of the code. It is straightforward that public resources should not be applied to investigating it further, but, as you go down the list, you get to things where judgments are much more difficult to make. To go back to a point that has come up several times this morning, the thing that would most ease the administrative burden on my office would be removing the key principles from the code. As I have already mentioned, that accounts for around a fifth of the complaints that come to me. By the way, I know that that is a controversial suggestion and, if you do interrogate the standards commission, I do not expect them to agree with me. We might just do that. I do not know if many of the members of the public would agree with that, because then they will begin to think that if we are not dealing with the principles of the code, what is the point of the entire thing? I am not suggesting that the principles should be abandoned. I just think that it is unhelpful having them in a code where there are a set of specific rules and people are then given to believe that, because someone has not been, as they would see it, selfless, there is therefore a breach of the code. An alternative would be to incorporate them in the undertaking that elected members sign on appointment to office. It is the norm for me to play devil's advocate, Mr Thompson, as you well know. Already out there, some folk think that the entire situation here is bred a toothless tiger. If we turn around and say that we are taking the principles, the key principles out, what do you think their reaction is going to be then? I can see the difficulty there, and I presume that that is why others would disagree with it. However, if the key principles are not enforceable, what is the point of them being in there, is my answer to that. If there are specific rules that can be breached, they should be comprehensive enough to cover the situations that are problematic. Let us move a little bit off of that in terms of investigation itself. Do you always get full co-operation from other public bodies when you are carrying out investigations? From public bodies, yes, not always as quickly as I would like, but yes, I think is the answer. Are there any examples that you could give us where you feel that other public bodies have maybe impeded your investigation or have not reacted quick enough to deal with the seriousness of the matter? I have no memory or information about any public body impeding an investigation. If we are talking about the organisations, some individuals may operate differently. On occasions, when we are looking for background information, pressures of work can mean that they do not always come to our office as quickly as we would like. We have to appreciate that everybody is busy. Some people prioritise the wrong things, maybe. Would you agree with that? That is a very wide statement. They may not agree with my priorities, but it does not mean that they are the wrong things. Okay, Mr Thompson, you are being very diplomatic. John Wilson, please. In the letter of the 11th of February, you indicate and you give a list of things that you have included in one of the bullet points where the complaint relates to circumstances occurring more than 12 months previously, and the person making the complaint could reasonably have been aware of them. Do you think that 12 months is a suitable period, or should it, for instance, be reduced to six months? One of the issues that I am aware of because of some circumstances in local authority chambers, especially when there is a heated debate within the chamber and comments are made, is that a number of local authorities do not either have any audio or video record of the comments that are being made that lead to circumstances in which someone may have an outburst, or—in the case that I am referring—to make certain gestures to other members in the chamber or that committee. However, because there is no official record of that in the debate leading up to that outburst, it ends up with potentially hearsay evidence being made in relation to the complaints that are then lodged. The 12-month period was chosen prior to my coming into post, I think, by analogy, with the code of conduct for members of this Parliament. It is a rule, but it is certainly a criterion relevant to relevancy under that code. If it were shorter, from my point of view, that would potentially reduce the number of complaints that come in. However, I am not here. I do not think that it is part of my role to reduce the number of complaints that can be made. The important thing is to deal with them reasonably. It is a judgment call. I do not have a particular view as to whether 12-months is the right period. In some cases, people have tried to go through alternative complaint processes. Some of those take quite a long time, and they can then, I think, reasonably come to me afterwards and say that I have been told after waiting whatever period it is that I should have put my complaint to you in the first place. I would be very reluctant to reject that sort of complaint. However, I agree—which I think is the point of Mr Wilson's question—that, at that stage, it can be more difficult to obtain evidence that is reliable. The passage of time makes that more difficult. The comment about how, particularly council meetings are recorded and the evidence is provided, because, as I said, I am aware that, on a number of occasions, you have had to then go to either other elected members or council officials for comments or their recollection of the events leading up to the incident that has been reported as a breach. I am obviously aware of the situation that you are describing. I think that it might be helpful for the committee to know that we quite often, even where there is a recording of some sort—and it may be a transcript rather than a video recording—we quite often go to other people who have been involved, because apart from anything else, the context in which something happens is clearly important in interpreting the nature of it and how people perceive things is important. I doubt if we will ever get away from having to rely on witness evidence, which, as you say, could be described as hearsay. We have, by the way, on occasions used YouTube videos of people doing things in hearings, so social media has some advantages. Just for clarification, is that YouTube videos of council proceedings? I am aware that certain local authorities prohibit the audio or video recording of meetings, including the restrictions on the public gallery from recording proceedings of the council. Short answers to the question is no. They have been used in the context of other public meetings, which were not council meetings as such. You said earlier on today, Mr Thompson, that there would have to be a revisit of some of this by ministers in terms of the changes that they are going to be with integrated joint boards. Do you think that, at that time as well, that gives the opportunity to look at allios to a matter that we discussed when you were before us last year? I am not ducking the question. I think that that is really a matter for ministers, whether they are prepared to widen the consideration to include allios. It is easier for you if ministers were to revisit allios at the same time as integrated joint boards. There is certainly another area where problems can occur. I thank you for your attendance today, and I suspend to allow the witnesses to leave for a very brief period. Our next item on the agenda is the consideration of five negative statutory instruments. The negative instruments are the building Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-70, the building energy performance of building Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-71, the disabled persons badge for motor vehicle Scotland amendment regulations, SSI 2016-72, the local government pension scheme management and investment fund Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-74, the charity account Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-76. Do members have any comments on any of those instruments? No. Is the committee... Willie Coffey, please. Page 5 is on the pensions instrument. It is not disabled persons badges, as it is in the heading there. It describes in page 6 that this is not a change of policy, but it is not changing from 15 per cent investment in pension funds investment from 15 per cent to 30 per cent as a significant change of policy. What do we mean by partnerships when these pension funds can be invested in partnerships? Where is the driver for the scheme from and what is the justification for going from 15 to 30? That seems like a huge amount of the pension fund that you can decide to now invest in a partnership. Mr Coffey, my understanding is that these are regulations that are likely amended every year, if you give me two seconds. What we can do is write to the Government to ask for further information, but we do not have the ability to amend that. We will write and we will find you out that information. Is the committee content to agree that there are no recommendations to make to Parliament in relation to this instrument? I will agree. I ask that that agreement applies to all the instruments that I have just read out. Are we all agreed? Thank you. As I agreed earlier in the meeting, we will now move to private session. I suspend for a little while to allow members of the public to leave.