Standards Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 3, 2000

Official Report 264KB pdf

---

Register of Interests (MSPs' Staff)

The second item on our agenda is the consideration of the results of our consultation exercise on the register of staff interests. The clerks have provided a summary of the responses that we have received.

I suggest that we consider the options set out in the conclusion of the paper. I wish to go through those options one at a time and hear what members feel about the results of the consultation.

Paragraph 1 asks whether the register should be available to the public, whether it should be in hard copy in the chamber office and whether it should be published on the internet. The committee will wish to note that the clerk has received legal advice that requirement for new staff to register would not be a breach of the European convention on human rights. However, the committee may consider whether it is appropriate for staff to be open to the level of exposure that the internet provides.

We have received representation from various staff associations. I am sympathetic to their comments, especially on the availability of names and addresses on the internet. They have legitimate concerns. The proposal that the register should be available in hard copy at the chamber office would be sufficient for the purpose that we intend.

Are there any other comments? Are members happy with that?

I strongly agree with Adam Ingram.

We will note those comments.

Paragraph 2 states:

"Whether the threshold for declaring gifts and hospitality should be: £50 as recommended in the report; increased to the Westminster level of £125; set at £250 to match the requirements on MSPs; or some other figure?"

I felt that there was some confusion in the debate that we had on this. It is not the case, as we all know, that you cannot attend something outwith that limit. That just makes the system more open.

This is one of the areas where there has been a great deal of confusion. We need to make the position clear, as you have done, that staff are being asked to register work-related activities only when the value is greater than £50, as recommended in the report. There was some argument that staff were being treated differently to MSPs, but there are statutory requirements on MSPs to register every gift valued at more than £250, regardless of where it comes from, whether it is from husband, spouse or anyone else. We were never comparing apples with apples. It was more like comparing apples with pears. There is a legitimate view that the level of £50 should be increased to the Westminster level of £125, which would keep the staff groups in both Parliaments the same.

I agree with Tricia Marwick that £125 would be a more appropriate level.

I still think that £50 is an appropriate level.

Two organisations are content with that level, and a third is suggesting changing it. Provided we clarify the definition of the term "hospitality", we should go with our initial recommendation, and adjust it if it causes problems. I see no need to change the figure at this stage.

Could you articulate why the figure should be £50 as opposed to a higher figure? Why did we set it at £50? I cannot remember the discussion.

I do not recall the discussion about the level, but at the end of the day, as much as anything else this is about safeguarding staff. We have statutory rules surrounding our activities and the way in which we operate. All that staff will have is what we lay down in the code. I would have thought that most staff, in their day-to-day working lives, would not be offered much in the way of hospitality. I certainly do not think that it is a road down which we wish staff to travel. For that reason, the £50 limit should be set. Remember, this is about declaring, not receiving, gifts and hospitality. Nobody is saying that they should not receive hospitality. All we are saying is that if it is above £50—and that is a cumulative figure—it should be registered. It is cumulative in respect of one individual giver of hospitality as well. A limit of £50 provides staff with a better safeguard.

Are you convinced, Adam?

Not entirely.

We could go with the £50 now, and see in a year's time whether we need to amend the figure upwards. The problem is that if we set the figure too high just now, we will not get the information on which we can make that judgment.

I am happy to go along on the basis that Des McNulty suggested, that we set the level at £50 now, and if we have huge long lists of declarations because the limit has been set too low, we can come back and review the limit in nine months' or a year's time.

When we debate this in Parliament again, I will make that point. Would that satisfy members?

Members indicated agreement.

We will leave the figure at £50, on the condition that I make that point clear in any debate in the Parliament.

Paragraph 3 asks:

"Whether the register should cover both paid and unpaid staff or be limited to paid staff? If the register should be limited to paid staff, should the text following bullet point 3 in paragraph 2.2 of the Report be simply deleted? However, the Committee may consider that although it is less likely that volunteers and interns will be in a position to influence MSPs it cannot be ruled out."

Are we going to draw a distinction between paid and unpaid staff?

I do not think that we can make that distinction. The distinction should be between those who are doing core work for the MSP and those who are not. It does not matter whether they are being paid or whether they are doing it voluntarily. If someone is working for an MSP in the Parliament or in the constituency—if they are answering telephones, answering mail from constituents, doing the kind of work that I would define as core work—they should be registered. On the other hand, if they are helping the MSP only in the political side of their work, they should not have to be registered. Jobs on the periphery, such as putting up leaflets to advertise a surgery, would not be what I would term core work.

