Scottish Parliament and Business Exchange
Our next item is the Scottish Parliament and Business Exchange. At our meeting in October, we took evidence from the convener of the business exchange, Paul Grice, and its director, Anne Mearns. Members will have received an issues paper, which summarises the evidence that we received and provides some background on the Industry and Parliament Trust at Westminster. The paper also offers some initial thoughts on our next steps as a committee. I would like to hear comments from members on the paper or the evidence session.
I thank the Standards Committee clerks for producing the issues paper. I still have concerns about how the business exchange was set up and how it operates. The paper seems to suggest that the business exchange should be some sort of hybrid organisation—that it should remain a limited company but that the Standards Committee should be involved in so far as the clerks should give advice when it is sought and the convener of the business exchange should bring forward issues to the committee. However, I do not think that we will be able to ensure that the business exchange, as such a hybrid organisation, is carrying out the requirements as laid down.
I do not think that the business exchange has enhanced the reputation of the Parliament. Indeed, I think that the opposite is true—the activities of the business exchange have harmed the Parliament. I am not satisfied that the business exchange should continue as it is. I note that the chief executive of the Parliament said to the committee that he is willing to come before us and that he is willing to give us reports. However, the business exchange is not accountable to the Standards Committee in the way that cross-party groups are.
I am not suggesting for a minute that the business exchange is the same as a cross-party group, but I am unhappy about the proposed hybrid nature of the organisation. The business exchange would use the resources of the Standards Committee and its clerks, yet the committee would have no influence over how its business is carried out, who is appointed to it or the kind of placements that will take place.
Having heard the evidence that was given to us by the clerk to the Parliament and the director of the business exchange, I still have grave concerns—my concerns have not been allayed. We must consider seriously how the business exchange should operate. The Standards Committee should report to the business exchange and to the Parliament about how we see the organisation operating in the future, if it does at all.
I know that you are saying that your concerns were not allayed by what you heard, but I am not clear about what you specifically propose that we do.
The chief executive of the Parliament suggested that the business exchange should become a hybrid organisation. It will continue as a limited company, but will report to the Standards Committee and give us more information than we have had in the past, which was precisely nil. I do not think that that suggestion is good enough. Either the Standards Committee is responsible for the business exchange in the same way as we are responsible for cross-party groups, or we are not. In my view, the business exchange cannot seek advice from the Standards Committee clerk when the committee has no influence over the organisation's operation. Too many mistakes have been made in the past. I have no confidence that the business exchange, as constituted, will not harm the Parliament in the future.
I find myself coming to similar conclusions to those of my colleague Tricia Marwick, but for totally opposite reasons. I share her concerns about the lines of accountability in the business exchange. MSPs in the business exchange are influenced by the behaviour of everyone in the Parliament and MSPs are accountable to the Standards Committee. However, I require a little more clarification of whether the business exchange is accountable to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body or to the Standards Committee. To whom does it report regularly?
Having said that, I make it clear that I welcome the business exchange. All MSPs are free to avail themselves of the opportunity to learn about business by participating in a company's affairs. Such a scheme provides both MSPs and the public with greater protection and a better framework in which to operate. It encourages greater transparency, because the framework exists and everyone can see the relationship—we all benefit from that. There have obviously been a few early difficulties in establishing the scheme, but we should make it clear that there has been no impropriety. We are discussing the topic because an MSP was concerned about signing a confidentiality agreement. That issue has been resolved. It has been made clear that the MSP's duty is, as always, to the Parliament, the public and her constituents, not to a private company.
Another issue was the involvement in the exchange of a large number of employees on the public relations and public affairs side of a company. That does not surprise me. Such people tend to be the ones who are most comfortable and familiar with dealing with politicians—they are perhaps the best people to introduce members to a company's operations. Again, there have been no allegations of impropriety. However, it is important that the relationship between business and MSPs is fair and open. I am concerned that that relationship could be put at a disadvantage. We should not make businesses justify their relationship more than voluntary organisations, charities and other pressure groups have to. We should treat businesses in an even-handed manner.
