Official Report 158KB pdf
The first item on the agenda is the committee's forward work programme.
In particular, we must put in place an interim complaints procedure as quickly as possible, so that members are aware of how complaints should be channelled through the committee.
I agree that the draft code of conduct should include a complaints procedure and an enforcement procedure, and that we must complete it as quickly as possible. I suggest that the draft code of conduct, including, as Des McNulty said, the interim complaints procedure, be the main item on the agenda of the meeting on 24 November.
If it is at all possible, we should try to complete the draft code of conduct before the Christmas recess. The problems that we have encountered in recent weeks have been due primarily to the fact that there is no code of conduct in place, nor any complaints or enforcement procedure. The committee is beholden to make the draft code available to members as soon as possible.
I take that point on board.
I know that people's diaries are tight and that we are becoming busier as the recess approaches, but I suggest that we consider fitting in another meeting, so that the draft can be completed before the recess.
I have already asked whether we can meet weekly, but parliamentary staff have told me that it is difficult to arrange the facilities for that. I asked whether we could meet next week, but that has proved impossible.
We could look ahead—it might be possible to schedule a meeting between 24 November and 8 December.
We have meetings on 24 November and 8 December. The clerks tell me that they will do all the preparation to allow us to complete our work by then. I am suggesting a January deadline, because 8 December might be too tight. The legal advice that we received was that the draft code could not be checked before then. I acknowledge what you say. We will have to review the situation after each meeting.
With respect, we have been round the houses on the matter on a number of occasions, and have had to set it aside. I do not want a repeat of the situation that we have been in, and for us to be found negligent. This must be a priority for all of us.
I agree whole-heartedly with Karen. The code of conduct is a priority. Unfortunately, it was derailed for a month because we had to investigate other matters. However, now it must get back on track, as we owe it to our fellow MSPs to put something in front of them before the Christmas recess. Karen is right to say that it is a matter not just for the Standards Committee but for the Parliament. If the members of the Standards Committee are urging that we have additional meetings to progress the matter satisfactorily and timeously, it is incumbent on the parliamentary staff to facilitate that and to find us the rooms and offices that we need. We understand the pressure that they are under, but there is pressure on the Parliament.
I confirm to members that, prior to this meeting, I requested a meeting for 17 November—this time next week—because I felt that we should be meeting not fortnightly, but weekly. The advice that I am giving you now is advice that I received from the committee clerks, who said that that was not possible. However, I hear what members are saying and take the same view. We should go back to parliamentary staff and say that we want to meet on 17 November to progress the issue.
I do not think that that is what we are saying, convener. We are saying that we want a meeting next week. It does not have to be on Wednesday morning—it can be on Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon. People have difficulties with other committees meeting, but we can rotate the three slots available. I am sure that we can find a space. It does not need to be between 9.30 am and 12.30 pm—it can be in the early evening or at lunchtime. I am sure that we can find a time when there is space available in the building. Other committees are meeting to deal with business that is not as pressing as this. If space can be found for them, it can be found for us, given the nature of the business that we have to expedite over the next few weeks.
My understanding is that the problem is not a shortage of rooms, but the work load on staff and the availability of, in particular, legal advice. The issue is not whether we meet next week but whether we can fit in enough meetings between now and the relevant point in December to complete the code of conduct. I am not in favour of meetings for the sake of meetings: we meet to transact business effectively. I suggest that we proceed on that basis.
We should have as many meetings as are necessary to get the job done effectively, and I suspect that one meeting in December will not be enough. We have to ensure that we get the resources, the facilities and the time to do the job properly.
I am the only MSP who is currently a member of three committees, and two of them are now having difficulty finding space. A meeting of another committee that was scheduled for today could not take place. The committees are keen to do the work, but the facilities and back-up are under huge pressure. That simply illustrates further the inadequacies of the buildings in which we are situated, but we will have to put up with that.
I would like something clarified. I have in my possession a draft code of conduct, or parts of one, that was given to us some weeks ago. I am confused by what Des McNulty said about legal advice. What legal advice do we require? We did not require it at the beginning of the process—we were merely working our way through the code of conduct. Can you clarify what is the legal problem with our establishing a code of conduct for members of this Parliament?
I was given to understand that the clerks could make the drafts available to us reasonably quickly, so that we could deal with them at our meetings on 24 November and 8 December. It was made clear by the legal staff at the pre-meeting briefing that because of pressure of work they could not agree to give the necessary legal advice on the draft code of conduct this side of Christmas.
