Standards Committee, 05 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 5, 2001

Official Report 146KB pdf

---

Code of Conduct

Item 6 concerns correspondence that we have received from Tommy Sheridan. He has asked whether annexe 5 should make provision for a member to act outwith his or her constituency in urgent circumstances, and to seek retrospective consent from the constituency member. He has asked us to bring the issue forward and it is appropriate for us to discuss it at today's meeting. The floor is open to members.

I do not see anything wrong with discussing the issue. I am not entirely sure that that is what happened in his recent case, but I am happy to discuss the matter.

The rule was a difficult one to introduce and it was introduced for a particular reason. It has been operating for a couple of years and perhaps it is time for us to consider how it is working in practice. It is there as a guide to encourage good behaviour among MSPs. I do not think that there is any particular problem.

Paragraph 4 of our note makes it clear that annexe 5 was drawn up by the Deputy Presiding Officer George Reid. It was agreed by the business managers and the parties and then given to the Standards Committee and incorporated in the code of conduct. If further discussion is required, we should write to the Presiding Officers, pointing out that Mr Sheridan has contacted us on the issue and asking them to consider it.

Susan Deacon might remember my previous life as health spokesperson for my party. Regional members with a particular portfolio tend to get letters and phone calls from people all over the country wanting them to take up particular cases. It was always difficult to decide what was a general issue that I could deal with as the health spokesperson and what was an issue that related only to my region. Mr Sheridan, as a party leader—albeit of a one-man party—might be receiving the same sort of demands from people who think that he can move heaven and earth from his particular platform. The issue raises a problem that is faced by all party spokespeople; Tricia Marwick, in her role, might be finding herself asked to take up cases from throughout Scotland.

Like everything else from this particular member, the first paragraph of his letter is not strictly accurate. It does not really describe the discussion at the previous meeting of the Standards Committee. I do not see the connection. I am not convinced that his interpretation of the discussion is the same as ours. If we want to pursue the matter, I should be happy to take guidance for our next meeting. In the second paragraph, he identifies the specific issues on which he feels he is a sort of flying spokesperson. It might be interesting to discuss that.

Other members will recall that, when I questioned Tommy Sheridan, I asked him whether he was acting as the leader of his political party or as an MSP. If he had said that he was acting as the leader of his political party in dealing with the particular issue under discussion, there would have been no case for him to answer. However, he did not claim that he was acting as the leader of his political party; he said that he was acting as an MSP. As he was acting as an MSP, it was found that he had breached the code of conduct for MSPs.

In my view, Mr Sheridan could have acted quite legitimately as the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party on issues such as poindings, warrant sales, wage arrestments, evictions and other direct actions. However, in the particular circumstances that we were considering, he claimed that he was acting as an MSP. That made the difference. We have to be clear that all that we are dealing with is the actions of people who are acting as members of the Scottish Parliament.

Because annexe 5 was imposed on us in the Standards Committee by the Presiding Officers and the business managers—a matter about which I have some knowledge—I feel that it should go back to them. They have to reconsider the annexe in the light of Mr Sheridan's comments.

Although I have no worries about receiving further information in an issues paper, I would like to say for the record that I am not prejudging the issue and I certainly am not saying that I agree with the comments that have been made.

I think that we should have an issues paper from the clerks so that we can discuss this issue as an agenda item. We can then decide whether a review of annexe 5 is necessary.

Members indicated agreement.

Our final item of business this morning is the initial consideration of a report from the standards adviser. As we agreed at the beginning of the meeting, we will take the item in private. I now ask members of the public, press, official report and broadcasting to leave the meeting.

Meeting continued in private until 11:34.