Plenary, 24 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2000

Official Report 696KB pdf

---

Code of Conduct

I remind members who may not have been present this morning that decision time will be at 5.30 pm today, to allow a full debate on the code of conduct. I call Mr Mike Rumbles, the convener of the Standards Committee, to move the motion to adopt the code.

It is with great pleasure that I am able, on behalf of my colleagues on the Standards Committee, to present our first report of 2000, which proposes a draft code of conduct for MSPs. It is hoped that the Parliament will be able today to give unanimous backing to this code, which we believe is both rigorous and fair.

First, I pay tribute to the hard work of my committee colleagues in delivering this substantial report to the Parliament in such an expeditious fashion. I can assure the chamber that, despite the press's penchant for seeking out disagreement, the report was produced in the spirit of the new politics and is a credit to the committee's ability to work as a closely knit team.

The only matter on which there was not full agreement is the reference to the oath of allegiance in section 2.3. I must emphasise that its inclusion in the code is purely a statement of fact and replicates the wording of the Westminster code of conduct. On that basis, the committee believes that the amendment is unnecessary.

We believe that it is important to emphasise the positive function of a code of conduct. The code exists not to ensnare members, but to assist them in their role as democratically elected representatives. There is nothing to suggest that MSPs do not conform to the highest standards of probity and honesty in their work. The document was created to guide members in maintaining those high standards, so that we can continue to provide the best possible service to those we represent, in a manner that is in tune with the expectations enshrined in the code's key principles.

The code draws on the recommendations of the code of conduct working group of the consultative steering group and is consistent with the principles established by the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. Although we draw on experiences elsewhere, such as those of the Parliament at Westminster, we also recognise the distinctive and specific circumstances of the Scottish Parliament that arise from the devolution settlement.

Among other matters, the proposed code lays down key principles consistent with the Nolan principles for the conduct of members; explains the statutory requirements on MSPs to register and declare their interests; sets out the statutory prohibition on paid advocacy; establishes standards for the conduct of MSPs in relation to those who lobby them; sets the standards for general conduct in carrying out parliamentary duties, ranging from guidance on acceptance of hospitality and benefits to requirements about the way in which MSPs treat others; explains how to make complaints about an MSP's conduct and how complaints are dealt with; and sets out the sanctions that may be applied for a breach of the rules. Unfortunately—members might think otherwise—I do not have time to go into many of the rules in great detail. Instead, I will focus on some of the most significant ways in which the code will ensure the highest standards of conduct.

The requirements in relation to registration of interests are laid down by statute in the Scotland Act 1998 and in the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. The order states:

"There shall be a Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament".

The main purpose of the register is to provide information about certain financial interests of members that might reasonably be thought to influence their actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament, or other actions taken in their capacity as members. It is important to emphasise that responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules on registration of interests lies with the individual member.

The key principles of the code, especially those that relate to integrity, honesty and openness, are given further practical effect by the requirement for members to declare certain interests in the proceedings of Parliament. With the rules on registration of interests, that ensures the transparency of members' interests, which might influence—or be thought to influence—their parliamentary actions. It is the responsibility of the member to judge whether an interest is sufficiently relevant to particular proceedings to require a declaration. The code advises members to err on the side of caution.

Paid advocacy is, quite simply, not permitted. Registration and declaration of interests are designed to ensure transparency and do not inhibit members' participation in the proceedings of the Parliament, but the rule on advocacy in the members' interests order is intended to prevent a member from advocating any cause in return for any payment or benefit.

Registration and declaration of interests, along with paid advocacy, are key elements of the code as set out in the members' interests order, but the Standards Committee is clear that further work needs to be done on those subjects. The Scottish Parliament is required to replace the existing transitional order with its own legislation on members' interests. That will be an opportunity to think about how the arrangements can be improved. The committee will want to consider the need to clarify and develop matters relating to members' interests in the current legislation. Such matters include the practical consequences of the rule on paid advocacy and the possible extension to family members of requirements in relation to members' interests.

The code sets standards for the way in which MSPs are expected to interact with all those who seek to lobby them. The standards aim to prevent any individual or organisation that lobbies on a fee basis having any grounds for claiming that using its services will result in better access—it will not. It must be emphasised that the people of Scotland do not need to use a lobbyist to access what is—after all—their Parliament.

For the Parliament to fulfil its commitment to being open, accessible and responsive to the needs of the public, it needs to encourage participation by organisations and individuals in the decision-making process. Indeed, to perform their duties effectively, members will need to be able to consider evidence and arguments that are advanced by a wide range of organisations and individuals. As such, the lobbying process in its widest sense is an integral part of the democratic process.

There is, nevertheless, some uneasiness about the way in which lobbying may be developing. Accordingly, the desire to involve the public and other interest groups in the decision-making process must take account of the need to ensure appropriate transparency and probity in the way the Parliament conducts its business.

Members' attention is also drawn to the stipulation in the proposed code that they should not accept any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant—for example, advising on parliamentary affairs or on how to influence the Parliament and its members. The committee takes the view that it would be inappropriate for MSPs to use their position as elected representatives of the people of Scotland in that way.

The code does not seek to regulate lobbyists. It is a code for MSPs, and it is not the place to lay down any requirement except in relation to our conduct. However, given the public's obvious concern about the activities of lobbying companies, the committee plans to conduct a further investigation into the relationship between MSPs and lobbying companies. The committee will consider whether any form of regulation of lobbyists is needed.

Section 8 deals with cross-party groups. A number of members have already been involved in setting up cross-party groups, and recognised groups are successfully up and running. Rules on cross-party groups are included in the code. The main reason for regulating them is that they may have—or may be seen to have—some influence on the Parliament. It is important that they operate in accordance with good practice and that their activities are transparent and open.

Section 9 sets out the standards that members are expected to meet in their general conduct in carrying out their parliamentary duties. It incorporates rules that have already been laid down by the Presiding Officer about conduct in the chamber. Members of this Parliament are accountable to the Scottish electorate, who expect them to carry out their parliamentary duties in an appropriate manner that is consistent with the standing of the Parliament. The electorate also expect them not to engage as a member in any activity that would bring the Parliament into disrepute.

The proposed code also provides guidance on the acceptance of hospitality, gifts or other benefits. A number of members have suggested that there is a need for a standard to be set, in addition to the statutory provisions that require members to register any gifts—including hospitality and other benefits—valued at more than £250. The proposed code lays down that, although members are not prohibited from accepting reasonable hospitality or modest tokens of good will, they should not accept any offer that might reasonably be thought to influence their judgment in carrying out their parliamentary duties.

Section 9 also contains rules on the confidentiality of certain documents, discussions and other information relating to the Parliament. Although we wish to conduct our business primarily in public, there may be times when confidentiality is required. I emphasise, for example, that all pre-publication versions of committee reports and information deriving from them should be kept confidential unless the committee decides otherwise. Members should take note that any alleged breach of that standard by an MSP would be regarded as a very serious matter by the Standards Committee.

