Scottish Parliament and Business Exchange
Good morning everyone and welcome to the 12th meeting this year of the Standards Committee. We have apologies from Kay Ullrich, who cannot make the meeting today.
The first item on the agenda relates to correspondence from Margaret Jamieson concerning the Scottish Parliament and business exchange and confidentiality agreements. Members will have copies of correspondence between me and the Parliament's chief executive as well as a paper that details the relevant section of the code of conduct and summarises—in paragraph 5—the changes that have been made to the exchange's procedures during the summer recess.
The board of the business exchange considered those changes at its meeting yesterday. I have been advised that it agreed the following: first, that placement organisations should not require MSP participants to enter into separate confidentiality agreements; and secondly, that host organisations should instead consider—and only if absolutely necessary—the inclusion of an additional paragraph on confidentiality in the MSP letter of undertaking to the exchange. Any such paragraph will be subject to the approval of the exchange and must be consistent with an MSP's obligations under the code of conduct.
I remind members that our code of conduct states:
"Members have a duty not to place themselves under any financial or other obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence them in the performance of their duties."
The whole issue of the business exchange that arose over the summer gave me a great deal of concern. I have had concerns about the operation of the exchange from the outset. I believed that it was operating outwith the supervision of the Standards Committee in a way that every other cross-party group or organisation was not.
I believe that the MSP concerned, Margaret Jamieson, was not well supported or advised. I am glad that the business exchange has now come forward with some advice and guidance to MSPs. However, that is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I would like the committee to consider the conditions for exchanges of MSPs. I would also like the business exchange scheme to be brought under the scrutiny of the Standards Committee.
It is important that all the institutions of the Parliament are responsible to somebody. Until now, the business exchange has not come under the remit of the Standards Committee and we were not involved in its setting up. I suggest that, if we had had a role when the exchange was established, we would not have had the problems that we saw over the summer recess.
I would like the committee to consider carefully what our response should be, because the matter might go well beyond the exchange's acceptance that what it does in future will be within our code. We must examine exactly what the exchange is doing and whether it meets all the conditions that the Standards Committee lays down for all other institutions in the Parliament.
A mechanism is needed whereby the best guidance is given on confidentiality agreements. For example, one would not want a confidentiality agreement to make an MSP beholden to an outside body of any description. Might it not be appropriate, in case of doubt, for members to seek guidance from the clerk to the Standards Committee? If a committee member were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement in the context of their committee's work, presumably they would check that with the committee clerk. However, in case of doubt, it would helpful if they sought advice from the clerk to the Standards Committee, who would provide them with guidance based on the code of conduct.
I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss this issue. The business exchange scheme is at a relatively early stage in its development, so it is appropriate that we should take stock—especially in the light of the case that has arisen. I, too, would like to comment on and express concerns about the operation of the scheme.
I preface my comments by saying that I regard a business exchange programme as important. We must support and, where necessary, defend arrangements that build links between MSPs and business. It is important to note that, in the case that we are discussing, the member complied with the rules of the scheme. It would be unfair to suggest otherwise.
I have several concerns. First, the confidentiality agreement in this case is wholly inappropriate. I welcome the information that the convener gave us at the beginning of the meeting about the changes that are now proposed, which are much more appropriate than the original agreement.
Secondly, we must consider wider issues to do with the nature of exchanges and placements in which members take part. We must consider the relationship between the nature of any placement and the areas of responsibility of the MSP concerned. That is a difficult issue, which cuts both ways. One could argue that a member who sits on a particular subject committee ought to undertake a placement that enhances their knowledge of that subject. However, as the case that we are discussing highlights, it is easy for such a placement to be perceived—this is a matter of perception, rather than of substance—as inappropriate.
We must also consider the scale and nature of placements. We are dealing with perceptions—an issue that the committee has, rightly, addressed in the past. A substantial overseas trip feels quite different from a series of one-day visits or a placement lasting a week or two with an organisation based in Scotland. I am not saying that overseas exchanges are necessarily inappropriate but, when a substantial trip is involved, greater caution is required of all parties. Individual judgment has a role to play and individuals will make different decisions about whether to participate in particular exchanges.
We also need to consider the guidance that governs the operation of the business exchange scheme. We should use this case as an opportunity to consider more fully the issues that it raises. We should do so above all to ensure the proper protection of members and of a scheme whose intentions are good and positive.
I, too, welcome the chance to discuss the matter in committee, because the case showed up a particular failing in the system. I do not know about the particular case, but I believe that members are under no illusion that their responsibility is to their constituents and to the Parliament. As a result, I welcome this opportunity to clarify the matter.
As Susan Deacon pointed out, it is important that we should have this type of business exchange. The Parliament must be outward looking. There is always a danger that it might become rather parochial and introspective and we must take every available opportunity to open our eyes to the world.
I agree that the issue of perception is tricky. Indeed, I might disagree with others' perceptions of certain businesses. Because we sometimes have to challenge prejudices that might arise from ignorance or whatever reason, I hesitate to introduce a code of conduct that is based on some people's perceptions that some businesses are not as worthy as others. Such a view might not be universally shared.
As I say, I welcome today's opportunity to clarify that MSPs are under no obligation except to their constituents and the Parliament.
When the Scottish Parliament and business exchange scheme was first mooted more than a year ago, I wrote to the chief executive of the Scottish Parliament, Paul Grice, to outline some of my concerns. I should point out that I was completely unaware of the so-called confidentiality agreement until it surfaced at the beginning of the summer. We exchanged correspondence in order to sort things out and I think that we have found a good solution to the problem. However, I am well aware of the concerns that have been raised, particularly by Tricia Marwick, and propose to invite Paul Grice, who is the chief executive of both the Parliament and the exchange board, to attend a meeting so that we can question him in some detail. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
It is generally agreed that no criticism is intended of the MSP concerned. However, it should be made clearer that guidance is always readily available from the clerk to the Standards Committee. In that way, any misinterpretation would be unlikely to arise.
Thank you for that.