���˿���

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

We agree to the formal establishment of the CPG on France.

Agenda item 5 is consideration of petition PE1949, which was lodged by Alexander James Dickson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules concerning dual mandate ���˿���.

The committee previously agreed to consider the petition as part of its scrutiny of the Scottish Elections Representation and Reform Bill. The committee included the issue as part of its scrutiny of the bill at stage 1, and members will be aware that amendments relating to the ending of dual mandates were also considered at stages 2 and 3. Amendments were agreed by the Parliament at stage 3 that require the Scottish ministers to lay regulations to give effect to disqualification of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as providing a discretionary power to make regulations to give effect to disqualification of local authority councillors.

The Minister for Parliamentary Business committed to undertake a consultation and to report to Parliament once the consultation is concluded. The minister has indicated that he is

“committed to ensuring that, by autumn 2025, regulations are laid as informed by the consultation, which I have committed to publish, and that those regulations are in place well ahead of, and effective by, the Scottish Parliament election that is scheduled for May 2026.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; c 41.]

In the circumstances, it would appear that the petitioner’s request in the petition has, indeed, been answered. The committee might wish to note that, in discussions with the petitioner, he has indicated that he is content with the outcome that his petition has achieved.

We need to discuss whether or not we will formally close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the aims of the petition have been achieved through the passing of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. Are we content to close the petition on that ground?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content for me to write to the petitioner, confirming the committee’s decision?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Rona. Over to you, Joe.

That is helpful.

I will turn to the second of my three points for clarification. The report gives a breakdown of where councillor complaints came from. There is the interesting issue of councillors complaining about councillors, as well as that of the public complaining about councillors, but there is no such breakdown for complaints about ���˿���. Is that simply because the number of such complaints is very small, or is it because there is no interesting information that can be gathered from the sources?

Thank you, Ian, for coming and facing the questions and for the report. Over the time that I have had the privilege of sitting at this end of the table, there has been a sea change in the annual report and its contents, as well as in the confidence of external stakeholders and internal staff. I thank you and your staff for that.

I want to steal your words by reiterating the final part of your statement in the report, where you say that it is a privilege to lead the team that you lead. The committee can see that they are a talented and dedicated group of professionals. Your very last sentence,

“We know that day in and day out our work makes a difference to people’s lives and we don’t take that responsibility lightly”,

is a powerful statement for a lot of people within and outwith your organisation.

Thank you for your attendance.

Yes—we want robust discourse without the discourtesy.

As one of the commissioners, you are, of course, aware of the Scottish Parliament’s new SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee. Would you like to make any initial comments on its work? I have a few questions about what the commissioners have done to support one another and share resource, and about the challenges. You mentioned your cybersecurity certification, which is much to the credit of those who have worked on it. Do you have any comments on, first, the new committee’s inquiry and, secondly, the approach that you have taken, as a commissioner, with regard to your responsibilities, given the use of what is, at the end of the day, public money?

I have a couple of questions about the proposed group. First, I note that secretariat support will be provided by an individual in a personal rather than professional capacity. Is that right?

Thank you very much for that. We look forward to receiving your correspondence, and we will continue to aid and assist, which is the committee’s responsibility.

I will kick off with a few questions and then throw you to the lion’s den in the usual way. However, before I start, I want to pick up on something that happened at the tail end of last year, so that it is on the public record. It relates to the Standards Commission for Scotland and the section 10 direction on the outcome of investigations. As you said in your opening words, your office is in a very different position from that which it has been in in the past, which is absolutely to be welcomed.

Do you want to take the opportunity to explain what the section 10 direction was and, more important, why the Standards Commission for Scotland is happy for that direction now to fall by the wayside rather than be renewed?

The fact that it is lapsing is an indication not only that it has come to the end of its usefulness but that the purpose that sat behind it—in this case, the reporting of each investigation—is now hardwired into the system so that it cannot—