I will outline the procedures for enforcing the code. The procedures that are currently set out in section 10—they relate to complaints and their investigation—will apply for the time being, but they may be superseded once the Parliament has had the opportunity thoroughly to consider other models. The committee felt that its priority was to publish the code so that—as I said at the outset—MSPs and the public are clear about the standards against which we are to be judged, and about how those standards will be enforced.

Under the code, the Standards Committee is responsible in most cases for investigating the conduct of members. If it is considered appropriate, the Parliament may decide to impose sanctions on a member. The appropriate sanction in a particular case would be decided by the Parliament on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Sanctions that the Parliament can apply include preventing a member from voting, attending any meeting of a parliamentary committee or sub-committee in his or her capacity as a member, or lodging and moving motions. There are other penalties, too.

The code lays out a strict set of standards. Our investigation into the allegations raised by The Observer demonstrates that the committee is determined to pursue investigations rigorously and expeditiously. When evidence indicates misconduct, we will not hesitate to say so and, where appropriate, to recommend that sanctions be applied.

As we want to be sure that our procedures are robust in terms of natural justice and that they enjoy public confidence, we are considering whether to adopt different investigation arrangements. We are at a very early stage in those inquiries and will report to the Parliament in due course.

As the Parliament is a new organisation, the code of conduct represents the start of our work in this area. Although we are confident that the code will provide a sound basis for the regulation of MSPs' conduct and will reassure the public of our commitment to open and transparent government, we recognise that it is an evolving document. As such, we are committed to reviewing and, where necessary, amending the code in light of future developments and legislation.

For example, colleagues may be aware that the Court of Session has recently delivered its verdict on the interim interdict against Mike Watson. Although the committee has not yet had the opportunity to digest fully that verdict, the ruling might have some significant implications on the code of conduct, as might the outcome of any further appeal. We will assess the impact of the process in due course and might report back to the Parliament with appropriate revisions.

Furthermore, the committee is examining some related projects such as the establishment of a register of interests of MSPs' staff; soon, we will seek the Parliament's agreement for appropriate revisions. As I have mentioned, we also intend to carry out further analysis of the relationship between MSPs and lobbyists and to consider a number of different models for investigation of complaints against MSPs. Central to all our work in that area is the need to ensure public confidence in the robustness of our system.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to adopt the Code of Conduct for Members annexed to the 1st Report, 2000, of the Standards Committee; that the provisions of the code shall have immediate effect and shall apply to all Members, and that the code be printed and published for sale in hard copy and made available on the Parliament's website.

When I made the affirmation on taking my seat in this Parliament, I made it clear that I believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland rather than the sovereignty of any monarch. In view of the legal requirement that I had to meet in order to represent my constituents, I made the affirmation, albeit with great reluctance.

The legal requirement is laid down in section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998. When the bill was going through the House of Commons, I tabled an amendment to delete it, but because of the timetable motion my amendment was not called for debate. As a result, the House of Commons was deprived of the opportunity of a debate and vote on this important matter.

Members of the House of Commons are also required to take the oath of allegiance or make an affirmation, but section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 has more serious consequences. People who are elected to the House of Commons but refuse to take the oath can hold on to their seats, but section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 stipulates that if a person who is returned as a member of the Scottish Parliament fails to take the oath within two months of the election, or such longer period that the Parliament may allow, that person shall cease to be a member of this Parliament and the seat becomes vacant.

The rules for the Scottish Parliament are much stricter than the corresponding rules for the House of Commons. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is no obligation to take the oath of allegiance at all, which is just as well, otherwise the peace process would never have got off the ground. In the Welsh Assembly, there is a requirement in the Government of Wales Act 1998 for members to take the oath, but the code of conduct makes no mention of it.

I do not agree with section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998, and to those who support section 2.3 in the code I simply say that if the obligation to take the oath of allegiance is already in statute, surely it is superfluous to write it in the code of conduct.

Some of the comments in the media by those who support section 2.3 suggest that they are under the impression that that part of the code of conduct is necessary or desirable to defend the unity of the United Kingdom. With respect, I think that they are confusing two different issues. Not all unionists are monarchists, and not all nationalists are republicans. Indeed, I recall the late Donald Stewart, who used to be leader of the Scottish National party, telling the House of Commons on more than one occasion that the official policy of the SNP is for an independent Scotland with the Queen as head of state.

We hear a lot these days about modern Scotland being a pluralist society and about the need to end discrimination against people because of their beliefs. Section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998, endorsed by section 2.3 of the code of conduct, is a blatant piece of discrimination against those who believe that, in a modern, 21st century democracy, the head of state should hold that position not by heredity, but by the democratic consent of the people. Those who hold that belief are not dangerous subversives who are out to destroy democracy, or disloyal people who are plotting treason; they are men and women who believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which is the basic democratic principle on which the Parliament was founded.

That principle is enshrined in the Claim of Right that was signed by the participants in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, including the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Minister for Children and Education, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Presiding Officer and other members of the Parliament who, like myself, had the privilege of serving in it.

To be consistent, the oath or affirmation should be one of allegiance to the people of Scotland. It is they whom we were elected to serve; our parliamentary code of conduct should acknowledge that and should not discriminate against those who believe that the alleged sovereignty of one person through inheritance is incompatible with the true sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-517.1, to insert after "Committee":

"with the exception of section 2.3 of the code of conduct".

On behalf of the Executive, I will begin by expressing our thanks—and, I hope, those of the entire chamber—to the Standards Committee for its work in an area that can, at times, be difficult. The committee is entitled to recognition for its very hard work.

The code of conduct is, of course, vital to the work of our Parliament. The way in which the Standards Committee has gone about its work reflects that fact. Our new Parliament is, and should be, at the forefront of setting standards of conduct for parliamentarians, not simply here in Scotland, but for others in other parts of the world, who will be able to look at what we do and learn from it. The Executive welcomes the fact that the Standards Committee will continue to develop and refine the standards that will govern work in the Scottish Parliament.

The references in the code to the oath of allegiance, or the affirmation, have been mentioned. The Executive welcomes their inclusion. We respect fully that others take another view, but our view is that it is perfectly proper for such mention to be made in the code. We believe that it clarifies and explains the nature of the devolved settlement and the Parliament's role in the context of the UK constitution.

The report also tells us that the committee will examine various methods of investigating complaints against members. We welcome that too, but it is important to say that, whatever method is finally recommended, our very firm view is that the role of the committee should not only be encouraged, but safeguarded. In essence, that is a matter for the Parliament itself, but the Executive looks forward to an open debate on that subject.

Lobbying has been mentioned. The Standards Committee has said that it will look again at lobbying in relation to members' conduct in carrying out their duties. The committee has also told us that it will make recommendations with regard to MSPs' staff. Everyone in the chamber knows that we have already had one high-profile investigation into allegations of lobbying.

Thankfully, everyone involved in that investigation was completely exonerated, but it is important to remember that there were times when the strong implication from other quarters was that people were guilty until they were proved innocent. It is vital for the standing of our Parliament that we strike the right balance between proper investigation and the protection from inaccurate reporting and gross exaggeration that members are entitled to expect.