If that is the advice that we are being given, we should make representations to the Presiding Officer. The reputation of the Parliament depends on a code of conduct for MSPs. We must be able to produce that code of conduct, and the committee has indicated that it wants to do that work. The Presiding Officer should be asked to use his offices to ensure that the staff, resources and facilities are available to the committee to allow it to do the work.
If other committee members agree, I will write to the Presiding Officer to draw his attention to the fact that the establishment and presentation to Parliament of a draft code of conduct is our No 1 priority. I will mention that the advice that we have received today indicates that those resources will not be available to allow us to do so before Christmas.
Our meeting on 8 December should move us towards finalising that process. We should aim for that target. In the next four weeks, we need the resources that will allow us to achieve that.
Let me get this absolutely clear. My intention as convener was to try to get the committee to agree to complete a draft code of conduct by the end of this parliamentary term. I said at the start of the debate that my advice indicated that that might not be physically possible—we might have to stray into January. I understand that that is not acceptable to members and that members feel that we must complete the task before the Christmas recess.
Before we move on, I would like to say that I am concerned that we might be diverted from our timetable if we are required to deal with individual cases.
We have had to deal with complaints. We are dealing with one today; others might come before us. We should go—with the permission of the Parliamentary Bureau—to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to ask its permission for the appointment of a temporary adviser who could assist us in our work in dealing with forthcoming complaints. That would make the process more manageable.
I strongly support that. The appointment of a parliamentary commissioner should be left exclusively to this committee; we will come to that later. I have consistently supported that, but in the meantime, Des McNulty's proposal is extremely sensible and I am sure that the bureau would support it.
The committee needs support, but I am concerned that we are asking for an adviser on issues that might or might not come up. I am not happy about taking on an adviser just for the sake of it. We must be clear about the role of such an adviser, and we have not had that discussion. The adviser could not be a default parliamentary commissioner. We need to have the debate about whether we need a parliamentary commissioner, but that is quite distinct from appointing an adviser on a pro tem basis.
I have serious concerns about engaging an adviser to deal with the rush of complaints against MSPs. I do not think that such a rush will occur and I would point out that, after our deliberations of recent weeks, we have not found the MSPs concerned to be in breach of any code. We are pre-empting a discussion that we might have to have in the future about the appointment of an independent adviser.
I think that we decided that any letters of complaint would be handed to the clerks in the first instance. The point of asking for a temporary adviser is to deal with the initial sifting of complaints.
I am of the same view as Tricia Marwick. We do not want to pre-empt the discussion that we need to have about complaints-handling procedures. I was suggesting not that we appoint a temporary adviser, but that we ask for permission to do so should the need arise. We do not have the power to deal with that; we have to go through a similar process to the one that we went through for the appointment of Malcolm Duncan.
We took the decision on a Tuesday to appoint Malcolm Duncan to advise us during our previous inquiry and he was appointed on the Friday. There were three days between the need for an adviser being identified and someone being appointed.
What Des is proposing is not unreasonable. We need to alert the SPCB to the fact that we could need people. I accept what Karen and Tricia have said: we do not anticipate a flood of complaints against MSPs, and we hope that that will not happen.
Are there any other views?
The role of the adviser that Des is suggesting is to sift complaints. That is a different role from the one that Malcolm Duncan had. Malcolm Duncan's role was to scrutinise evidence and information that the committee, as the supreme body of the Parliament in dealing with the standards of members, had asked for. I would be concerned if, at this stage in the proceedings, we were to preclude the committee from deciding whether a piece of evidence or a complaint needed to be dealt with. At this point, the committee is responsible for that. If we are setting up a system that is different from the one that we have had in the past, we are precluding discussion of the role of an independent adviser to the committee.
Des McNulty's point is that we should be in a position to act quickly if the need arises, and that is reasonable.
I think that the general view of the majority of the committee is that we should leave the issue until a later date. Is that right?
Thank you. We shall move on to—
I think that we ought to take a vote on that, as the committee is clearly split. Either we get permission to appoint an adviser or we do not.
This is a serious decision and we have not yet had a discussion about what the role of the adviser would be, how they would go about their job, and when they would speak to the committee—
I know. You have said that already.
I am not prepared to take a decision on the appointment of someone who will take on the responsibilities of the committee after a five-minute discussion that is, quite frankly, ill informed.
If a number of members of the committee are unhappy about the proposal, we should leave it in abeyance and deal with matters as they arise.
Des is suggesting that, and I think that we should move on.
Next
Cross-party Groups