Official Report 447KB pdf
10:11
Our fourth agenda item concerns a recent letter from the Presiding Officer. It is about two documents, both of which have the word “guidance” in the name, so I will try to keep my comments as clear as I can. First, there is the PO’s new “Guidance on Conduct in the Chamber”, which was issued earlier this month. Secondly, there is the “Guidance on the Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”. Our committee owns, as it were, the guidance on the MSP code of conduct, and it is for us to decide on any revisions to it. The PO’s letter—sorry, the Presiding Officer’s letter—asks us to consider how best to incorporate reference to his guidance in our guidance.
This is a good early reminder of the committee’s role as guardian, in effect, of the code of conduct and its interpretation through documents such as our guidance.
The clerks have set out two proposals for updating our guidance. The first is to follow precedent by summarising, within the guidance on the code, some of the key information that is in the Presiding Officer’s guidance. In annex B of paper 3, the clerks have set out how we could do that by using tracked changes to show the changes that are being made. The clerks acknowledge that working out which paragraphs of the PO’s guidance to highlight in that way is somewhat arbitrary, however helpful it is to do so. They have sought to exercise judgment on which paragraphs seem to be more important, but other choices could have been made.
The second proposal is to simply provide a hyperlink in the guidance on the code of conduct to let the PO’s guidance speak for itself, rather than to extract bits of it. That approach is shown in annex C. Do members have any comments on their preferred option?
I am quite content to go with the second option, which, for clarity, is in annex C—it is to simply provide a hyperlink. That strikes me as being a fairly reasonable way forward. I propose that we go for that option.
I am relaxed about which option is pursued. I could be persuaded to go for either.
However, I want to clarify a point that I think is fundamental to the operation of the Parliament. Under the first bullet point of paragraph 14, as set out in annex B of paper 3, it says:
“with remote participation limited to exceptional circumstances where prior consent has been granted by the Presiding Officers.”
We pride ourselves on trying to be a family-friendly Parliament, and there are many members with caring responsibilities. I am sure that it is not intended that, on each occasion that a member may have to go home to deal with something and need to vote remotely, they are required to get permission first. Can we get clarity on that particular issue? I would not want the wrong signal to be sent.
10:15
I fully concur with that point and agree that that decision should be made by the parties themselves, as I believe is currently the case. I am very happy to get clarification on that point.
I think that you suggested that having a hyperlink was your preferred option.
I am relaxed about either option.
I am also fairly relaxed. Having a hyperlink is probably the sensible way of going about it.
I am very relaxed about that.
I echo Jackie Baillie’s point, which was really well made. I did not see the phrase “exceptional circumstances”, but we do pride ourselves on being family-friendly. We have members who might have family duties at home and might have a change of circumstances at very late notice. I do not mind the sentence that Jackie Baillie referred to being in there, because it is beneficial for members to be in the chamber, but in circumstances in which a member needs to be at home, we need to accept that that can be arranged with their party. It would be good to get clarification on that point.
Great. To confirm, we will get clarification on the requirement to seek authorisation from the Presiding Officer or others to vote and attend remotely, and there is general consensus that providing a hyperlink in the guidance is the right approach.
Next
Cross-Party Groups