Standards Committee, 01 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 1, 1999

Official Report 185KB pdf

---

Code of Conduct

I welcome observers back to the meeting—I am sorry that they were excluded from the previous agenda item. I am glad to continue the meeting in open session with item 4, which concerns the code of conduct for members.

Members will have received the briefing note on item 4. I will refer to the comments that I made on item 1, because the first matter that we need to discuss is the public availability of the draft code of conduct for members once we have agreed on the code's terms. The committee is invited to consider at what stage it wishes to make the draft code or sections of the code available to the public. That is important, because the public have a greater interest in some aspects of the code of conduct than in others. Do members think that the code should be published in whole or in sections?

I want to ask a question first. If people had wanted to know what we were doing today, could they have used the internet to access briefing papers?

People have access to the papers that are listed on the agenda.

Therefore, in many ways, those papers are already in the public domain.

No, not unless the committee wishes them to be.

May I suggest that we return to that point at the end of the meeting, Mike? The important thing is to make progress and if we make substantial progress today, perhaps we can discuss the issue in a few weeks' time. For my part, I would prefer to publish the whole code of conduct, but that depends on how long the process will take.

We have taken the CSG report and the first report of the Nolan committee into account in our deliberations, and their recommendations will form the basis not only of our principles but of the code of conduct itself. There was widespread consultation on the CSG report. Although the code of conduct should be published at the earliest opportunity, we should bring out a final draft form of the whole code rather than chapters of it, so that people can say, at the final draft stage, "Wait a minute—we don't think you're getting this right." We can then take the text back and work on it. It will be difficult for folk to get a feel of the whole code from chapters in isolation, so we should make quick progress on a final draft form. As Karen says, that depends on the progress that the committee makes.

I agree with that. It does not make much sense to put out a draft code bit by bit. A draft code is only a draft code and I am not in favour of dripping parts of such a draft into the public domain. I would rather put out a final draft.

We should publish in full as soon as possible.

I have no objection to bits and pieces of the code being made available on the internet as we discuss them. We should put the final draft out formally and invite comments on it at some stage, but there is no reason to keep the process secret.

I agree, but if the committee feels that we should wait until we have a finished document, that is fair enough.

My only concern is that putting out individual sections might cause those sections to overtake the ethos of the code of conduct. There is already some interest in lobbying.

That is what I was thinking of.

If we put a section on lobbying out on its own, lobbying will be perceived as the main issue. However, the issue at hand is not lobbying; it is a general code of conduct for members. We should not let sections of the code become more important than others. If we put the code out as a package, it will be taken as a package; if we put it out in sections, the sections will become more important than the principle.

Is that the general view of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

We will issue the code as a package.

The next item is the format of the code. The committee is invited to consider whether it is content that the code should take the general form of a single substantial document, to be entitled "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament"; be strongly influenced by the CSG code of conduct working group; set out key principles of members' conduct; set out and explain in detail the rules, both statutory and those created by the code, which are relevant to members' conduct; and set out and explain the rules and procedure for the enforcement of the code.

Is the committee content?

Members indicated agreement.

I am strongly influenced by the work of the CSG code of conduct working group and I referred to its work earlier.

We might disagree with the CSG. I do not think that we should commit ourselves to not disagreeing. The CSG examined the code of conduct in the context of a series of issues. However, Parliament has been running for several months and we are beginning to see how, for example, the committees will work. Because of that, we might diverge from the recommendations of the CSG. The Nolan principles were taken on board by the CSG and I am happy to work within that framework, but I would not want us to commit ourselves to the CSG recommendations.

I agree with Des. Most of us would agree with what the CSG tried to do, but one issue on which I take a different view is paid lobbying. I will be pushing hard to have lobbyists registered. That is different from what the CSG proposed. We must discuss the matter, and we will. The framework that the CSG put in place was quite good, by and large, and we must pay attention to it, but at the end of the day this Parliament will make the final decisions, not the CSG.