Members will be aware that the Neill committee has recently published a report entitled "Reinforcing Standards". The report has a resonance in several of the areas in which the committee has worked or will work. The Executive will consider the Neill committee's recommendations on contact with lobbyists. That is consistent with our commitment to ensuring that the Executive observes the highest standards of conduct in public life.

Our firm view is that the Standards Committee report is helpful and consistent with the procedures and arrangements that we have or will put in place to ensure high standards in public life—some examples are the ministerial code, the civil service code, which, importantly, covers the activities of special advisers, and the much discussed forthcoming ethical standards in public life bill.

Time is short, so I will come to a close. We have noted that, while the code will guide members' conduct initially, it is the committee's intention to review the code and propose amendments in the light of future legislation and other relevant developments.

The Executive recognises that the code has been developed in the context of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999, but there are some sections that may be viewed as over-prescriptive. The requirement to declare gifts of a certain value from a spouse or partner could be one example. We fully appreciate that the requirement remains because of the transitional order. When Parliament puts the members' interests order on a proper footing, we will need to consider how to achieve a balance between being rigorous and not being over-prescriptive.

The Executive welcomes the publication of the Standards Committee report and looks forward to contributing constructively to its refinement in the months and years ahead.

I rise to support Mr Mike Rumbles and my parliamentary colleagues on the Standards Committee who have agreed the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament. It has been extremely pleasant to work with a convener who has shown professionalism, good humour and impartiality at all times.

If the Scottish Parliament is to enjoy the complete confidence of the Scottish people, as Mr Tom McCabe has suggested it must, it is essential that it has and is seen to have high standards. The code undoubtedly introduces strict rules. They are stricter than those that exist in the House of Commons, as I am sure Mr Dennis Canavan will agree. That may be no bad thing. After all, the purpose of the code is to give clear guidance to MSPs on the rules and to ensure that the Parliament is open, accessible and participative and parliamentarians are beyond reproach.

The code is consistent with the recommendations of Lord Neill and with the principles of Nolan. The code of conduct builds on best practice and lays down rules. It is a start based on common sense and I recommend it as a beginning. No doubt it will be subject to revision in the light of experience, but it represents a strong start.

Further matters will need to be considered—for example whether the Standards Committee needs the assistance of a legal adviser, a standards commissioner or a parliamentary commissioner. The committee will not be able to resolve that issue and make a recommendation until it has heard evidence from key witnesses. There is a case for the Standards Committee to be assisted by a person who is seen to be independent of party politics, who has no party political axe to grind and who, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion.

The code of conduct working group to the consultative steering group recommended consideration of appointing a standards commissioner, who would be seen to be independent in investigating complaints. It wrote:

"We consider that it is of the utmost importance that there is a substantial degree of independence in the way in which complaints are investigated. This leads us to recommend the appointment of an Independent Commissioner. The Commissioner would be independent of the Parliament but report his or her finding to the Committee of Standards."

The recent court decision appears to indicate that all the actions of the Standards Committee could be subject to judicial review. It seems that it could be safer to have an independent element. Far more important than that, an independent element would, in my view, increase public confidence in the Parliament and MSPs. It would ensure that justice was not only done but seen to be done. A decision on that can sensibly be reached once we are fully informed about what is likely to be the best way forward, with a solution that will not downgrade the Parliament.

There is then the issue of lobbying: what constitutes legitimate lobbying and what lobbying should not be permitted. Lobbying takes many forms. None of us wishes to restrict voluntary organisations or charities making representations, but there seems to be a strong case for the registration of lobbyists, possibly accompanied by a compulsory or voluntary code of conduct in the case of lobbyists who are clearly acting for commercial reasons. At least with registration the lobbying would be known and in the open, and would not exist or operate underground. That is another issue that the Standards Committee can decide on once it has heard all the relevant evidence. It seems that the key point is that a member should be his or her own man or woman and should not be beholden to any outside interests.

It is made clear on page 76 of the code that the Standards Committee can decide whether complaints are trivial or frivolous. Here, one has to keep a clear sense of perspective. Perhaps I may tell a story against myself. When I was Scottish Tory whip in the House of Commons, I offered a cup of coffee to the Scottish Labour whip, Mr Jimmy Hamilton, MP for Bothwell, who accepted it. I then heard an angry growl from behind, from the late Willie Ross, the then Secretary of State for Scotland. "Beware Greeks bearing gifts," he said, almost as though I might be trying to tow some Trojan horse behind me. I have to say that a cup of coffee is no big deal. What Willie Ross said was good underlying advice, although on that particular occasion it did not prevent Jimmy Hamilton or me from enjoying a cup of coffee.

The code makes it clear that a breach of the paid advocacy rule may constitute a breach of the members' interests order or be a criminal offence. The sanctions that may be applied range from preventing or restricting a member from participating in proceedings to outright exclusion from the Parliament's proceedings or the withdrawal of rights of access to parliamentary facilities.

The code has teeth and it is tough. By agreeing to it, the strong likelihood is that we will keep MSPs out of trouble and provide reassurance—as Mike Rumbles put it—to the public of the Parliament's commitment to the highest levels of probity and honesty. I agree with Mr Tom McCabe that, if the code errs, it errs on the side of strictness. If the Parliament wishes to revise and improve it in due course, I will be extremely content.

For the moment, the code represents our best efforts and I recommend that the Parliament accepts it.

I thank Tom McCabe for his comments about the Standards Committee and the work in which we have been engaged since we were all elected. I would particularly like to thank members of the Standards Committee's clerking team for their advice, good humour and hard work in helping to bring the code of conduct before members today.

The need for a code of conduct was identified as a priority at the first meeting of the Standards Committee last June. Work was started almost immediately. I point that out to members and to the media to remind them that work on the code was already under way at the time of the so-called lobbygate inquiry, and was not developed as a response to it.

Why do we need a code of conduct in the first place? During the referendum campaign, I was struck by the number of people who said that not only did we need a Parliament, but it must be different from Westminster, from the sleaze, lobbyists, cash for questions and the general feeling that all politicians were somehow at it. That all contributed to the general belief that the Scottish Parliament could and should be different.

The code draws on the recommendations of the consultative steering group and is consistent with the principles that were set out by the Nolan committee. It was drawn up for this Parliament and I hope that members will give it their full support today.

No one claims that the code is perfect; as Mike Rumbles said, it is an evolutionary document and much more work needs to be done. For example, a number of points in the members' interests order need to be addressed from a legal perspective, particularly the difficulties that we have experienced relating to the rule on paid advocacy. While we are satisfied with the current interpretation, clarification might be needed in the future. As has already been mentioned, there are problems with the registering of gifts from spouses, which was a matter that greatly exercised Karen Gillon and me during the Christmas period. Members will note that we made no declaration and can take it from that that we were disappointed that our gifts were less than £250.

The Standards Committee will review and revisit such legal matters. The committee has tried to be as pragmatic as possible and has set out standards of behaviour while trying not to constrict the ability of members to do their jobs.

