Our next item of business is consideration of the motion to be lodged on behalf of the committee, seeking Parliament's approval for the proposed register of interests of MSPs' staff. The motion will form the basis of a short debate in Parliament on the morning of Thursday 16 March. Members have the proposed text of the motion before them. Are there any comments?
I am happy with the text of the motion, but I am concerned that it has just been published. There will be a lot of interest in the matter, particularly from our staff. There are issues in the motion to which we must draw their attention and on which we need to explain our thinking, so it might be premature to hold a debate on the matter next week. Perhaps we should delay the debate by a week to allow members to speak to their staff.
I understand that members of staff have not been consulted, as MSPs were not consulted before the code of conduct was issued. It might be helpful if the register could be reviewed in the light of experience. It is, however, a useful first step to put it in place as soon as possible. It is directed at MSPs rather than at their staff, because MSPs are responsible for their staff.
The committee's view was that we needed to move as quickly as possible on the issue. However, I have sympathy with Tricia Marwick's point that we must ensure that, if a provision is being put into place that affects others, people are appropriately informed about the committee's thinking and about the implications of the provision. Perhaps we should seek advice from the clerks about how quickly information could be provided.
The committee agreed that it is important to get this done quickly because it is important that it is added to the code of conduct. The committee has discussed the code of conduct in detail; the discussions were open and a report on them was presented to Parliament. The process for the register of staff interests has been the same. Are you suggesting that we should have the debate at a later date, rather than on 16 March?
The debate should not be delayed by more than a week. The document was published only today and MSPs' staff should have a chance to consider it and feed their views back to us. That will mean that we are able to have a better-informed debate.
Lord James, as a member of the Parliamentary Bureau, could you tell us how the proposal would affect parliamentary programming? I understand that only certain days are given over to committee business and that 16 March is one of them.
Tricia is also on the bureau, of course.
I apologise, Tricia.
If the committee came to a view, my only question would be whether it would be appropriate to consult MSPs' employees before the report was issued. If employees are consulted, they might want changes to be made—we did not allow MSPs to ask that changes be made.
My view is that that is what the debate is for—we can make amendments after that debate. We have debated the report in the committee—it applies to MSPs and to the code of conduct.
We have established the principle, but that is not what we will consult about. The idea that the proposal would apply to MSPs, who would be responsible for dealing with it, is also a point of principle. However, we might want to consult about the wording in the register. We could indicate that the form is a draft form that could be modified in the light of consultation with those who are directly affected by it. We could have a debate to agree the principle and finalise the form two or three weeks later.
I would be happier if the committee took to the debate a report that met with the approval of MSPs. It will be difficult to accept amendments to a report that we have already done. I do not want to rule that out completely, but it would be better to secure unanimous support.
I understand that. I am conscious of the fact that some members of the committee are not present. In the debate on the code of conduct, we specifically referred to the annexe and to the fact that the annexe would be attached fairly soon. We are happy with the report on the register of staff interests—it is fair and appropriate. In the debate, I could make it clear that we are committed to reviewing the code in four to six months' time, to ensure that it is working satisfactorily.
There should not be any particular problems for any MSP's staff. As employers, we must ensure that our staff are aware that something that will impact on them is coming up. It is from that point of view that I am asking for a little time.
The annexe to the code of conduct is not necessarily applicable to current members of staff—they do not have to sign up to it under their current contracts. The annexe—if Parliament approves it—would apply to new members of staff who are taken on by MSPs from next Thursday. We would be able only to encourage current members of staff to sign up.
You mentioned that the register would be subject to review. Perhaps Tricia Marwick would be happier if the motion were amended to incorporate words appropriate to that.
No. If we are presenting the recommendations of the Standards Committee, we should ask Parliament to endorse those. In the summing up we can acknowledge points that come out in the debate and say that we will consider those. However, the motion should ask for the approval of Parliament for the report that we have produced.
Would you be happy if I made that clear in my opening remarks?
Yes.
Is it agreed that we proceed on that basis?
Meeting closed at 11:52.
Previous
Cross-party Groups