The wording is strongly influenced by the CSG. Our proposal would not disagree with it.

We now move on to the text of the introduction to the code of conduct. There is a typing error in the first line. It should read, "The Scottish Parliament is an open, accessible and participative Parliament".

The briefing note states:

"The committee is asked to consider the text of the Introduction and is invited to:

agree that there should be an Introduction,

agree what, if any, changes should be made to the draft text of the Introduction."

We should address ourselves to the text of the introduction to the proposed members' code of conduct. I am not sure what members want me to do. I think that we should read through the introduction and then I will ask for comments. Would members prefer to comment on the introduction as a whole, paragraph by paragraph, or line by line?

Paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph by paragraph.

We will do it paragraph by paragraph. Are there any comments on the first paragraph?

We all agree that the Scottish Parliament should be an "open, accessible and participative Parliament", but it is up to us to prove that it is. Instead of making a declaration that it is "open, accessible and participative", we should say that we seek, or aim, or strive to make it so. It is a great leap to suggest that we are already "open, accessible and participative".

I agree. Do members prefer, "The Scottish Parliament strives to be", or, "commits itself to being"?

It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

We will use the words, "The Scottish Parliament commits itself to being".

Are there any other comments on paragraph 1?

No.

Are there any comments on paragraph 2?

Could we put the full stop after, "all that Members do" rather than after, "in the Parliament", because the latter implies that the principle applies only to what happens here, not to what happens elsewhere?

We could strike out the final three words. However, I am advised that that would raise questions about members' private lives.

God forbid.

We would wish members to act with integrity in their private and public lives, so that change to the text need not cause concern.

I am happy with that. We will remove the final three words.

Could the phrase be changed to, "during the pursuit of their duties", or, "in pursuit of their public duties"?

So the sentence would end, "all that members do in pursuit of their public duties"?

Members should apply the principle to their private business as well.

We hope that they would, Adam, but we cannot expect that they will.

Are we saying that the sentence should read, "will underpin all that members do in pursuit of their public duties"?

Are we happy with that?

I am not sure that it reads very well.

At the moment the paragraph reads:

"The word ‘Integrity' is inscribed on the mace which is the symbol of the authority of the Parliament; it is a principle which must underpin all that Members do".

I have concerns about that.

James, what do you think?

We cannot disagree with integrity. However, we could insert a full stop after "do". I do not see how anyone could object to that.

Can we all agree on that?

In the next paragraph there is a line that could be taken to refer to members' public role.

I hope that we can all agree on integrity.

We all agree on it.

Let us move to paragraph 3.

I suggest that we reverse the order of "in their relationships with their constituents" and "in Parliament".

Are you suggesting that it should instead read, "the way in which they behave in their relationships with their constituents and in Parliament"?

Is everyone happy with that?

I think that "act" would be better than "behave". When I was a prosecutor, we used the word demeanour with reference to the accused. I think that "act" would sound more appropriate.

Okay. The next sentence reads:

"Members must meet those expectations by ensuring that their conduct is above reproach and worthy of the trust of the electorate."

The next paragraph is fairly straightforward. Are there any comments on the last paragraph on the first page? Is everyone happy with that?

The paragraph establishes a distinction between statutory requirements and code of conduct requirements. Might we end up with a third category of advice to members?

How would you propose phrasing that?

Obviously, we are bound by statute, and we will produce a code of conduct that will be binding on members. However, there might be areas where we do not want to lay down hard-and-fast rules. They could be included in the code of conduct, or under functions that we take on at some stage in the future. I wonder whether we want to take account of that possibility in the introduction. That might not be something that we have to decide at this meeting—it is just a query.

No, it is a good point. The clerk has passed me a suggestion that we include another sentence, which reads, "The code also provides advice to members in relation to conduct."

Are members happy with that?

I would like something stronger than that. I do not want us to get into a situation where there is ambiguity about what is expected of people.

There should not be any grey areas.