I welcome the business exchange, because it offers a transparent framework in which to operate. I believe that our overview of cross-party groups could teach us some lessons about the Standards Committee's relationships with intramural and extramural parliamentary organisations. I do not know whether we should treat the business exchange as a cross-party group, but we could use our report and any findings on the groups to return to the issue and work out what our relationship should be with the business exchange. As I said, some clarity is required, but I make it clear that I am not hostile to the operation of a business exchange, which is a welcome development. We just have to ensure that it operates in a transparent manner.
I reiterate for the record a comment that I have made in previous outings of the issue. I am passionately keen to support the development of effective links between MSPs and not just business, but other sectors, including the public and voluntary sectors. That is why I feel strongly that it is vital for us to have in place arrangements that are effective and robust and that stand up to scrutiny.
When the business exchange scheme first came to the attention of the committee, I expressed some concerns about what were at that stage relatively marginal issues about its operation, which I thought could be modified and improved. Having heard the evidence at our last meeting, I was, far from being reassured on those points, more concerned about the operation of the scheme. I believe that a certain naivety ran through much of what was said to us. That naivety worked its way through into aspects of the operation of the scheme, which is perhaps why we are where we are and the scheme has been discredited to a degree. Rightly or wrongly, the reputation of the scheme has been tarnished and, de facto, the Parliament has suffered from its association with the scheme. Whether one thinks that that is deserved or an overreaction, it is a statement of fact that the scheme has been tarnished. We should be mindful of the fact that that will undoubtedly have a deterrent effect on the participation of MSPs and companies in such a scheme in future.
I believe not only that the perception of the scheme is a cause for concern, but that the scheme contains structural flaws, which were described to us at our last meeting. There is insufficient accountability. Ken Macintosh asked whether the scheme answers to the corporate body or to us. That question was answered clearly at our last meeting. The scheme does not answer either to the corporate body or to any other parliamentary body; it answers to a company that is limited by guarantee, albeit that MSPs are well represented on it.
I for one think that that is an insufficient level of accountability. The scheme is insufficiently transparent, which is not to say that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the way in which it operates. I stress that no impropriety has been found, but the mere fact that it has proven to be so difficult to achieve clarity around certain aspects of the scheme serves to demonstrate that lack of transparency and creates a sense of doubt about how the scheme operates.
The scheme has an insufficient mix of sectors operating as part of it and an insufficient mix of individuals from within those sectors and enterprises that have taken part in it. There is no time to expand further on that point this morning, but I want that view to be noted. Despite the improvements that have been made in the guidance and protection that is afforded to MSPs and companies that participate in the scheme, the framework remains insufficient, particularly in relation to the potential for actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
I move on to where I think we should go from here, which I am sure is what the convener wants me to do. At one level, we have no say in the matter. That was the state of play at our last meeting, although I recognise that willingness was expressed to take the committee's views seriously. I will therefore take the opportunity to say that my view is that there needs to be a fundamental review of the operation of the scheme. I note that we were told that there would be no further inward exchange programme prior to the next elections in any event. It strikes me that that gives us an opportunity to have such a fundamental review.
I would like whoever is responsible for reviewing the scheme to come forward with a significantly different arrangement from the one that exists now, albeit that there are strengths that ought to be maintained and built on. Whoever draws up such a review could helpfully bring it to the attention of the committee for our input and indeed for the input of other parliamentary committees. For example, the Procedures Committee could consider some issues, which would add value to the process of considering how we have an effective scheme.
I do not go as far as saying that a future scheme should report to the Standards Committee. I remain open-minded about a future reporting channel or formal parliamentary accountability. I suspect that that could take one of many forms. However, the status quo is unacceptable. I hope that we will—to coin a phrase—turn the threat to the scheme into an opportunity to develop a better and more robust scheme in which the next session of Parliament can take pride and in which MSPs and organisations can participate widely and productively.