The onus is on MSPs to indicate which of their staff require to be registered; but definitions are difficult. For example, how do you define core constituency work? It is a grey area. I think it was Richard Simpson who said that he had 50 people he could classify as volunteers. However, those are not the people we should be considering. We should be considering, I presume, people who can influence the MSP. The MSP should be responsible for ensuring that such people are registered. We need better definitions.

I agree that better definitions are a key part of this. As Adam Ingram says, it is the responsibility of MSPs to indicate which members of staff should be registered. I was going to mention the case of Richard Simpson myself. Perhaps because we had not explained things clearly enough, or because MSPs had not understood the explanation, there was a failure to distinguish between people who were working for MSPs in the constituency or in the Parliament and people who were engaged as political volunteers. That is an important distinction, and I am surprised that MSPs do not find it easier to make than some of them do.

Specific categories of parliamentary work and constituency duties are identified in the allowances resolution. In the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, we have drawn real distinctions between the constituency operation of MSPs and their party political activities. We should be interested in people who are using parliamentary facilities and equipment, or who are carrying out the core parliamentary or constituency duties of any MSPs. Whether those people are volunteers, interns or paid staff, it is appropriate that that is recorded by the Parliament. If, aside from that, people are handing out leaflets on behalf of Tricia Marwick or whoever, the Parliament would not be interested in that matter, nor should it be seen to be.

I think that the nub of the issue is the definition of what we are trying to achieve. From this short discussion, it is obvious that members feel that volunteers should be included with the paid staff. There is a clear locus. Anyone who is paid through the MSPs' allowances scheme should be registered, but I take the point that Des McNulty makes: so should anyone who uses parliamentary facilities regularly. If we joined those two definitions, would that provide a useful definition of who we are trying to include in this register?

Instead of "parliamentary facilities", we should say "facilities that are provided by the Parliament".

Yes. Would that be a useful definition? People want a definition.

We need to return to first principles and remember that this is not about the staff; this is about the MSPs and their responsibilities, and about whom the MSPs are responsible for. It is not about trying to trawl and draw in a huge number of volunteers who might be helping; it is not about who might be stuffing a couple of letters in an envelope. It is about ensuring that the MSPs are responsible for the operation of both their parliamentary and constituency offices. It is up to the MSPs to determine who they are responsible for, and to ensure that people are registered if necessary.

Des McNulty makes a fair point in saying that allowances and equipment are provided for certain purposes, to allow us to carry out our operations. If people in constituency or parliamentary offices regularly use that equipment, and are therefore carrying out core work for the MSP, it is up to the MSP to register those people.

Members should remember that the purpose of this committee, especially in drawing up a code of conduct for MSPs, is to give MSPs a practical guide to help them. I thought that there was genuine concern, during the debate, that we were not giving that guidance. MSPs are responsible for registering their staff, but it is our responsibility to help to define for them who those people should be. We must give some form of definition to people. Is the committee happy for the clerks to go away and draw something up on that basis, linking the definition in with the regular use of parliamentary facilities, whether in the constituency office or here?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy with your suggestion. However, it should include only volunteers who are engaged in substantial parliamentary work—Tricia Marwick used the phrase "core work"—in service to the constituents of the MSP concerned.

Would not "regular" be a more appropriate term than "substantial"?

Yes.

"Parliamentary" and "constituency" are defined for allowances, so we need to include and define parliamentary and/or constituency duties.

I agree that it is important to give that definition.

I think that the other paragraphs are fairly straightforward. We should look at paragraph 5, however. It reads:

"Whether the number of days worked by temporary or agency staff should be increased from 10 to 30 days in any calendar year before they are required to register".

There is also paragraph 4, about

"Members with a dual mandate".

Did you want to comment on that paragraph, Patricia?

Sorry, convener. I thought we were going through this paragraph by paragraph.

The same applies: if someone is paid by or is working for an MSP and contributes to that MSP's function, they have to be registered, even if they are shared with an MP or are working with someone with a dual mandate at another time. We have to be clear about that.

Are there any thoughts on paragraph 5? Should we make a change from 10 to 30 days? Agency staff can be in and out quite regularly, and some of my colleagues use agency staff more often than others. Some of them are in and out quite quickly.

