Complaints about lobbyists

 The Commissioner can investigate complaints about a lobbyist who has not:

• registered with the Scottish Parliament
• provided accurate and complete information in their registration
• submitted a return detailing any lobbying undertaken
• supplied an accurate and complete response to a request by the Scottish Parliament for information about their lobbying.

Were there any complaints about lobbying?

During the year we received two complaints regarding a failure to register lobbying activity appropriately (2023/24: One, 2022/23: One). One complaint did not pass the statutory tests for admissibility and was therefore closed without proceeding to investigation and reporting. The other complaint was still open at the year end.

Our performance

Our progress against the first year of the 2024-2028 strategic plan is set out in Figure 3. 

Stage 1 (Councillor and member cases)

Performance at Stage 1 has shown marked improvement over the course of the year. While the average stood at 152 days across quarters 1-3, performance improved sharply in quarter 4, with cases completed in an average of 78 days – nearly a 50% reduction compared to earlier in the year.  

The marked improvement in quarter 4 reflects the sustained efforts and initiatives introduced earlier in the year to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our complaints management alongside the additional time devoted by existing senior staff within the team during the final quarter of 2024/25. Their combined impact has become increasingly evidenced as the year has progressed, and we have continued to maintain this positive trend into the new financial year.

Exhibit 16 - Average number days spent at Stage 1 for cases completed by quarter in 2024/25

Exhibit 17- Average number days spent at Stage 1 for cases completed in 2024/25 and previous 2 reporting years

Stage 2 (Councillor and Member cases)

This year has seen a marked improvement in Stage 2 complaint handling. The average number of days to complete a Stage 2 case dropped from 211 days in 2023/24 to 158 days in 2024/25 – representing a significant 17% reduction.

While challenges remain in managing the complexity of Stage 2 investigations, we are committed to continuing with this progress. In 2025/26, we will build on this foundation by exploring further ways to reduce the time cases take to be investigated. A key focus will be on ensuring investigations are not only thorough but also proportionate – helping us to operate more efficiently and effectively. 

Exhibit 18 - Average number days spent at Stage 2 for cases completed by quarter in 2024/25

Exhibit 19 - Average number days spent at Stage 2 for cases completed in 2024/25 and previous 2 reporting years

Complaints about MSPs

Complaint volumes in 2024/25

We investigate complaints about the conduct of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). As with Councillor and Member complaints, multiple complaints relating to the same or similar issues are consolidated into a single case. This approach promotes fairness and consistency in outcomes and provides a more accurate reflection of workload.  

When an MSP complaint is received, it is first assessed for admissibility (Stage 1). If accepted, it proceeds to further investigation (Stage 2). Exhibits 10 and 11 show the number of complaints and cases handled in 2024/25.
 

Types of complaints received

We handle a broad range of complaints about MSPs’ conduct as shown in Exhibit 12a. The total number of complaints in Exhibit 12a differs from the number of complaints received in Exhibit 10, as some complaints include more than one primary allegation.

As shown in Exhibit 12a, we received 23 complaints categorised as “other” which were consolidated into 21 cases. Exhibit 12b provides a detailed breakdown of those complaints, grouped by key themes. While many covered multiple issues, each has been categorised by its primary focus. The two most common themes remain ‘Improper conduct as an MSP’ and ‘Engagement with constituents’. The number of complaints about MSP conduct on social media has decreased this year.

Exhibit 12b - Breakdown of 'other' cases received in 2024/25 into key themes

Outcomes from complaints lodged with us

Inadmissible case outcomes

When a complaint is received about an MSP’s conduct, the Commissioner applies three statutory tests to determine admissibility. Only complaints that meet all three tests proceed to Stage 2. As shown in Exhibit 13, we completed 52 complaints in 2024/25 that were dismissed at Stage 1. Exhibit 15 outlines the reasons for these decisions in more detail. Under the Code of Conduct, after we have dismissed a complaint, some can be referred on to other bodies or individuals by Complainer. Exhibit 15 also shows where Complainers were informed that they could refer their complaints on to.

Reports referred to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Where a complaint is admissible, we investigate at Stage 2 and report our findings to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Scottish Parliament. There were no such reports in 2024/25. 

Complaints about local authority councillors and board members of public bodies - 2024/25

Complaint volumes in 2024/25

Exhibits 1 & 2 show the number of complaints and cases handled by the Standards Team in 2024/25. When multiple complaints relate to the same issue, we combine them into a single case. This ensures consistent handling and fair outcomes. Reporting both complaints and cases gives a clearer picture of our workload. 

Types of complaints received

Exhibit 3a – Types of complaints received during 2024/25 (excluding the super complaint) - total 244

To ensure that Exhibit 3a is readable, the number of complaints associated with the super complaint have been removed. The super complaint involved ‘Quasi-judicial or regulatory applications’, which would bring that category’s actual total to 2,546. However, when this total was included in the graph its bar became disproportionately large, making the other complaint types too small to read. The total number of complaints in Exhibit 3a differ from the number of complaints received in Exhibit 1, as some complaints have more than one primary allegation.

Exhibit 3a includes an “Other” category, which covers a broad range of concerns. These may include cases where the Respondent did not act as the Complainer expected, or behaviour the Complainer felt was unfair, but does not fall neatly into another category.

We received 106 complaints about disrespect, consolidated into 82 cases. The figures in 3a vary from this as some complaints fall into both disrespect categories i.e. disrespect towards other councillors/members and disrespect towards employees/public. Exhibit 3b breaks these complaints down into their main themes. Complaints with multiple issues are categorised by their primary issue. 
 

