Official Report 172KB pdf
Our next item is the continued consideration of the draft code of conduct for members and a draft covering report.
Where reference is made to something that is in the members' interests order, could it be set in a different typeface? Occasionally things are in boxes, sometimes they are in bold—such references would be more easily identifiable if they were in a different typeface.
We will examine that with a view to implementing it.
Can I just clarify that the bits in bold are changes that we have made?
Yes, the bold signifies new text or changes.
So those words will not appear in bold in the final version.
They are in bold only to draw them to our attention. As soon as we have agreed to those changes, they will be printed as normal.
On page 6, paragraph 1.10 says that
We can do that.
In relation to paragraph 1.11, if someone refused to sign the declaration that they had read the code and would abide by it, what would be the position of the Standards Committee? In future, we might be able to make the signing of the declaration part of the process of taking the oath but, in the meantime, what could we do if someone refused to sign the declaration?
That would be a breach of the code and would be dealt with in the same way as any other breach of the code.
Further to Des McNulty's point, paragraph 1.6 says:
Yes. That is dealt with under enforcement. We can reconsider that when we reach that section.
We should include that.
Let us move on to section 2. Members will see that it contains items in bold. Does the committee agree to the text as drafted?
I think that paragraph 2.5 sufficiently clarifies the points that we were making at a number of meetings and helps to establish the difference between confidential constituent information and other information.
Both Tricia Marwick and I have indicated our opposition to the inclusion of paragraph 2.3, and that opposition stands. If you do not mind, I will articulate the reasons for that.
Please do.
I will do so carefully. To my mind, paragraph 2.2 admirably encapsulates the key principle of public duty for MSPs within our new democracy and is, quite clearly, immutable. It applies under any constitutional settlement and within any political framework. The oath of allegiance, by contrast, may currently be a legal requirement—and monarchy may enjoy majority public support—but it is subject to legitimate political and democratic debate. It cannot be denied that the current position of the monarchy could be changed by the will of the people, through the democratic process. In that context, requiring all MSPs to demonstrate allegiance to the monarchy is surely inappropriate. It would be asking some MSPs to be hypocritical, as there would be a discrepancy between their public pronouncements and the fact that they had signed the code.
We have had this debate on numerous occasions. I want again to set out my views on why the paragraph should be included, whether Adam Ingram and his party like it or not. We are still part of the United Kingdom, which has a queen and a monarchy. By virtue of our membership of this Parliament, we were obliged to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen and to her successors according to law. That was not done conditionally. People had to do it to be members of this Parliament. If we remove this paragraph, we would be sending the wrong signals to the people of Scotland about the devolution settlement. We are very much part of this United Kingdom, and the oath of allegiance that members swore when they joined this Parliament is an integral part of their membership.
Do any other members wish to comment?
I strongly support what has just been said. We have a constitutional monarchy in a democracy, and in those circumstances I strongly support the oath of allegiance.
Nobody has answered my question about enforcement of the code.
It would be a matter for the committee to deal with if and when the situation that Adam Ingram has described arose.
So if an MSP refuses to stand for the national anthem, they can be reported to this committee for not bearing true allegiance to the monarchy.
All complaints to the Standards Committee will be dealt with in exactly the same way.
The issue lies in the words "according to law". If someone is not prepared to uphold the law, they would be debarred from office. However, how people respond to the national anthem is a matter for each individual—I do not think that it should be an issue for the Standards Committee.
To be fair, convener, I think that we are trivialising a serious constitutional issue. Whether someone stands for the national anthem should not determine whether we have an oath of allegiance to the Queen. This is a complex issue. It is part of the constitutional settlement by which, as a Parliament, we are bound, whether or not one or two parties—or individuals—like it.
I wish to clarify my position. I do not object to the code of conduct referring to the oath of allegiance—clearly, there is a legal requirement for that. There should also be an explanation of the obligations on MSPs under that legal requirement. However, I object to the inclusion of this clause in this part of the code in particular. Des McNulty's point about upholding the law is adequately covered in paragraph 2.2, which, as I said, encapsulates the key principle of public duty for MSPs. I do not think that it needs to be qualified by paragraph 2.3. I have no objection to mention of the oath of allegiance in another part of the code, but it should not be under "Key Principles of the Code of Conduct".
The difficulty is that we voted on this matter and agreed on it. We are indulging you, Adam, and we should move on from this point to deal with the rest of the discussion.
I wish to note my dissent to the inclusion of paragraph 2.3 in the draft.
The only way in which you can do that—other than through the Official Report—is for us to vote on the matter, which I would rather avoid. Your comments have been recorded in the Official Report.
As a point of clarification, will the entire code go to the Parliament for ratification, at which point members can lodge amendments to parts of the code?
That is correct.
