Standards Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 9, 2001

Official Report 116KB pdf

---

Party Spokespersons

Our third item revisits annexe 5 of the code of conduct, which provides guidance on the relationships between MSPs. We have before us a query from the Presiding Officer on whether party spokespersons should be recognised as having a separate status from other members, including in relation to the guidance on relationships between MSPs. At present, the guidance is silent on that point.

Given that the party business managers were closely involved in the development of that guidance, I propose to write, on behalf of the committee, to seek the views of the business managers on this issue. Do members think that that is an appropriate way in which to proceed?

Convener, you probably realise that Tricia Marwick and I plead guilty to being business managers.

Would you mind if I wrote to you, Lord James?

No.

A formal investigation is required. Would the Procedures Committee become involved?

I do not think so. The guidance started as a proposal that was agreed by the four parties' business managers. It was then put to the Standards Committee and we took it on as a package. There are important issues that we must revisit, but I would like first to raise those issues with the business managers.

I am not sure why the issue has come to the Standards Committee. I understand that the Presiding Officer wrote to the committee, but the issue of relationships between MSPs was considered by one of the Deputy Presiding Officers. After that, it went to the business managers and then to the Parliament, and the parties, for approval.

I agree that you should certainly write to the business managers, convener. However, I suggest that you should also write to the Presiding Officer to say that you have written to the business managers. It should be left to the business managers and the Presiding Officer and his deputies to find a way forward, as this is not a matter for the Standards Committee at this stage.

I agree, up to a point. The problem that we face is that the guidance is incorporated into the code of conduct and I am aware of complaints that have been made under the code of conduct. The Standards Committee will have to consider the issue but, before we do so, we should seek information from the four business managers, given that they were responsible for the original proposal.

With respect, my point is that, when we considered the guidance, it was merely incorporated into the code of conduct—the Standards Committee did not discuss the contents of that guidance, which was discussed outwith the committee. We incorporated it into the code of conduct in the same way as we incorporated a number of other matters, including some that the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body wanted to insert. We did not discuss the guidance.

I suggest that the matter should be referred back to the Presiding Officer, so that the business managers can consider it and come to an agreement outwith the committee. It would then come back to the committee, but only in its final form.

That is exactly what I am proposing should happen.

Actually, we discussed the guidance—

Tricia Marwick indicated disagreement.

I see you shaking your head, Tricia, but we did discuss it. The Standards Committee had to discuss it when we incorporated it into the code of conduct. However, we took a number of matters en bloc and no problems with the guidance were raised.

May I take it that the phrase "unless by prior agreement" in paragraph 4(v) of the guidance could be changed if the Standards Committee recommended such a change?

If we want to change anything in the code of conduct, our proposals must go before the whole Parliament. We could pursue that but, as Tricia Marwick said, we must obtain the agreement of those who were involved in drawing up what has become annexe 5 of the code of conduct. I will proceed on that basis.