Exhibit 3b – Analysis of disrespect complaints received in 2024/25 by key themes

Submission of complaints

The super complaint has also been removed from Exhibit 4a and Exhibit 4b, to improve clarity and better reflect the overall trend. The super complaint was predominantly submitted by members of the public and when included this category became so large that it distorted the chart, rendering the remaining sources difficult to read.

In 2024/25, complaints from members of the public accounted for 83% of all complaints received – a slight increase compared to previous years. Complaints from councillors and members comprised 13%, down from 17% in 2023/24. We also received 11 complaints from Council Officers in 2024/25 marking an increase compared to previous years.  

Exhibit 4a - Source of complaints (excluding the super complaint)

Outcomes from complaints lodged with us

The Standards Commission for Scotland (SCS) previously issued three Directions under sections 10 and 11 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (the 2000 Act). These covered: the criteria for accepting complaints for investigation, providing three-monthly updates to parties during investigations, and reporting all investigation outcomes to SCS. All three Directions have since been rescinded or expired as their requirements are now fully incorporated into our Investigations Manual. The referrals set out in the following part of this report reflect the practices that we have adopted following agreement with the SCS.

Case Outcomes (Other than a breach)

As set out in Exhibit 6, we completed 193 cases in 2024/25, with a breach of the relevant Code found in 15 cases. Exhibit 7 outlines the outcome of the remaining 178 cases. Of these, 69% were closed at the assessment stage, most due to ‘no or insufficient evidence being available to support the allegation’, a term used in our Case Management System for cases that do not match the criteria for investigation. Of the 111 cases closed for this reason, 27 were service complaints that are outside the scope of the relevant Code.

Reports referred to SCS

In 2024/25, 70 cases were referred to the Standards Commission for Scotland (SCS). The Commissioner found a breach in 15 cases, with the remaining 55 referred without a breach (Exhibit 6). Exhibit 8a, outlines the outcomes of these referrals. In some instances, the SCS may direct further investigation, before deciding whether to take no further action or hold a Hearing. The Commissioner may group related cases into one report, and the SCS may combine multiple reports into a single hearing. The number of reports in Exhibit 8a may therefore not align with the number of Hearings shown in Exhibit 9.  

Section 24 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 requires the SCS to refer reports received from the Commissioner about a member of a devolved public body who is an employee or an ex officio member, to that body.

There was a high level of agreement (93%) between ESC and SCS in cases where no breach was reported, with the majority resulting in no Hearings being held (Exhibit 8b). In breach report cases, the level of agreement was lower at 53%. These cases were predominately considered at a Hearing where the SCS may reach a different conclusion. Hearing outcomes are entirely for the SCS Panel to decide based on their consideration of factors such as the evidence presented, witness credibility, legal submissions and a party’s engagement in the Hearing process.

The one no breach report that was referred under Section 24 has been omitted from the total in Exhibit 8b as the SCS do not make a finding in these circumstances.
 

Hearings

¹These  cases were submitted to the SCS in one report due to the similar nature of their content and so were held as one hearing.

Complaints about conduct

Performance analysis

Going concern assessment

These accounts must be prepared in line with the UK Government’s Financial Reporting Manual.

Management have assessed the appropriateness of the going concern basis of accounting, that is whether the organisation will continue to operate.

The functions of the Commissioner are set out in legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. The Commissioner’s office must continue to fulfil these functions unless the Scottish Parliament rescinds the legislation or transfers the functions to another body.

In common with similar public bodies, the future financing of the Commissioner’s office will be met by funding approved annually by the Scottish Parliament. Funding for 2025/26 has already been awarded and there is no reason to believe that future approvals will not be forthcoming.

Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial accounts.

Key issues and risks

During the period, the Commissioner identified the following key risks for the office.

1. Reduction in overall public spending leads to a reduction in funding
   Risk: Reduction in funding or restrictions on staffing levels impacts our ability to effectively and efficiently deliver our statutory functions.
   Mitigating Action: Ensure the organisation is managed efficiently, effectively and economically. For example, identify adjustments to expenditure, improve productivity, explore shared services with officeholders and wider public sector and ensure effective use of all resources.
   
    
2. Significant changes to officeholder landscape resulting from Committee review, additional directions, etc
   Risk: Wider public sector review leads to the functions of the office being abolished, reduced or transferred to another organisation. 
   Mitigating Action: Maintain networks and horizon scanning to ensure changes in Government and Parliamentary direction are identified in good time. Introduce ways of measuring the impact of our work and demonstrate the difference that we make.
   
    
3. Complete disruption to our IT systems
   Risk: Inability to carry out any functions due to the impact of cyber-attack, national power outages or accidental damage resulting in loss of most or all records/IT systems.
   Mitigating Action: Maintain and implement a range of business continuity and information technology policies, staff training and external accreditation. Decentralise services and regularly test backup systems.
   
    
4. One or more key staff members become incapable of fulfilling their role in the medium to longer term.
   Risk: Ongoing absence of key staff members affects our ability to complete key tasks and acquit our statutory functions.
   Mitigating Action: Develop and implement an effective workforce resilience policy and plan, ensuring staff terms and conditions are designed to maintain staff wellbeing, that office procedures are well-documented and up to date and that there is sufficient cover for all key tasks and functions with relevant training for staff.
   
    
5. Move to 35-hour working week, in line with Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) terms, adversely impacts service delivery.
   Risk: Reduced working hours leads to failure to effectively deliver our functions within reasonable timeframes and quality standards. Compressed workload adversely impacts staff.
   Mitigating Action: Improve productivity without impacting our services. Record changes to procedures and their impact on productivity and regularly consult with SPCB and other officeholders on managing the transition.
    

Further information about management of risks is given in the Governance Statement.