Petition · PE01843 · Session 5

Review the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland

Closed Submitted 17 Nov 2020 People & Communities

Signatures

4 online signatures with a country

Comments

Considered

2 meetings

in the Official Report

What it asks

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and consider revision of the governance, accountability and integrity of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland (CESPLS), and ensure it adheres to the 7 principles of public life as stipulated in the "Nolan principles": Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, Leadership.

What the petitioner did first

I have contacted Brian Whittle MSP. He contacted the Scottish Government on my behalf.

Where it was considered

Official Report

13 Jan 2021

Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions

1 mention
10 Mar 2021

Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions

1 mention

Signatures by country

4 online signatures

Scotland3 75%
United Kingdom1 25%

Comments

1 comment, oldest first

Douglas Cameron 7 Jan 2021

I am related to the petitioner and have partial knowledge of some of the petitioners concerns. The details of what led up to this petition being seen as necessary unfolded over many years and had started as an obviously personal issue over a matter of civil law. But it became increasingly obvious that a pattern was developing in a much wider sense and across different, but not totally unconnected government agencies. I firmly believe that there is a systemic problem here, completely unrelated to the petitioners original case. The advice to submit a petition came from an MSP, Brian Whittle. The system appears to allow individuals within departments to make professional judgements about colleagues to whom they could subsequently be dependent on for a professional reference. Quite apart from the obvious concerns this gives any complainant, it is surely completely unfair to put any individual employee in such a professionally uncomfortable situation. The petition rules make it not permissible to name a previous MSP who was crucially involved in making representations that could have avoided the need for a petition in the first place. It is seriously worrying when an official figure with considerable authority makes inquiries and reports, in writing, his conclusion that the petitioner has a “compelling case” but that the agencies being complained about would “do nothing more than circle the wagons” and that in any case the mere mention of the petitioners name “frightened them off”. It is surely worrying when a government agency has the confidence to state that they have done something when it can be unarguably shown from written evidence that they have not. And unilaterally then close that particular issue down. It is surely wrong that a government agency can withhold data that “is normally shared”. I do hope the essence of this petition is truly understood by those who have the power to improve the system of justice in Scotland.