I would be inclined to go for a threshold of 25 days. That means that anyone working for a month will show up on the register; anyone working less than a month will not. That may be a reasonable compromise.

I am uncomfortable about the issue of agency staff. We are requiring them to register everyone that they have previously worked for. We have perhaps gone beyond what was necessary in requiring agency staff to be registered in the same way as other staff.

Do members therefore think that we should remove any reference to agency staff? They are not members of staff of MSPs as such.

It seems that the MSP is going to the agency, and unless the MSP says to the agency, "I want Mrs X, because she is quite good and has worked for me before", they could get quite different staff. I think that it helps to increase the threshold to 25 days.

I am concerned about this because we are contracting an agency to provide work, and that is not quite the same as employing individuals. MSPs could get anybody from an agency. They might not get just anybody if they employ an individual on a temporary basis.

I personally think that we should up the threshold, and I prefer 30 days. Remember that most MSPs employ staff directly through the allowances scheme, but that MSPs may use agency staff who are not covered for quite a long time if we remove reference to them altogether. We could have two categories of staff—one covered and one not covered at all—if we remove all reference to agency staff. I am keen to up the level to 25 or 30 days.

There are issues attached to the use of agency staff that emerge when working out the allowances scheme. I cannot remember the exact parameters, but I think that the simplest thing to do is to take out the words "or agency staff" in paragraph 5, and refer to temporary staff. In reality, that means that if someone is employed for more than 25 days or whatever the agreed time is, they have to be registered. If a number of different people are being employed, the requirement does not apply. There are other boundaries on MSPs' capacity to use agency staff, but those are not matters for the Standards Committee.

So we will leave "temporary staff", which will cover all temporary staff of whatever nature.

What about the number of days after which temporary staff would be required to register? How about 25 days?

I would be quite happy with 30 days.

That is my preference—that is a month.

That also takes it beyond the holidays that people get. Most folk are getting 25 days a year, plus public holidays. If people are being drafted in just for holiday cover, they need not necessarily be registered. I therefore think that 30 days would be a bit more comfortable.

Would that be all right, Des? You proposed 25 days.

Can I be really pedantic, convener? If we are thinking of agency staff being used to cover absence by other staff members, it might be more comfortable to say 25 working days.

That is fine.

Are there any comments on paragraph 6? We can now continue to go through the register of interests document paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph 6 covers items that we have already discussed.

Yes. I think that we covered paragraph 6 in our previous comments.

Paragraph 7 refers to

"the phrase ‘reasonably practicable steps'"

for current members of staff. However, the code would only apply to new members of staff. Do we need to make that more clear?

Members indicated disagreement.

Do we need to rewrite the report? There is an option to incorporate these changes in the motion that we put to the Parliament. Would members prefer a rewritten report? The changes are not huge, but there are some, and I think that we could incorporate them in a motion. Is that correct?

You could do, convener, but it might be easier for members to debate a report, albeit a short one.

A new report?

Yes.

I think that it would be considered more professional to do a new draft report.

Is everyone happy with that?

Could we also summarise our discussion around the substantive points that were raised by the trade unions and staff associations? They have been part of the consultation process, and it would be a good idea to go back to them with the outcome of that process.

Yes. That will be done.

Separately from the report?

Perhaps in tandem with the report. Alternatively, we could submit the report with an annexe explaining the discussion.

The Official Report will, obviously, set out the discussion.

Did you want something extra to go to the unions and associations, Patricia?

I would just like such an explanation of the discussion to be officially submitted to them, so that they feel that they are participants in the process, rather than just people who have given us information.

I think that everyone who has responded to the consultation exercise should be given a copy of the report—obviously embargoed until it is published.

I have two requests. The first is that we have a further discussion in the Parliament, but without rushing into it. That will give people a chance to consider the report. Secondly, if we are to produce a new report, I ask that we be explicitly clear, at the front of the report, why we are doing it in the first place. We should make it absolutely clear to staff that this is not about trying to drag them in or trawl them.

We should make it abundantly clear right from the beginning that this is about MSPs, their responsibilities to staff and the way in which MSPs behave during the conduct of their duties, rather than being about staff. Some staff may have the idea that that was not the purpose of a register of interests for MSPs' staff, and that may have caused some of the concerns that have arisen.

Okay.