On lobbying, we have restricted the code to dealing with how MSPs should conduct themselves in relation to lobbying organisations. We will start a separate inquiry at Easter into how lobbyists and lobbying companies interact with the Parliament. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, we will hear evidence on registration and regulation and a report will be brought back to the Parliament. It is vital that people know how to engage with their Parliament, that everyone who approaches MSPs is treated in the same way and that there is no question of organisations or individuals getting preferential treatment.

The lobbygate inquiry was a searing experience for most of us. The procedures for carrying out an inquiry were not in place, but the inquiry was carried out swiftly and professionally. We have all learned from that experience. Jack McConnell said a few weeks ago that the inquiry made him grow up. It made us all grow up. Indeed, it made the Parliament grow up. It established the right of the Parliament to conduct its own inquiry and we now have in place procedures for inquiries, although we hope and pray that they will not be needed.

The Standards Committee has still to consider the possible appointment of a standards commissioner for the Parliament. Lord James outlined some of the arguments for that. It will be a matter for discussion in the near future and we will come back to the Parliament with our recommendations.

With regard to Dennis Canavan's amendment, it is no secret that I opposed the inclusion of the oath in the code of conduct. I believe that the code should deal with MSPs' behaviour, not their beliefs. Scottish National party members of the committee in particular expressed concern about how that part of the code would be interpreted and enforced by the Standards Committee. I appreciated Mike Rumbles's swift reply to the SNP on the matter of enforcement.

I welcome the fact that MSPs who do not stand for the national anthem or who express republican views will not be in breach of the code. That is a sensible and pragmatic response and is typical of the way in which the Standards Committee has acted.

Section 2.2 of the code makes it clear that the primary duty of members is to act in the interests of the Scottish people and their Parliament. The code of conduct has been drawn up to assist members in their duties, not to prevent them from carrying out those duties. It will change and evolve as the Parliament does. The document belongs to the Parliament and it is important that MSPs take ownership of it by supporting the motion.

Nine members have indicated a wish to speak before Des McNulty winds up the debate. It should be possible to include everybody if speeches are kept to about four minutes each.

I welcome the code of conduct and I applaud the work of the Standards Committee. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said that he hoped that the code would keep all MSPs out of trouble—I do not know whether it will manage that, but it is a good starting point. It is an evolutionary code that will try to get us to do what the people of Scotland want us to do in our parliamentary duties. It sets fundamental requirements for how we should behave in the discharge of our duties.

The code is comprehensive—it covers lobbying, hospitality, confidentiality of information, cross-party groups and registration of members' interests. Many members have placed the code in the context of years of public scandals and disillusionment with politicians. Make no mistake—the public think that we are at it, as has been pointed out. They place us at the level of tax inspectors and double glazing telesales people who call just as one sits down to tea.

In recent years, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Nolan and Neill, has addressed some of the public's concerns. In Scotland, we have an opportunity to take that a step further. We can rise up to meet public expectations for the Parliament and adhere to a strict but fair set of rules and guidelines on public conduct.

The rules on lobbying, consultancy, paid advocacy and gifts are stricter than those to which our Westminster counterparts are bound and they mean that criminal charges can be brought against members who break elements of the statutory code, such as the rules on paid advocacy.

The code is not purely self-regulatory. As other members have said, we are examining the question of the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner. Some of the rules will be more difficult to keep than others. One rule says that we

"should not engage in any activity as a member that would bring the Parliament into disrepute."

That includes excessive consumption of alcohol—I hope that the owner of Deacon Brodies Tavern is not listening to this. I suggest that we exempt from that rule the months of December and January and Burns night. Most of the other rules will be welcomed by all members.

I would like to focus on a particular aspect of the code—the leaking of committee reports. I speak from my experience of some weeks ago, when the report of the Health and Community Care Committee on the Arbuthnott report was leaked in advance of its publication amid much press speculation and, indeed, inaccuracy. Copies of reports from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and elsewhere have also been leaked. Partly because we had only a draft code of conduct in place, we were unable to act in those cases.

In future, members will be bound by the confidentiality requirements that are outlined in section 9.4. It is my intention, as a committee member and convener, to be as open and as accessible to the public as possible. However, when committees are working through drafts of reports, it is essential that those drafts remain confidential. That is a long-held tradition in the House of Commons, and to break the confidentiality of a draft committee report must be seen as an act of contempt not only for the Parliament's committee system, but for colleagues.

Leaking of reports can lead to misinformation and lack of clarity for the public. It can also give preliminary views a status that they do not warrant and can lead to recommendations or findings that are not adopted by the committee being prematurely attributed to it. The temptation to talk to the press is always there, particularly when members are told that a story is already in the public domain. That is a temptation for back benchers, committee members, committee conveners and the Executive when it is faced with criticism.

All members are treated equally by the code and we must all resist the temptation to speak about or to leak the contents of draft committee reports. We have duty to the public, but—as is made explicit in the code of conduct—we also have a duty of courtesy and respect to one another. I hope that in future Parliament will come down hard on members who transgress that section of the code. In this small, incestuous world of spin that we inhabit, it is never easy to find the sources of leaks. Parliament must, however, send a clear message that it takes a serious view of such behaviour and that it is prepared to investigate such matters and, if necessary, to enforce its rules.

The Standards Committee and our chief enforcer, Mike Rumbles, must be prepared, through sanctions and the withdrawal of rights and privileges, to police the code of conduct effectively. Parliament's legal authority lies in the Scotland Act 1998, but our moral authority lies in our code of conduct and in the support of the Scottish people. Our code binds us to the Nolan committee's seven principles of life in the pursuit of our public duties, which include integrity, honesty, accountability, openness and leadership. If we prove ourselves equal to the task of living up to those ideals, Scottish democracy will flourish. If we do not, we will have lost the greatest prize of all—the respect of the men and women of our country.

I want to direct my remarks to section 8.3 of the code of conduct, on cross-party group rules. I endeavoured to intimate to Mike Rumbles and Des McNulty the points that I would raise, which I have come across in my role as convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Borders rail.

On page 63 of the code of conduct, rule 4 concerns intimation of announcements in the group bulletin. When I first saw that rule, I raised my concern with colleagues that the public and others who had shown an initial interest in cross-party groups would be unaware of the bulletin and might not have access to the internet. I am pleased to see a bullet point on page 65, under rule 12, which contains an attempted remedy—a flexible and sensible provision for intimation to be given to other parties by other means, as the committee considers proper. I raise that issue as I am keen on openness in all matters in this Parliament.

I now move on to the problems that I have encountered in respect of rule 9, which requires that cross-party meetings

"must be held in public."

I want to make a distinction between the expression

"must be held in public"

and—words that might be there—"open to members of the public." That is a neat but important distinction. In its mandatory nature, that rule might sometimes pose a great impediment to the activities of cross-party groups.

