Standards Committee, 07 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 7, 2001

Official Report 179KB pdf

---

Members' Interests Order

I reconvene the meeting following that short break. We move straight to our next item, which is our work on replacing the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. At our previous meeting, we agreed to defer consideration of a paper on possible new categories of registrable interests. When we drafted the code of conduct, we agreed to revisit some of the consultative steering group recommendations on the code. Today, we will examine some of those proposals and consider possible new registrable interests. The paper before us suggests that we bear in mind not only the need for transparency, but the need for proportionality in imposing new requirements on members.

I propose that we consider the paper section by section. The first section examines non-pecuniary interests, such as unremunerated directorships or membership of voluntary or charitable organisations and professional bodies. Currently, such interests may be registered on a voluntary basis. We may wish to endorse the current approach or consider a mandatory requirement to register and declare such interests. If we take the latter approach, there may be problems in defining exactly what constitutes a non-pecuniary interest. Members have a note that gives an idea of the decisions that we have made on the members' interests order to date. The floor is open for members' views on non-pecuniary interests.

Local councillors and some members of public bodies are required to register non-pecuniary interests where there is a perception that such interests might impinge on their duties as public representatives. I see no reason why MSPs should not have to register non-pecuniary interests in the same way. The difficulty that we may face is in deciding the range of non-pecuniary interests. However, in many cases, non-pecuniary interests can have an influence on the way that public representatives act or on the perception of the way in which they act. MSPs should be required—as much for their own protection as for helping people to get information out of them—to register non-pecuniary interests, certainly to the same level as is expected of local councillors in Scotland.

Like Tricia Marwick, I was concerned that MSPs might be out of step with the requirements on local councillors. However, on balance, I think that the requirement to register non-pecuniary interests fails the proportionality test. Any such scheme for MSPs would certainly be unwieldy, could be unworkable and, I feel, is unnecessary. The key point is that those interests are non-pecuniary. In a Parliament that values transparency in its working, there is an obligation on MSPs to declare non-pecuniary and other interests that may influence their conduct or may be seen to influence it. However, I am quite happy that that should be done on a voluntary basis. There is no evidence to suggest that the system is not working, and I am happy for it to continue on a voluntary basis.

At the moment, there is a miscellaneous column in the register of members' interests. Should we change that heading to show that interests shown in that column are declared on a voluntary basis? Is that what you are saying?

I would certainly be happy with that. If MSPs feel that they have to scrabble around to find the right area in which to register an interest, perhaps we should make it clear to them that any non-pecuniary interests could be registered under that heading. For example, I, like many of my colleagues, am a member of a trade union. That is the sort of thing that I would expect members to register.

On a voluntary basis?

Yes. Those are non-pecuniary interests—that is the key. Members would register the interest for people's information, but there should be no greater obligation than that to register such interests.

When I was a minister, I was involved in the Local Government Committee's discussions on the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000, which applies to councillors and members of other public bodies. It would be inappropriate to suggest that there is a substantial difference between MSPs and other elected members in this regard. I am in favour of registration, as recommended in paragraph 6 of the paper and I agree that it should not be a criminal offence not to register that information. That would assist the process of openness and transparency that many of us have argued for.

I have thought long and hard about the issue, as have my colleagues, and I have come to the conclusion that we should register those interests.

On a voluntary basis or on a statutory basis?

On a statutory basis.

In that case, Kenneth Macintosh seems to hold the minority view.

Indeed.

At our next meeting, perhaps we could consider the areas that we believe should be registered. The clerks could do some work on that. I know that the National Assembly for Wales has a limited register of non-pecuniary interests. Perhaps we could see what interests other Parliaments and organisations are required to register and discuss the matter in more detail.

The second section of the paper relates to the interests of spouses and close family members. We touched on that at our previous meeting. The CSG recommended the registration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests of spouses, cohabitees and close family members. One argument in favour of that could be that gifts or other benefits could be passed to a relative to influence the member or to circumvent the rules on registration. However, the paper notes that requirement for such registration would be a significant invasion of the privacy of family members and would increase the complexity of the register. There might also be European convention on human rights implications. What views do members have?

We have said from day one that our spouses and close family members do not seek elected office—we do that. Their privacy is invaded enough by being related to us. I see no case for compulsory registration of the pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests of a spouse or close relative.

I am glad that I am not going to be in a minority of one on this issue. I agree with Tricia Marwick. It is not necessary for close family members or spouses to declare such interests. However, it is important to stress that there is still an obligation on MSPs to declare any gift or interest that their spouse or close family relative might receive or have as a result of the MSP's office. That obligation would still exist without extra obligations being placed on the spouse and close family members. On this issue, as we have said on other issues, the idea that a spouse—well, I will leave it there.

Okay.

You might get into trouble.

If members have no further comments on that issue, we will move on to the next section of the issues paper, which asks whether pensions should be registrable. Some members, including me, currently register pensions voluntarily. Should we make registration of pensions compulsory?

I will put in my tuppenceworth. I receive an Army pension. The Army is a reserved matter, but I decided to register that pension voluntarily, because it is income that I want to register. I am interested to hear members' views on whether it should be compulsory to register pensions. Should my constituents know that I receive that income?

I do not think that they necessarily should. The issue of registering is about connections that could be regarded as influencing an MSP or about an MSP being in breach of the kind of transparency and openness that is expected. I cannot envisage occupational or armed services' pensions having to be registered, although what Mike Rumbles has done is noble.

Say that again for the record.

It was noble of the Army to give you a pension that says, "Please don't come back"—I understand that once you accept the pension, you cannot return.

Proportionality suggests that MSPs can volunteer information about pensions. They should not be forced to do so, however.

Do members agree that MSPs should not be compelled to register pension income?

Members indicated agreement.

You can retire now, convener.

I am retired. You can see the grey hair.

The final section of the paper considers whether we should require members to deposit with the keeper of the register a copy of any agreements that they have entered into on the provision of services in their capacity as MSPs, as is the practice at Westminster and as was recommended by the CSG working group. Members might feel that the current requirement to register such employment under the heading of remuneration is adequate. What do members think about the issue?

I cannot for the life of me understand why the agreement would have to be lodged with the standards clerks. It is sufficient that, if an MSP is fortunate enough to write for a newspaper—I have never been invited to do so—

Your eye contact with the members of the press who are present is noticeable.

Yes.

It is sufficient for MSPs to register only the income that they accrue from work. It is not important to register the work. I do not see the need to register an agreement with the standards clerks—unless I am missing something.

Do members have any other comments? Are members in broad agreement with Tricia Marwick?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a further point, before we move on from the subject of the members' interests order. So far, we have discussed non-pecuniary interests, but I have long been concerned about the issue of pecuniary interests in relation to what happens in the chamber. An MSP need only say that they have an interest and what that interest is before they can go on to take a full part in the debate and the voting. I understand that at Westminster an MP was prevented from becoming a shadow rural affairs minister because he was also a farmer.

I wonder whether we need to examine our procedures in relation to pecuniary interests. We should consider whether it would be appropriate to disbar people who have a pecuniary interest in the subject from taking part in debates or from voting on it.

I will take advice from the clerks on that point.

The next aspect of the order that the committee is due to consider is the rules on the declaration of interests. We have been working on that. I understand that at the National Assembly for Wales the rules specify that members who have a direct interest in the business in hand are prevented from voting. The paper on the declaration of interests could perhaps consider the issues that Tricia Marwick has raised.

That is a sensible point. We should put it on our agenda for our next meeting.

Meeting closed at 11:05.