There should not. We have statutory responsibilities and there are rules that are binding on members in the code of conduct the Parliament has set out. If members break those rules, action will be taken against them. In that way we provide a clear line. If there are grey areas, members will say that they do not know what to do.

On reflection I would agree with that. It is very hard to devise a code of conduct that includes rules that cover all circumstances. If we tried to do that we would end up by enshrining everything in formal rules. The process might then become unmanageable.

That is the crux of the matter. The problem in Westminster and in other Parliaments has been that advice has not been clear, or that the rules are vague, or that there is a grey area. We should ensure that the advice is crystal clear so that we avoid problems. I would prefer to go along with Karen, who says that we should leave it.

The Parliament's intention is to review and, if necessary, to amend the code of conduct. I remember in days gone by and before the law was clarified, that surgeons were worried about whether they were legally entitled to perform kidney transplants.

As Des said, situations could emerge that are not covered by the code.

If there are areas that are not covered by the code we might be able to issue advice additional to the code which would cover us in that eventuality.

Karen may be right—the code might consist of the rules, but there might be a need for advice on, for example, patterns of registration. We would want to enshrine that in such a way as to make it crystal clear. It is almost impossible to produce a comprehensive set of rules that covers all eventualities. We could strive as hard as possible for that, but there might be areas in which we would prefer to issue advice rather than to change the structure of the rules. The practical difficulty in constructing a system of rules might be worth taking into consideration.

So if we take, for example, the "Register of Members' Interests", the rules could require that members register income but not pensions. We could, however, advise that pensions should also be registered. Is that the sort of thing members mean?

That is probably not the clearest example. The rules require full disclosure, but there might be areas in which it is not 100 per cent clear what constitutes remuneration. Rather than trying to write the rules in such a way as to make them comprehensive, we should consider making them quite simple and supplementing them with advice that refers to particular cases.

In trying to square the circle on this point, we should perhaps add that the code also provides clear—as I am sure it will be—advice to members in relation to their conduct. Would that satisfy you, Karen?

What is this about?

We are talking about adding a sentence to the first page of the code. I propose that we add, "The code also provides clear and unambiguous advice to members in relation to conduct."

I suggest that rather than trying to construct this in committee—which is always a false thing to do—we should highlight issues of concern and leave it to the clerks to devise a form of wording. If the committee agrees, we can presumably simply advise on that.

That relates to whether we should decide on matters as they arise or at the end of the debate—I think that we will do so at the end. We could proceed with the full stop where it is and flag it up as something to make a final decision on at the end of the process.

Let us move over the page, to the next paragraph of the introduction, which begins:

"The Code draws heavily on".

Are we happy with that? We have already discussed this, have we not?

Yes, but I am a wee bit unhappy about the next two paragraphs. We are talking about the Parliament's code of conduct. The seventh paragraph of the draft introduction says:

"It is important that the Parliament has a Code of Conduct in place early in its life."

What is the point of saying in the introduction to the code of conduct that it is important that the code of conduct is in place early in the Parliament's life?

The point of the sentence was to make it clear why this would not be a definitive code that would stand for a long time; in a sense, it is a transitional code. Parliament needs a code, so something needs to be in place early on.

An interim code of practice.

We addressed this point early on. It raises again matters such as the procedure for complaints: how can there be a procedure for complaints before there is a code of practice? We will not get this right first time; this will be a first shot.

The final sentence in the same paragraph says that we will amend the code in future; I do not see the point of having that first sentence.

We can remove that sentence; do other members think that we should?

Should we not say in the introduction that the code of conduct is developing and that we are at the forefront of the process of setting standards for public life in Scotland?

That is a good point. Shall we take that on board?

Yes.

I suggest that if the first line is being removed, "This ensures that" should be taken out of the second line and that it should begin, "Members should be clear about the principles".

Yes.

Are there any other comments? Are we happy with the first two paragraphs on that page? Can we move to the last paragraph of the introduction?