Yesterday, we held a meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Borders rail. The first request to attend the meeting that I received, outside the membership, was from Colin Robb of Citygate, a public relations firm that was looking for business. The next request that I received was from Dave Spence of the Scottish Executive, asking about the meeting. I had concerns about that, and contacted group members and advised them, as the convener, that I would move for that meeting to be held in private. I also intimated my intention to the two gentlemen concerned.

The meeting was attended by Colin Robb and Dave Spence, with his notebook in hand, and, inter alia, by Ian Jenkins MSP, Murray Tosh MSP, Ian Brown—the director of technical services at Scottish Borders Council and chair of the Borders rail working party, who was deputising for the convener of Scottish Borders Council—Councillor John Ross Scott, another representative, and two representatives of the Campaign for Borders Rail.

On a point of order. I am concerned at the line and level of detail that Christine Grahame is pursuing. I do not think that it is appropriate in this context.

I share your concern, Mr McNulty.

I accept that and will move on.

A motion was put on the basis that the rules had not been ratified by the Parliament and that I was not debarred from moving the motion, which was carried unanimously. I make the point that that was a cross-party, cross-group motion, which was not taken by me independently. Why did I move it? There were sensitive issues surrounding the feasibility study that was on the agenda—issues such as funding and reference to commercial interests. Tactics were to be discussed, of pursuing the campaign through parliamentary and Westminster channels.

Ms Grahame, I must ask you to focus on the work of the Standards Committee.

I am focusing on it.

Do so more precisely, please.

My point is that the group would have been inhibited in discussing certain matters if the public had been there—not members of the general public, but the two gentlemen concerned and others who might have come with specific interests. I quite agree that cross-party groups should meet in public, but there might be occasions when issues are addressed that require to be discussed in private. That is a matter for the committee to decide. It is a serious issue, which I raise for discussion in the Standards Committee.

I suggest the following amendments. The first sentence of rule 9 should be deleted and substituted with, "Cross-party group meetings shall be held in public unless a motion is put to the meeting that the proceedings, or part thereof, should be held in private, and such a motion receives not less than a majority vote." I propose that for discussion.

On a point of order. There is a difficulty, as Christine Grahame has not formally lodged amendments to the motion.

I accept that.

If Christine Grahame wants to propose amendments for the Standards Committee to consider at a subsequent stage, there is a mechanism to allow her to do that. It is not appropriate to propose them in the course of a speech.

I think that that would be fair. Will Ms Grahame please draw her remarks to a close?

I shall draw my remarks to a close.

It is important that we clarify the situation, so that members are absolutely clear about the rules for cross-party groups.

The Parliament has already adopted the rule that meetings of cross-party groups must be held in public. If a reason has been found for holding them in private, I suggest that members use another forum in the meantime.

I agree with that comment. I ask Christine Grahame to cease her remarks unless she has anything of great urgency to say to the chamber.

I knew that I could not move an amendment today, but there are practical difficulties that might not have been foreseen—and that might not be foreseen—by other cross-party groups. The Standards Committee's response is that it considers such issues in what is an open and fluid situation—the committee should consider the points that I have come across in practice. Perhaps the committee could address such points as they arise.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue today, as the subject of members' conduct goes hand in hand with our continuing desire to make the Scottish Parliament open, accessible and transparent—not only the Parliament, but every MSP should fulfil those aims.

People are cynical about politics and distrustful of political promises—we should not be mistaken about that. Therefore, we must commit ourselves, as a Parliament and as individuals, to the highest standards in public life, to ensure public confidence in the political process.

We know that the proposals put before Parliament today are the starting position and will be subject to change over time. That the guidelines were put before us as quickly as possible is an important point.

As we are all too well aware, our friends in the media love nothing more than a bit of sensationalism—sleaze scandals are their favourite diet. Previous scandals at Westminster did the reputation of politics and politicians immeasurable damage and led to the establishment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The document that we are debating today is consistent with the recommendations of that committee.

I particularly welcome the fact that the code not only outlines the approach that members are expected and required to take when we carry out our duties, but explains the rules governing our conduct and guides our interpretation of them. It is not always easy to know exactly what is, or is not, acceptable. There is even a flow chart for those who are really confused, which will assist members to decide whether they have a declarable interest. It is an invaluable guide for members who have not held public or elected office before.

Lobbying, which has been mentioned already, is another important aspect of the code. It is vital that MSPs know exactly to whom—and in what capacity—they are speaking. I fully agree with Mike Rumbles that lobbying is an important part of the democratic process, but we must always be aware that we should exercise complete propriety in such relationships.

I am sure that most members agree that, on most occasions, the behaviour of members in this chamber is exemplary, compared with some of the activities of our Westminster colleagues. However, that might not always be the case. It is only right and proper that we are required to conduct ourselves in a manner appropriate to the standing of the Scottish Parliament—the guidelines in the code of conduct will ensure that we follow the right direction.

Respect is not a right—it must be earned. If we are to earn respect as a Parliament, we must conduct ourselves appropriately.

I join my colleagues in commending the Standards Committee for the effort that it put into preparing the document. I hope that we can all unite behind it.

Before I begin my speech, I want to declare all my registered interests, as I intend to refer to them.

I have always argued that this Parliament should seek to have among its members the widest range of people from across Scotland. In many ways, we must accept that we have not achieved that. We have discussions about gender and so on, but I do not think that we can truly say yet that the Parliament represents a cross-section of the Scottish population. That might be due to the political parties, which sometimes tend to put more weight on people's experience of giving out leaflets on a wet Saturday afternoon than on the range of life experiences that people could bring to the political arena.

I am pleased to welcome the code of conduct and the fact that it permits members of this Parliament to have outside interests, provided that they are fully declared and transparent. [Interruption.] I note from Jamie McGrigor that those interests do not include raising and lowering lecterns.

It is vital that the Parliament includes a cross-section of people with the widest range of interests. I have noticed that when members who have a background in the legal or medical professions or in working with children make points on those matters, other members pay particular attention. We need to encourage that if we are to attract new and different people into the Scottish Parliament. The register of interests indicates that the range of backgrounds among members is still very narrow.

It is important that the Standards Committee offers guidance to members on the declaration of interests, so that it is not perceived as a trial of individuals. Because I do not want to harry the clerks to the Standards Committee, whom I have found very helpful, I have decided to make the widest possible declaration of interests. That means that next week, when I ask Donald Dewar about whether he intends to establish a website, I will have already declared my interest. I would like some guidance on whether that is appropriate.

The other day we had a wide-ranging debate on the role of the Lord Advocate, in which a number of members with registered interests as lawyers spoke without declaring their interest. I do not think that they were doing anything wrong, but we need to understand the parameters within which we are operating, so that we do not fall foul of the rules. I am absolutely committed to transparency and to the principles set out in the report. However, if I and others wish to pursue outside interests, we need guidance. We need the climate that Mr McCabe spoke about—the presumption of underlying innocence in one's activities.

I will try to clarify the issue. If a member has a registrable interest, has registered it and wants to speak about it in a debate, the procedure is straightforward—they should make some reference to it before they start speaking. When we considered the issue, we decided that we should not insist on a particular form of words, because we wanted to keep the procedure as informal and as quick as possible.

