Standards Committee, 10 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999

Official Report 158KB pdf

---

Complaint

We have received the latest legal advice on the issue of the complaint against Mike Watson MSP. Before I throw the matter open for discussion among members, I want to make it clear that, because the complaint in question has been made in public, we should deal with the issue in public and not in private session.

However, because we are dealing with the complaint in this way on this occasion—because it was initially raised in the public domain in the way that it was—that should not create a precedent for the committee's work on future complaints. That is particularly important when considering the procedures that we are about to set up in the code of conduct.

I would now like the committee to consider the complaint against Mike Watson. We have received all the relevant papers, including the details of the complaint and Mike Watson's reaction and response to the committee clerk's letter.

Our debate focuses on two questions. First, should Mike Watson have registered the support he received in the register of interests? Secondly, has Mike Watson breached the advocacy rule?

I would like to throw the questions open to members. Having gone through all the papers that we have received, what is your view?

Can I ask that we deal with the two questions separately?

Indeed we can. Let us deal with the first question, on the register of interests.

I understand that there was a registration of interests, but that it might not have been in exactly the correct form. I think, therefore, that Mike Watson should be invited here, or should be advised on how to correct this and make registration appropriate.

The issue of sponsorship is paramount and, as I understand it, registration comes under a different category. It also appears, from our information, that Lord Watson will continue to receive administrative support, drafting support and legal support during the passage of the bill. If that is so, there is a case to be made for changing registered interests to sponsorship and we should ask Lord Watson to do that as a matter of urgency.

Are we agreed that that should be our course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

On the first point, we will ask Mike Watson to register sponsorship forthwith. I will do that immediately after this meeting.

Paragraph 5 in the schedule to the members' interests order deals with this. I am concerned that Mike Watson did not consider that he should be required to register, or that the support he receives amounts to sponsorship. It is now accepted that that must be done.

If the situation is sorted out as it relates to Mike Watson, it is important to ensure that members bringing forward members' bills in future realise that, if they get support from outside organisations in the drafting of bills, that could come under sponsorship. They should be advised on that basis to avoid uncertainty or confusion in future.

According to the act, that, of course, will be the case if the help is provided on a continuing basis.

So is our conclusion that Mike should be advised to register forthwith and that we should issue advice to those who have indicated an interest in members' bills and bills in which sponsorship might be an issue?

We will ask the clerks to make that clear to MSPs.

The effect of this will be that MSPs will in the same position as MPs in the House of Commons.

I am not sure what the situation is in the House of Commons.

Are we happy with that first part?

Members indicated agreement.

The second and perhaps more difficult area is the question of whether Lord Watson has breached the advocacy rule.

This is the primary issue for consideration by this committee and for any member who wishes to bring forward a member's bill. That rule appears in article 6 of the members' interests order and it is wide-reaching. We must read that order and section 39.4 of the Scotland Act 1998. That section states:

"Provision shall be made prohibiting a member of the Parliament from—

(a) advocating or initiating any cause or matter on behalf of any person, by any means specified in the provision, in consideration of any payment or benefit in kind of a description so specified, or

(b) urging, in consideration of any such payment or benefit in kind any other member of the Parliament to advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any person by any such means."

The key words are "in consideration of" and, having read the evidence, I do not believe that Lord Watson brought forward that bill in consideration of any support that he subsequently received. The key issue is whether he gained from it, and I do not think that that is the case. He has not broken the rules on unpaid advocacy, which we have examined alongside the Scotland Act 1998.

Do other members have any views on that?

I agree that there was no paid advocacy. We have had very good legal advice that I believe has been correct.

Is that the view of every member of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

That is clear. Our conclusion is that there is no question of Lord Watson having breached the advocacy rule, but we will advise him that he must register his interests forthwith.

There has been some confusion among MSPs about the paid advocacy rule and about issues related to members' interests. I ask that for future consideration the clerks prepare a paper on any possible amendments to the members' interests order, if that is appropriate.

I think that that is a reasonable and positive outcome from this incident that will be helpful to members in the future; it will certainly help us in the future.

We will move on to item 5 on the agenda.

Meeting continued in private until 12:47.