In the first line of the last paragraph, the words "are expected to" could be changed to "will".

Or to "are required to".

Either would be more definite.

Is "underpins" the correct term? It might be better to say "sets out" or "outlines".

What about "makes clear"?

There should be a sentence requiring MSPs to sign a statement to say that they have read the code of conduct on election, or once a year, so that nobody can say later, "I didnae read that bit." As we are putting so much time and effort into drafting this code, we should require MSPs to read it. Even if members do not read it, we need them to sign something stating that they have read it. It should be a requirement that they sign something.

And that should be handed into the clerks so that we have a record?

Yes.

I quite like "underpins" because the code talks about the ethos of what we are about. It is slightly more appropriate to use the word underpins than to make a statement of intent. The code underpins the whole work of the Parliament and how members will conduct themselves here and in their constituencies. It is about an ethos rather than just a guideline.

Some members believe that this paragraph should be clearer. Karen is suggesting that we leave underpins in. Do we want to leave underpins?

Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that "carrying out business" at the end of that first sentence should be taken out and changed to "carrying out duties". "Carrying out business" could mean anything.

Going back to Tricia's statement, I think that it would be useful to make MSPs sign something. In local government, people have to sign a statement—the standard practice is after each election—before they are allowed to participate. Something similar might be appropriate here. Members should be required to sign a statement, perhaps at the point when they make their declaration of interests, that they have read the code.

You mean make it a requirement?

Yes. Members would sign a statement every four years—after election—and if members came in after a by-election they, too, would be required to sign a statement.

Is everyone happy with that? We will make it a legal requirement.

We have completed examination of the introduction; we will now we move to the text of the key principles. The briefing note states:

"The committee is asked to consider the text of the section on the draft Code on Key Principles and is invited to:

? agree what should be the Key Principles governing Members' Conduct,

? agree the text of the section on Key Principles."

I propose to discuss the draft code paragraph by paragraph.

"Section 1: Key principles of the Code of Conduct.

The key principles which follow set out how Members of the Parliament will carry out their responsibilities. They are a means by which Members declare what they stand for. They are more than aspirational, however; the principles are a compact between the Parliament and the people it serves."

Are there any comments on that?

The second sentence sounds a bit clumsy.

Shall we remove it altogether?

We could take that line out.

Take it out? It is out.

If we take up the suggestion that members must sign up to a code of conduct, I wonder if we should revise that section to make that fact more explicit. We could include the words, "Members will be required to sign a document that indicates their agreement to the set of principles." That would set the tone for the relationship between the Parliament and the people. We need to make it more positive. It needs to be clear that people are signing up and that the code and these principles will set the tone for the relationship between the member and his constituents and the Parliament and the people of Scotland.

That is a good suggestion. The next paragraph has the heading "Public Duty." We are considering the two sentences under that heading. Are members happy with

"Members have a duty to uphold the law"?

Yes.

We are the legislators—if we cannot uphold the law, who can? Is everyone happy with that?

Can we take a raincheck on that and come back to it?

Of course we can come back to it. That is the second point that has been flagged up for us to consider at the end. You do not want to raise it now?

No. I would like to have a think about it and, if I can, suggest a different wording—one does not immediately come to mind.

As we have agreed, we will consider the issue as a whole and come back to any points that have been raised.

I would appreciate it if we could flag up the second paragraph.

Is everyone happy with that?

To be honest, I would not be happy to change that paragraph. I am happy to have the discussion, but the paragraph is a statement of fact. The oath binds us as members of this Parliament. Given the vast publicity around the various antics at the swearing-in, I am concerned that if we make any changes we will reopen the debate.

I was not suggesting that we change it.

I do not think that anyone is proposing that we change it. We will leave it as it is. All that we have done is to flag it up. We can return to any point, and this is the second flagged-up issue.

All I wanted to do was to show that at some time in the future I might return to that point.

The second principle is the duty to electors.