I have not been party to the discussions, but I feel exactly how Susan Deacon feels. I was uneasy about the business exchange's establishment and how it operated, without being able to put my finger on why. Now that I have read the account of the evidence that the committee took, my finger is firmly on the reason. Accountability, openness and accessibility—key founding principles of the Parliament—are not being met.
I question why it was necessary to adopt a Westminster model, even slightly modified, rather than to consider this Parliament's existing models for involving organisations and individuals. I am keen for a strong dialogue and learning process with business. However, following the cross-party group model—although that itself has problems and is being reviewed—would have been more appropriate than creating an organisation in a special category of its own.
I am particularly concerned—I hope that I am allowed to make this observation—that although restrictions have from time to time been placed on the involvement of parliamentary staff in cross-party groups, the business exchange is chaired by the most senior member of parliamentary staff. That is a glaring inconsistency.
In those circumstances, it is important that—as Tricia Marwick and Susan Deacon said, and as Kenneth Macintosh said for other reasons—the matter falls under the normal purview of the committee and the Parliament, as it involves members' actions and the absolute openness and transparency of our interaction with all sections of the Scottish community. The recommendations in the briefing paper are welcome, but they do not achieve those aims, because they continue to recognise a special way of doing things, rather than encouraging the business community and the Parliament to interact as part of the Scottish community.
When I asked Paul Grice whether a business exchange was required, he responded by making it clear that no requirement exists. He encourages a wide range of opportunities for MSPs to meet businesses. That is the issue for discussion—the various methods by which businesses can communicate with MSPs.
The issue for me is clarifying the business exchange's effectiveness. It might be an idea to have an independent audit of the business exchange's effectiveness since its introduction. The main issues are ensuring that the business exchange is effective and communicates with MSPs and deciding whether a formal procedure is required. I would also like to clarify the effectiveness of the business exchange process and its workings. We should consider auditing that independently.
The business exchange holds a special and privileged position in the Parliament, because it is not within the Parliament but operates in the Parliament's name—it is called the Scottish Parliament and Business Exchange. However, the Parliament was never asked whether there should be a business exchange and members never discussed, by motion, whether there should be a business exchange. The exchange was set up by the Presiding Officer and the clerk to the Parliament and, as Paul Grice rightly said, it was supported by the leaders of all the political parties. The cross-party groups—we will be considering one today—must have the approval of the committee. However, the business exchange was set up with no approval from any institution in the Parliament. Because of that, many mistakes have been made that have caused the Parliament difficulties.
The Parliament and the Standards Committee currently have no input into the business exchange and any input that the committee may have from here on in will be only that which the business exchange seeks. We cannot say that the business exchange will do X, Y and Z, because that is not our role. The reports that will be issued to us—and the timing and content of those reports—will be decided by the business exchange. I share Susan Deacon's view that the business exchange must change. We cannot continue with the situation that exists at the moment. My view is that, if the business exchange is to exist in the future, it must be accountable to a committee of the Parliament. At the moment, it is not.
The situation must be addressed by the business exchange and, ultimately, by the Parliament. The business exchange will exist only as long as MSPs continue to give it their support and I am not convinced that there is a great appetite among MSPs to give it that support in the light of the naivety of the operation up to now. If it is to continue with the support of the majority of MSPs, the business exchange must be accountable to a committee of the Parliament.
As members have no other comments, I shall sum up. The committee believes that the recommendations in the paper are not sufficient. Having taken advice from the clerk and legal advice, I suggest that we ask the clerk to produce for the next meeting a draft report from the committee to Parliament, raising our concerns and making suggestions about the way in which Parliament should take the initiative.
There are parallels with the cross-party groups. We could learn a great deal from the structures, reporting, accountability and financing of cross-party groups, as Mike Russell pointed out.
As members have said, we have a slight problem, in that we have been involved with the creation and regulation of cross-party groups, whereas the business exchange has been created with no reference to any parliamentary committee or any official organ of the Parliament. I think that the most appropriate way for us to proceed would be to ask the clerk to produce a draft report for the Parliament, making all MSPs aware of our concerns and our suggestions for ways forward. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.