Revealed: The inside story of how Scotland's standards watchdog fell apart

The commissioner who presided over ‘disturbing’ failings at Scotland’s standards watchdog has earned between £80,000 and £85,000 since going on ‘extended leave’, it can be revealed.

It can also be revealed Caroline Anderson, who has been on a period of extended leave since March 2021, may stay in post until 2024.

In an unprecedented move, Scotland on Sunday can also reveal Ms Anderson, the Ethical Standards Commissioner (ESC), threatened the Scottish Parliament with an employment dispute.

MSPs have been scrutinising the performance of the Ethical Standards Commissioner.

The revelations come as details of the total collapse of Scotland’s main body dedicated to investigating potential breaches of ethical standards in public life are made public for the first time.

This sparked a devastating Audit Scotland report in which failings within the organisation were described as “disturbing”.

Correspondence, obtained by Scotland on Sunday through Freedom of Information legislation, details how the actions of Ms Anderson led to an almost complete collapse in Scotland’s standards system.

Central to this relationship breakdown was the belief from Ms Anderson the office of the ESC – responsible for the investigation of all complaints made against councillors, MSPs, and members of devolved public bodies – should operate entirely separately from the Standards Commission of Scotland (SCS).

The SCS adjudicates on complaints against councillors and public body members, with complaints about MSPs being determined by Holyrood’s standards committee.

The SCS also has an oversight role and can issue directions on how the ESC goes about investigating complaints.

However, the relationship began to fray beyond the point of no return in May 2020 when Ms Anderson suggested during a phone call that she might be being spied on by the SCS.

In a letter, the SCS’s executive director describes how Ms Anderson asked the then-convener of the Standards Commission, Kevin Dunion, to confirm that no-one else was listening to their phone conversation and that he was not recording the call.

The letter states: “This was demeaning and could be taken as calculated to give grave offence, suggesting as it does that Professor Dunion could be suspected of acting unlawfully.

"We seriously doubt that such a demand would have ever been made prior to a discussion between two Parliamentary appointed commissioners.”

As the relationship between the two bodies fell apart, the Standards Commission was forced to issue statutory directions – instructions of how the ESC must act – for the first time in its history.

These included the requirement for Ms Anderson to submit all outcomes of her investigations into the behaviour of elected representatives within seven days, with the direction issued in November 2020.

However, the SCS later received information from a complainer that showed investigations into the alleged breaches of the codes of conduct were being undertaken, but not passed on to the SCS.

Many were instead dismissed as “ineligible/inadmissable” due to the fact they might be covered by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, or the right to freedom of speech.

This included complaints about potential breaches of the bullying, harassment, and respect aspects of the code of conduct for councillors and members of public bodies.

This meant many complainers saw their complaints thrown out before any possible hearing and without a statutory right to appeal, with the only route being through the courts via judicial review at great cost.

Another set of directions were then issued, including a demand for a list of all complaints received by the ESC and whether they had been deemed “ineligible or inadmissable for investigation”.

In a letter to Ms Anderson, the SCS said decisions to reject complaints on this basis had the “potential to reduce confidence in the ethical standards framework”.

They warned it also “erodes the protection afforded by the code” and had a “detrimental impact” in councils, raising the possibility of it impacting “whether a local authority can operate effectively”.

However, in a formal complaint about Ms Anderson’s conduct, submitted to Holyrood in April 2021 after the ESC had begun her period of extended leave, the extent of the problem is laid out.

Rather than investigating around 60 per cent of complaints as her predecessor did, Ms Anderson instead had dismissed 93.2 per cent of all complaints with “failings in the handling of the majority of rejected cases”.

In total, just three cases from 44 received were deemed eligible for a full investigation.

This was labelled by the SCS’s then-convenor, Professor Dunion, as a “systematic process to circumvent” the direction.

In the Audit Scotland report, auditors said every complaint run since August 2020 should be independently reviewed.

Professor Dunion, who left the SCS last year, described Ms Anderson as taking an “adversarial stance” during her time as ESC, labelling the failings in the office “disturbing”.

He said: “Normally professional differences of view can be resolved in a collegiate manner. However, the adversarial stance adopted by the commissioner was such that we had to use the Standards Commission's powers of direction, as provided by law, to safeguard the ethical standards complaints process.

"What is disturbing is the commissioner's prolonged failure to accept that she could not act wholly independently of the commission.

"Even worse, when she did finally accept that she had to comply with directions, she acted to thwart them by claiming that the vast majority of complaints she received were ineligible.

"In doing so she purported that investigations had not been carried out, despite the evidence uncovered to the contrary. Undoubtedly this means that valid concerns about the behaviour of councillors, which should have been referred to the commission, were never given proper consideration.”

Ms Anderson, who was appointed as the Ethical Standards Commissioner for Scotland in April 2019, has been on extended leave since March last year.

Despite not working during this period, she has been paid a salary between £80,000 to £85,000 after pension contributions are taken into account.

It is not known whether Ms Anderson will return to her post, with the ESC’s office stating it did not know whether she would return and the Scottish Parliament, who ultimately make the decision via the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB), stating she is on “extended leave”.

She was initially appointed in January 2019 with a salary of £73,000 and a term of five years, beginning in April 1, 2019 by the SPCB.

However, Scotland on Sunday understands Ms Anderson has sought to raise an “employment dispute” with the SPCB.

It is not known whether there is a live case or legal action connected to this ‘dispute’. However, a source with knowledge of recent events said: “It is unprecedented for a Parliamentary officeholder to seek redress by raising an employment dispute with the SPCB.

“Clearly there have been serious problems within the commissioner’s office and the current acting commissioner is doing his best to resolve past tensions.

"But the current situation needs to be resolved in order to restore confidence in the regulation of ethical standards among MSPs and councillors.”

In response to an FOI request asking for a copy of the document handed to SPCB staff outlining the dispute, the Scottish Parliament refused to confirm or deny whether it was held, citing data protection concerns.

Due to the fact Ms Anderson is a parliamentary officeholder, removal from her position would likely require a vote by Parliament, meaning she may be in place and in receipt of a salary until March 2024.

Speaking on behalf of the Standards Commission, its executive director Lorna Johnston said: “It was disappointing that we had to resort to using our statutory powers for the first time, but we are pleased to report that we now have a fully restored working relationship with the office of the ESC.

“The acting Ethical Standards Commissioner is fully compliant with the statutory directions. He is working to a revised strategic plan for 2020-24, which has an effective and trusted complaint handling system at its core and he has already addressed many of the concerns raised in the Audit Scotland report.”

Ian Bruce, the acting Ethical Standards Commissioner who was appointed in April 2021, said: “I view the working relationship between this office and the Standards Commission for Scotland as excellent.

"We continue to make significant progress in addressing the recommendations made in the Auditor General’s report and will continue to do so.”

A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: “The Auditor General’s section 22 report made recommendations for the Parliament to consider on the governance of officeholders. The SPCB will give full consideration to all of his recommendations.

“The SPCB will also reflect carefully on the Public Audit Committee’s scrutiny of the Commissioner’s office once that process is complete, and on the evidence given by the acting commissioner to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on the work being done to rebuild trust in that office.”

Scotland on Sunday attempted to contact Ms Anderson for comment.

Want to hear more from The Scotsman's politics team? Check out the latest episode of our political podcast, The Steamie.

It's available wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.