That is helpful, but guidance to members would be useful. Obviously, the situation will evolve as the committee considers individual cases, but—as Mr Rumbles has indicated—it is the committee's role to react to complaints and issues that are raised. It would be helpful if it were not reacting within such a negative framework, so that members could ask the committee for its opinion on issues before action was taken. That would be a positive step.

So far, the Scottish Parliament has set an extremely good example in regard to members' activities, but I would like the Parliament to include people who can bring to it more wide-ranging experience. I welcome the code of conduct, but I hope that it is a start and that the parameters will be made clearer to members.

Although this might not be the most riveting subject for debate—by the number of members of the press who have been present throughout, it is clear that they do not see it that way—I know that members believe the code of conduct to be necessary and of great importance. It is important because we must have transparency and accountability in the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland expect and deserve no less.

Furthermore, in the light of recent events in the chamber, it is important that MSPs are seen to treat each other with the utmost respect at all times. If that does not happen, how can we expect the people of Scotland to respect the Scottish Parliament and its members?

My experience as a councillor brought home to me the importance of having clear and concise guidelines—I am sure that other former councillors will raise that point. In local government, it was often difficult to ascertain what constituted an interest or a gift. Often there was a lack of clarity in guidelines on declaring such matters. Indeed, for many years, the Scottish National party and other political parties made representations to the Nolan committee about those matters and called for clear guidelines to be put in place.

I welcome the guidelines, and in particular those concerning gifts, interests and sponsorships. Compared with council guidelines, they are clear and concise.

I will offer the chamber a brief example of the problems that I encountered as a local councillor. I remember that my daughter was once given a box of creme eggs—I will not say who made the creme eggs—which was certainly not worth more than £250, and my spouse was given flowers and so on. Although that may seem trivial to members now, such gifts caused much consternation to me and to council staff. We had to decide whether I had to register the fact that I had received a creme egg, a box of chocolates or whatever. I know that other councillors experienced such difficulties, so I welcome the requirement to declare gifts that are worth more than £250. That clarifies the matter for MSPs and staff; perhaps councils could adopt that requirement, which would remove the absurdity of having to declare such things as flowers and creme eggs.

This is a new era for government in Scotland. We must ensure that members as well as the Parliament are protected against allegations of impropriety. I welcome the measures, which will set the Parliament off on the right footing and be a positive step toward openness and transparent government.

In public life, I have never lied or knowingly misled. That is why members who have asked me how I got my black eye have believed me when I have told them that I got it in my efforts for Baillieston junior football club, and not in any confrontation with sheriff officers or the like.

Never in a million years.

Therefore, in relation to Dennis Canavan's amendment, I hope that members will consider it right and fitting that they should not ask members to lie or knowingly mislead.

It is farcical that those of us who want to remain republican, and true and honest to the citizens of Scotland, have to preamble an oath of allegiance with a particular statement, or take the oath of allegiance with hands held behind backs or with raised, clenched fists or whatever. We should have the right to sign up to the code of conduct, which I thoroughly recommend as an excellent document. I believe that it will be fluid and may be amended in years to come. It is much tighter than the code in Westminster, and is to be commended, apart from the stipulation on the oath of allegiance. I remind members that such a stipulation is not included in the Welsh code of conduct, even though Welsh members also have to take an oath of allegiance before they take their seats. Why does that stipulation have to be included in the Scottish code of conduct?

I do not think that any of us should be frightened, or feel that we have to hide our political beliefs and allegiance. I stood clearly on a manifesto for an independent, socialist republic in Scotland, so I would not be carrying out my duties in this Parliament if I did not make my views clear about swearing an oath of allegiance to someone to whom I owe no allegiance.

I do not wish to return to the previous debate, but I will say that in that debate a member—I believe that it was Fergus Ewing—asked for a definition of stable family life. I do not think that it is possible to give such a definition and I do not support one, but if we were looking for such a definition, we would not look to the royal family. I would also hazard that as a model, the Windsor family has been letting us down—

Back to the Standards Committee report, please.

Because of the Deputy Presiding Officer's intervention I will swiftly move on. However, I often think about speeches by Mr Alistair Darling MP and others on getting tough with benefit cheats and the something-for-nothing brigade—I have yet to hear them getting tough with the real something-for-nothing brigade.

I owe no allegiance to an unelected monarch. I was elected on a specific manifesto commitment and I want to stand by it. My vision is of a nation of citizens and not of subjects; a nation where the people who have influence and power over others can be democratically removed from their positions if they abuse that influence and power. That is why I ask members to support Dennis Canavan's amendment. Let us sign up to a code of conduct but without asking some members of this Parliament to lie.

I welcome the code, which is a good step in the right direction. When I asked my assistant for advice on a speech on the code of conduct, she said that I was probably the best example in the chamber of why a code of conduct is necessary. I do not know what she meant as I have always thought of myself as selfless, honest, open and highly accessible. But—

Modest as well.

I thank Tommy Sheridan.

I remember the horror after my maiden speech when a brown envelope was handed to me. That dread was tempered by finding no crisp notes other than a request for me to put my own notes inside it.

Seriously, as one of the many here who are new to politics, I am very glad to have this parliamentary equivalent to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" to dip into when I am worried about doing the right thing. I have discovered that we are not allowed to smoke in the chamber or offices, which is fine since it is bad for our health. I wonder whether the generous provision of a smoking room outside in the back courtyard is somebody's attempt to kill off smokers altogether. During winter if the cigarettes do not kill us, the cold probably will. I thought that inclusion meant being inside the throng, not being left out in the cold.

This is a new Parliament and a new opportunity to show that the people's representatives are genuinely trying to improve things. It is also an opportunity to regain the trust of those who are disaffected with politicians. As I said last week in the census debate, the very low polls in recent elections, especially for the European Parliament, reflect the low esteem in which politicians are held, especially by young voters who are bombarded with stories of sleaze and corruption.

To restore public confidence we believe the Parliament should have an independent commissioner who would report to the Standards Committee. MSPs would no longer be the only judge and jury of our conduct. We must have standards and we must avoid double standards.

I am all for openness and accountability, but confidential documents are often so for a reason. In order to have reasoned, informed debate MSPs should be in possession of the facts before the press and public are. As section 9.4 of the code states,

"Early release of information about a Committee report could also result in unfair party political advantage."

That is true. It is particularly annoying when the Sunday press carries details unknown to most MSPs. Perhaps the Executive's spin-doctors could advise us which Sunday papers to read so that we may be up to date with parliamentary reports and events in future.

While basic standards of conduct are obviously a commendable ideal, we do not want to get too bogged down in the minutiae of politically correct dogma. I was amused by section 10.2.1, "How to Make a Complaint". First,

"The complaint must include the name and contact details of the person complaining."

I think that most people would know that. The complaint should also

"name the member or members against whom the complaint is being made."

That might be a case of stating the obvious.