Why is the word "residents" used? Normally we would talk about electors rather than residents.

Is it not because the word is all-inclusive? We represent everyone within the community. Children do not vote. Lunatics do not vote.

You could instead say all the people living in the area.

Is it just the word "residents" that you are not happy with?

Some people have no residence—they are homeless and might feel excluded by that language.

That is true. We should change that word.

We could use the word "citizens"—if we are citizens and not subjects, of course.

"People" is a more neutral word. The text would read: "Members have a duty to be accessible to the people of the areas for which they have been elected to serve". Are we agreed?

Yes.

Members have a duty to make themselves accessible, rather than to be accessible. The onus is on the elected person. I am a bit unclear about the last part of the second sentence. Does it clearly express the expectation that we have of members?

We should be able to ensure that the people whom we represent are able to pursue their concerns, even if we disagree with them. I think that that is what we are saying.

I would like greater clarity.

Do you have any suggestions?

I do not like drafting in committee. Can we flag this up as something that could be better expressed?

That is the third flagged-up issue.

We move on to selflessness.

The text there is very clear.

It is Nolan. What about the section on integrity?

What about the political party to which you belong?

Can you expand on that?

The wording states that you should not put yourself under obligation to any individual or organisation that might influence you in the performance of your duties. If you belong to a political party you might be whipped to vote.

I do not mind.

That is an interesting point.

Can I ask where that wording comes from? Is it part of Nolan, or does it come from the CSG?

It is Nolan.

If it is Nolan, I think that we should accept it.

What about inserting the word "unduly" in front of "influence"? If not, should we flag it up and return to it?

I think that if it is from Nolan we must accept it and move on.

As everyone is happy with that, that is what we will do.

The next section is on honesty.

I am looking at the Nolan procedures and at this draft side by side. Can I ask why we left out objectivity?

It is not Nolan, it is the CSG.

Why did the CSG leave out objectivity?

Perhaps we should ask the CSG that. We do not know. Do you think that we should include objectivity?

I think that we should include it, or at least flag it up as an issue.

Yes, we should flag it up as an issue.

We need to find out whether the CSG was given advice about it.

The advice that the CSG was given was that the Nolan committee had a wider remit and was examining all elements of public life, not members of Parliament specifically—certainly not members of the Scottish Parliament.

Yes, but the concepts in the Nolan report, such as objectivity, would apply to members of the corporate body—I am one of them—in terms of the way in which they carry out that particular function.

That would apply only to members carrying out that function. Normal MSPs do not award big contracts and so on.

Ministers often award contracts, as does the corporate body.

In that case there is a ministerial code.

I do not see any reason to remove objectivity from the general principles.

Can we flag it up?

We will flag it up and come back to it. There are going to be a lot of flags.

The next principle is honesty. The draft code states:

"Members have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest."

That seems to be fairly straightforward.

The next principle is openness. Members can read through the paragraph on openness for themselves.

I am not sure that the second sentence says what I think that it means. We need to add something to the end of it—perhaps "that they do so".

I am not clear what you mean, Trish.

I do not think that the sentence makes sense.

I think that we are trying to say that we have a predilection for openness in everything that we do. We cannot just say, "I'm sorry, that's private".

Yes, I understand but, for the sentence to make sense, I think that we need to insert the words "that they do so" at the end.

It would then read: "They will give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands that they do so." Is that okay?

Yes.

The next issue is responsibility for decisions.

I am beginning to pick up a tension here that is getting in the way. This is a code of conduct for individual members. Side by side with that will be a set of principles for the conduct of business in the Parliament. Some of the ways in which the matter is framed by the CSG fall between the two areas. The code is not sufficiently clearly directed at the individual member.

Some of the issues are more properly dealt with. For example, the principle of openness relates to the procedures of the Parliament; it is more important in that dimension than at the level of the responsibilities of individual members. Whether decisions should be open is not the choice of the individual member; it is about how the Parliament conducts itself. There is a wee tension in what has been suggested. It is framed in the context of the individual's responsibility, whereas the responsibility might more properly lie in the way in which the Parliament conducts its business.