I apologise for my cynicism. I welcome the code, which is a genuine attempt to improve the conduct of our Scottish Parliament.

Declaring my interest as a former head teacher, and looking round the chamber, I feel a bit like someone in a peripheral housing estate school on a wet Friday afternoon, when most of the lieges have deserted the place altogether. None the less, I know that those who are here this afternoon are here out of sincere interest.

Tom McCabe said that the matter of registering family gifts might be rather idiosyncratic. I am rather looking forward to the day when I will be able to register family gifts to a value of more than £250. In the words of the Buddy Holly song,

"Well, that'll be the day",

and I am not going to hold my breath. Seriously though, during our Local Government Committee visits round the edges of Scotland, we have sometimes been rather worried about accepting cups of tea and meals. However, I thoroughly endorse the principle of detailed accountability.

Having spent most of my career in education, in schools, where corruption is limited to bartering unused reams of copying paper in exchange for pencils, and where I shared most of the prejudices that citizens have about money and favours sloshing around at the limits of business and politics, I am delighted that we are debating this subject today. We are making it clear to the watching public that detailed and stringent conditions are being established at this relatively early stage in the history of the Scottish Parliament.

It is particularly important that the Scottish Parliament be seen to be making comprehensive plans to keep its house in order. It must not only be seen to do so, it must do it—as we have already seen in last year's inquiry into lobbying. I am sure that that was painful for everyone involved but, however painful it was, it sent a clear message to the nation that we will try to attain the highest possible standards in public life.

Apart from the intrinsic merits of establishing high standards, their accomplishment will put the Scottish Parliament in the position of being able to persuade other public bodies in the nation to meet similarly demanding standards. I look forward to such standards for quangos and local authorities. It will not be a case of saying, as the old Army adage does, "Do as I say. Don't do as I do." I hope that the Scottish Parliament will be in the position of saying, "Do as we do."

I am sure that members will agree that we are generally informal, polite and respectful of each other, although we do not necessarily agree with each other all the time. I note that Mike Russell is saying "Boo." Our approach is a welcome departure from the Westminster form of consultation. If we get our behaviour right here, it may have a cascade effect on the conduct of council meetings and other public meetings throughout the land.

The merit of today's debate and our continued reasonable treatment of one another will be to enable this Parliament to do what it should do—lead credibly from the front.

I begin by thanking my colleagues on the Standards Committee, the clerking team, which has worked incredibly hard over many months, and the legal team, which has done its best to keep us out of the Court of Session as we have dealt with matters of conduct.

I share Sandra White's disappointment that the debate has not engendered the amount of interest among members or the press that we had hoped it would. I am concerned that I may be becoming a bit of a standards anorak, and perhaps I need to get out more, but I think that this is an important issue. As a member of the Standards Committee, my experience of the lobbygate event has shown me that any scandal, perceived or otherwise, receives a great deal of interest and comment from the press and from colleagues, regardless of the facts of the case.

I hope that the code of conduct will provide a framework that will help members to avoid inappropriate situations, and will make the public aware of the standards that they can expect of members of the Scottish Parliament. For too long, the Westminster Government did not exhibit the standards that the public expect, not just from MPs, but in wider public life. It is important that this Parliament shows that it is serious about standards.

I will deal with a couple of the points that were raised, but first I will say something about lobbying. Lobbying has been at the centre of the Standards Committee's agenda since September. That date is imprinted on my mind, and I shall probably never forget it. My views on lobbying are clear. I hope that over time, this Parliament will make lobbying an unnecessary facet of public life in Scotland, because we will be open and accessible. Members of the public, businesses and voluntary organisations will have direct access to the Parliament, and will not need to spend vast sums of money employing someone to have that access on their behalf.

Most important, however, we have a clear statement of how members should conduct themselves. Members should be aware of who they are speaking to, who the lobbyists represent, and of everything else that is going on in the background with the lobbying company. That sets us up in a safe and secure way, and provides us with a framework, so that people who engage in elaborate sales pitches cannot again drag members of this Parliament into their sales pitch, and gain credibility in doing so.

Jamie McGrigor made some facetious remarks about communicating complaints. I should tell him that the lobbygate complaint did not contain the name of the person who was making the complaint, or the name of any member against whom a complaint was being made. The code of conduct ensures that we have a framework for the complaints procedure.

If members have a genuine complaint, they should take it to the Standards Committee, and not take it to the pages of the press or to other media, because in the interests of natural justice, all members have the right to have a fair say. That is what the Standards Committee is about. We have managed to do that on a non-party basis, and if members want to make complaints for party political reasons, this chamber and the Standards Committee should not allow them to do so.

Finally, I will touch on the matter of the oath. I have been quite vocal on this issue for some time. The part of the code of conduct that refers to the oath is a statement of fact, based on the constitutional settlement in which we find ourselves. All members took the oath or the affirmation on the day that they joined this Parliament. I appreciate Tommy Sheridan's position, and if Tommy's party had been elected to Government in Scotland, we would not be in the position that we are in today, and we would not have the constitutional settlement that we have. Indeed, if the SNP had won, I doubt that we would have had the oath as part of this Parliament. But it did not win, and we are in a constitutional settlement in which a Government was elected that represents the broad view of Scottish public opinion.

The oath is a statement of fact. The affirmation states, "according to Law."

No. I will save Dorothy from herself, as Alasdair Morrison said last week.

There is no law that says one must stand for the national anthem, so the point is a bogus one.

No. I have to wind up.

I hope that members will vote—[Interruption.] I am being signalled to wind up. I hope that members will vote to retain this paragraph within whatever it is. [Laughter.] I mean within the code of conduct.

First, I pay tribute to the Standards Committee. I am a member of two thankless committees. I serve on the Procedures Committee with Janis Hughes, and on the Parliamentary Bureau with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr McCabe. The bureau is not so much thankless as blamed for everything, so I bring thanks from those thankless committees to the people on the Standards Committee who have worked so long and hard.

I want briefly to cover a number of points that were raised in the debate. I will start with the question of the oath. The debate on that matter was going well, until Karen Gillon spoke. She returned to a rather aggressive way of treating this matter—which I know was evident in committee, because I have read the Official Report—and that is unfortunate. She knows, I know and other members know that there was opposition to the oath prior to this Parliament being established, when it was suggested that there should be a more appropriate form of words. Several members inserted some of those words during the oath taking. It is a pity that this issue has become a symbol of what this code is about, because it would have been much wiser to have walked away from it.

I have some sympathy for Dennis Canavan's position on this matter. We now know at least some of the limits of what one can say as a result of Tommy Sheridan's speech. As nobody appeared to arrest Tommy to take him away for treason, we know what we can get away with.

My party would have been sympathetic to Dennis Canavan's amendment, had it not been for the classic consensus Liberal position that Mr Rumbles has adopted throughout. He has spoken some very good sense and assured the chief whip of the SNP in writing—I think the letter has been released and is not privileged in any way—that the Standards Committee would not judge members on the basis of whether they stood for the national anthem or spoke in favour of republican principles, but would be concerned only about treason. As I suspect that the courts would get members before Mike Rumbles would, I do not think that we have much to worry about on this matter. However, I think that it would have been better for the Standards Committee to leave it alone and I believe that several members of the committee feel the same way.