The code of conduct focuses clearly on the behaviour and conduct of MSPs. We are trying to give them guidance about what they should be doing. I think that we are agreed that the predilection should be to be open in everything that we do. All that the code of conduct is saying is that, on occasions, when we feel that we cannot be as open as we would like, we have to give a reason.

I think that what Des is saying is that tensions are creeping in, in terms both of our duties as individual MSPs and of the wider duty of the Parliament and the Executive in their decision making. The second sentence of the paragraph shows that conflict clearly. While we are open with our constituents and do what we can for them, decisions about the wider public interest will, by and large, be a matter for the Executive and not for individual MSPs.

It could also be a matter for the procedural structures in the Parliament. This committee has decided that it will be as open as possible and other committees are also taking decisions on openness. The decision is not for individual members. The key issue on openness is that it involves a procedural decision that members are taking collectively. The intentions are good but, in the translation of the Nolan report to our code of conduct, that dimension has not been properly explored.

There are parts of the paragraph under the heading of "Openness" that perhaps have not been defined as clearly as they could have been. The draft code of conduct states:

"Members will be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take."

For me, that means that I must be able to be held to account about why I have voted in a particular way in a debate. I am happy to do that, and will give reasons for my decisions, because it is clear to me what that is about. I will give members reasons for the way in which I have voted and acted within the Parliament. The bit that confuses me is the part of the paragraph on openness that says:

"and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands."

I understand why that is there for members. I have worked for an MP, and constituents come with issues on which action has to be taken that initially cannot be made public because it is on behalf of an individual. It is about confidentiality.

We are mixing up how we conduct ourselves during parliamentary business, and the decisions that we make, with how we conduct ourselves in our individual dealings with constituents. Both of those aspects are important, but we are confusing constituency work with openness. I do not think that constituency work will necessarily be open. That is a matter for us and for our constituents to determine, as issues of confidentiality are involved. We have caused a muddle for ourselves by including constituency casework in what we do in the chamber and the making of decisions on local issues. That is not individual constituency casework. Perhaps we could have two differently worded sets of guidance, to reflect the two key strands of our work: how we deal with individual constituents and how we act and vote in the chamber.

It is not clear to me how an individual MSP should behave, regardless of whether they are in the Executive, and regardless of any other job that they do. The code of conduct says that members

"will be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They will give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands".

I understand what Karen Gillon means about confidentiality, but I thought that the next sentence dealt with that.

I would split the two responsibilities more clearly, but I do not know how that might be done. As a non-Executive member, I was confused by that statement, as were other members of this committee. We must clarify exactly what we are dealing with. I understand what the convener is saying about Executive members.

The paragraph makes perfect sense to me with the omission of the second line. Without that, it says everything that needs to be said about openness. I do not believe that that second line is necessary. If that line were removed, committee members' confusion would be lifted immediately.

I would be happy with that.

Just to remove the second sentence?

Yes.

Are we agreed that the second sentence should be removed?

There are certain circumstances in which an MSP is entitled to take up a matter with the Lord Advocate in confidence; for example, if an MSP is approached by a witness in a murder case and the witness is terrified of intimidation and has already had a brother killed. If the MSP is asked to give such information to others, he or she would not necessarily feel obliged to do so. If the Lord Advocate makes something public, that is because of the wider public interest, but criminal cases and cases of mental illness are matters in which confidentiality should be privileged.

That is exactly the type of problem that we face.

If it is causing confusion, we must consider the paragraph again.

I would not disclose information if a constituent who was involved in a criminal case came to me in confidence.

We are trying to make everything crystal clear. There is an obvious problem here, and we must consider the matter again.

What about the paragraph "Responsibility for Decisions"?