I agree with what has been said about committee reports—those should be confidential and kept that way. However, that raises a wider issue, which is how the Standards Committee enforces that and other parts of the code. The lack of a standards commissioner within those proposals—I know that the committee will examine that matter—is significant. As time goes by, one will have to seriously consider the proposal that there should be a commissioner, and I suspect that that proposal will come to this chamber. The commissioner should have the ability to work on behalf of the Standards Committee to find out facts, investigate, report and be an arm of the committee. It would be impossible to give that role to the Presiding Officer, to any of the clerks or to members of the committee.

The rules on paid advocacy have not been raised in this debate, but they are worthy of consideration. Some members have found themselves, surprisingly, reminded by the Standards Committee, or by clerks, that they may encounter difficulties under those rules, which have been drawn very tightly. An example of that is Linda Fabiani, who went to East Timor for a referendum and found herself constrained from speaking on behalf of the people of East Timor about what she had seen when she came back to this chamber. Those rules were not meant to do that. We will have to consider the rules of paid advocacy again, so that we do not make a farce out of passionate and strong concerns of members.

In general terms, this report is supported by the SNP. It is supported in spirit as much as in detail—the spirit of this report is important. We should regard ourselves as very privileged in being members of this Parliament. We should be determined not to let our voters and the people of Scotland down in any way. These rules indicate what may happen if we do let them down, but our determination not to let the people of Scotland down should be the most important motivating factor.

As members know, I have just returned from a visit to India. In some of the state Parliaments in India, up to 20 per cent of the members are under investigation for crimes ranging from corruption to murder. That comes out of the situation there within the democracy, which they are fighting hard to defend. We have a vigorous and flourishing democracy and we are the people who can protect it. That is our privilege. We should not need rules, but if they are there, they should ensure that those who fall short of them are found guilty and removed quickly.

I add my thanks to those of the chief enforcer, Mike Rumbles, and the other members of the committee who spoke—Karen Gillon, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Tricia Marwick—both to the fellow members of the Standards Committee who did not speak and to the clerking team.

There was a notion that the Standards Committee might be a quiet backwater of relative inactivity when the committees were formed. The committee has met, I think, more frequently than any other committee in the Parliament. We have had a large amount of work to do. I pay tribute to my colleagues and the staff of the Standards Committee for doing it so well.

We have established a code of conduct which members will be able to work with effectively. That is not to say that the work of the committee is finished. We recognise that we are in an evolving situation. Mike Rumbles, in his speech, made references to matters that we have identified on which further work will be required. The Standards Committee will be carrying forward that work over the coming months.

Dennis Canavan, in his anti-monarchical sentiments, was obviously trying to take on the mantle of the late Willie Hamilton. The issue here is not so much the code of conduct, as the issue of the oath, about which I recognise that there is disagreement. Dennis's points were more in the context of a debate on section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 than in the context of the code of conduct. Karen Gillon was right to say that, on becoming members of the Parliament, we all made an oath or an affirmation. The code of conduct simply reflects that as a matter of fact.

Let us be clear. Section 2.2 makes it explicit that

"Members' primary duty is to act in the interests of the Scottish people and their Parliament. In doing so, members have a duty to uphold the law and to act in conformity with the rules of the Parliament."

The members of the committee worked hard on that—

Did the committee consider making that section section 2.1, thereby showing that the people of Scotland are the primary duty of members of the Parliament?

Section 2.1 refers to the full range of key principles. The member has got his number wrong.

The key issue is that, in carrying out their primary duty, members must uphold the law. There is nothing to prevent any member from putting forward his point of view. What we have done, in the code of conduct, is simply to reflect the constitutional reality in which we operate.

I welcome Tom McCabe's comments. It is important that the Parliament is committed to remaining at the forefront of standards. I also welcome the fact that the Executive is encouraging a continued and open debate.

The regulation of MSPs for which the committee has been responsible is part of a framework of regulation. There is a family of regulatory procedures. The committee has defined its concern, while our focus has been on the behaviour of MSPs. As Tom McCabe indicated, we want to avoid over-prescription but to maintain a level of regulation that ensures that our behaviour is of the high standard that the public expect.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made a number of points about the possibility of having a legal adviser or a standards commissioner. There are a number of issues there that we need to address, particularly in terms of the enforcement procedures—how we separate out the process of investigation and adjudication that will need to take place. As a result of a recent decision, we will need to take account of the legal framework within which we operate. Parliament is created by statute and its decisions may therefore be subject to law. We have to reflect that in the way in which we take things forward. The Standards Committee will deal with those matters.

I agreed with Tricia Marwick's comment that there is a public demand for higher standards. It is vitally important that we establish the credibility of the Parliament. I agree with Tricia and with Karen Gillon that, in many ways, the lobbygate investigation was a bit of watershed for the Parliament. That investigation was non-partisan and it led to a clear, agreed outcome. It is important that that method of operation and that systematic safeguarding of the interests of the Parliament and of the interests of the people becomes the watchword for how the Standards Committee operates.

We will be addressing the issue of the leaking of committee reports to which Margaret Smith referred. It is important that we deal with that in the appropriate context of enforcement. In relation to what she said on the guidance to members, we must remember that although the guidance is guidance, the onus is on members to ensure that they conform to it. The guidance, in and of itself, does not protect members. Members will have to read it and to ensure that their behaviour takes account of it.

On the points made by Christine Grahame, I must say that the way in which the cross-party groups are set out requires that they be parliamentary in character and of genuine public interest. The Standards Committee took the view that that meant that such groups should be open. We will consider some of the issues that Christine Grahame has raised, but I emphasise that we want to see the cross-party groups operate in a way that is properly publicly accessible and completely transparent.

I accept what Des McNulty is saying and he is right that the emphasis should be on openness and accountability. However, I would like to draw his attention to the confidentiality requirements for committees in section 9.4, and ask him to consider those in tandem with the rather more stringent requirements for cross-party groups. Perhaps we can build in some flexibility for specific matters.

I am sure that my colleagues and I will look at practice on an evolving basis, within the principles that we have set out.

In response to David Mundell's points, I must say that we emphasised the helpfulness of the Standards Committee clerks who are there to assist members. No one should underestimate the determination of the Standards Committee to enforce the principles and the practicalities. We are absolutely clear that the declaration in itself is not sufficient. There must be no question of any undue conflict of interest affecting any member of the Scottish Parliament. It is up to individual members to ensure that their behaviour conforms to the principles of the code.

The Standards Committee has undergone a valuable learning process, as has the Scottish Parliament. We are in an evolutionary situation. We have established a code of conduct that will carry the Parliament forward, ensuring that it has the reputation that it deserves. It is the responsibility not just of the Standards Committee, but of every member of the Parliament to uphold the reputation of the Scottish Parliament. On that basis, I commend the code of conduct to members.