That is a translation. I suspect that it refers to public office, when people such as the head of a health board make individual decisions. Members' responsibility concerns the decision-making process rather than the decisions, which are made by Parliament. Their responsibility is probably better framed in the second sentence than in the first.

I do not agree. I am not sure that that should be included at all.

You do not think that we should be responsible for decision making?

No. I do not think that this paragraph should be included. The previous paragraph says that we must be as open as possible and explain things. That subsumes the fact that we are taking responsibility for what we are doing. This paragraph is tautologous.

We could combine those paragraphs as "Openness and Responsibility". Shall we combine them? Okay.

Are there comments on the paragraph under the heading of "Accountability"?

We could be more specific about

"whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office".

We could be self-referential and mention the code of conduct here. Those words are very vague; it is straight from Nolan. We might want to specify.

Is being an MP an office rather than someone who holds office?

We could come back to responsibility and accountability with a different draft.

Are there any comments on the paragraph under the heading of "Leadership"?

I think that it is a very important paragraph—very strong and useful. We should make sure that is what we do.

I am not 100 per cent sure that the second use of "members" in the same sentence is the best way of putting it. Could we say "the integrity of the Parliament"?

You are suggesting:

"Members will promote and support these principles by leadership and example, to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Parliament"?

I suggest "in the integrity of the Parliament and individual members".

Are we agreed? Okay.

We have a paragraph with the heading:

"Guidance on the Code of Conduct":

"The sections which follow have been developed in line with these key principles and provide additional information on how the principles will be interpreted and enforced in practice. No written information can provide for all circumstances"—

we talked about that earlier—

"when in doubt members should seek the advice of the Standards Committee".

I do not think that we should include that final point. In the event of a breach we may end up having to deal with particular circumstances, so there must be some other mechanism.

Possibly "seek the advice of the clerk to the Standards Committee"?

The alternative is to set up some other entity, so, yes, the clerks.

For the moment, anyway.

We have worked through the principles in this draft and identified areas where we are more or less happy. Before we finalise anything, I would like to have a further opportunity to think through whether the principles have been adapted to the purposes of the Parliament with adequate care and attention. The consultative steering group recommendations are very, very close to Nolan. I am not sure that they are as customised to the requirements of elected representatives as we might want. Could we add the proviso that we have made suggestions but we may discuss it further to make sure that we get it right?

Would this be an appropriate point to pause, before examining the detail? We have covered the key principles of the code. Are you suggesting that we finish for the moment, which would give us some time before the next meeting?

I suppose that I am suggesting that the clerks go away and take account of our suggestions, and that if people have further suggestions or ideas, they submit them to the clerks in writing before the next meeting, before we sign this one off.

I think that that is an appropriate suggestion. Should we look at what we have done again when we return at the start of the next meeting? Okay. The next meeting is in a fortnight's time, in the same slot. Does anyone else have anything to say before I close the meeting?

Can I make a request to commence the meeting at 10 am rather than 9.30? I do not think that the meeting will be terribly long, but that would make life easier.

We still need to have lunch on a Wednesday. The Parliament sits in the afternoon. I come in at 8 am and, frankly, I would like the meeting at 9 am, never mind 9.30. If we are pushing the start time to 10 am, we are going towards lunchtime. In view of the necessary work of preparing speeches for the afternoon session, for example, the start time should not, in my view, be any later than 9.30.

Some of us have other business at the lunch break. I for one have regular briefings at lunchtime, and I would be reluctant for the committee to continue towards that time.

I have just seen the clock—I did not realise what time it was. We have been going for two hours. I think members will agree that that is long enough. Shall we aim at 9.30 to 11.30?

I would rather we have 10 am until 12 pm.

Why do we not start at 9.45, then?

That would not make any difference in regard to train times. We might as well just start at 9.30 and get on with it.

We will say 9.30.

There will be trains from Glasgow every 15 minutes in a few weeks.

Let us just agree that the next meeting will be at 9.30.

Meeting closed at 11:32.