Although that is true, it would be extremely regrettable if members of this committee felt it necessary to move amendments in the chamber after we had had full and frank discussions within this committee. I believe that we have operated in a non-party political way. It would be regrettable if we were to move from that position to one of acting in party political ways in the chamber.
I would like to move on, but I acknowledge that this is an important point, which I would like to clarify.
I want to make it very clear that I am not raising this as a party political matter; it is a point of principle. If I note my dissent, surely that would allow me to speak in the Parliament on this matter. We have good relationships on the Standards Committee and, if the committee would rather that I did not speak against this part of the code, I would take that on board. However, I would have thought that, by noting one's dissent, one would be allowed to speak in debate on this matter.
As there are no further comments, I will move on. Your comments have been recorded in the Official Report, Adam.
As a point of clarification, paragraph 2.7, on integrity, says that:
You are right, but the phrasing is more applicable to the second sentence in section 2.9, which reads:
At the end of section 2.11 is the phrase:
We will use that throughout the document.
Is that the legal position? We do not want members coming back to the committee saying, "But my lawyer told me not to register."
That is the members' decision, because everybody is entitled to their own legal advice. We must emphasise that.
But would not that preclude this committee from taking action?
No—this code is for the individual MSP, who must take personal responsibility for adhering to it.
We have tried to be consistent and have used the words "he or she" in other parts of the document but, on page 11, the third bullet point is gendered.
We will use "he or she" throughout as agreed.
I suggest that to save us having to go through each page where there is a problem such as that, the clerks make those standard changes throughout the document.
Yes.
At an appropriate time during the year—perhaps in May—we could remove ceased interests, but they might be kept on record for the lifetime of the Parliament for members of the public to refer to if appropriate. Otherwise, the register might become lengthy and difficult for people to understand as a lot of interests might build up. It might be appropriate if interests relating to a member's previous employment—which might not be relevant in a couple of years' time—are taken out but kept on record. That would make the register easier for the public to read.
Are there any other views?
I support Karen's view. The onus is on us to make the register as comprehensible as possible to members of the public.
We will follow the instruction in the briefing note and we will amend the section accordingly.
I have a couple of minor wording changes that I do not want to detain the committee with, so I will pass them on to the clerk if that is possible.
Yes.
There are a couple of items on which I seek clarification. I am not clear what is meant by the last sentence of section 4.2.20 on page 19. If I have been involved with producing this document and I am not clear what it means, I wonder whether its meaning would be clear to other members.
We have just discussed that and we will amend the sentence accordingly.
One other issue that is, perhaps, substantive is that we are saying that gifts of more than £250 must be registered. Do we need to address the issue of cumulative gifts or benefits which, over a period, amount to more than £250?
The advice that I have received is that, because of the briefing, we are stuck with that amount. If we want to change it we will need new legislation, which we can examine.
I wonder whether we might put in a clause advising members that if the value of cumulative gifts from the same source exceeds that amount, it might be advisable for them to consider voluntary registration. Something along those lines would be positive.
That is quite sensible.
I understand that we can return to the issue of the exchange of gifts worth £250 between spouses at a later date, with a view to recommending a change.
Yes, but any change would require new legislation.
That would be competent for this Parliament.
Indeed.
Someone might give a car to his or her spouse. Is that the kind of gift that should be registered?
Lucky spouse.
The rule applies to any gift received by an MSP.
Okay.
I am sorry to keep going on about particular issues. Section 4.2.60 on page 32 states:
Yes—that tightens it up.
May I move on to section 4.2.61 on page 33?
Convener, are you taking the paragraphs in order?
No, we can return to earlier paragraphs. We are looking at all of section 4. Des is just being comprehensive.
Again, I am seeking to improve clarity. The clerks have come up with a definition of registrable heritable property. We should repeat that definition consistently on that page and on subsequent pages, rather than saying "as defined above" at various points. There is a lack of clarity that could be sorted out.
I would like to clarify a couple of things concerning election expenses. Can we clarify what is meant by election expenses? There has been some confusion over whether it means the maximum amount allowed or the amount that is actually spent. I understand that the phrase means the amount spent, but one extra line of clarification would be helpful.
We could put an explanation of that point in brackets.
If someone were to be asked by a charity or voluntary organisation in their constituency to be, for example, an honorary president, how would that be covered by this document?
It would be a voluntary declaration.
Would it come under "Miscellaneous"?
Yes—because there would be no remuneration.
It would not come under the heading "Related Undertakings".
No.
Would that preclude members who had registered an interest from taking part in the work of those organisations, or from discussing the issues that they raised?
Not at all—but when a member speaks in the committee, it would be good practice to declare any voluntary interest that the member has registered.
I would like to comment on the point that Des made on cumulative gifts. Section 4.2.43 talks about one-off gifts as opposed to support on a continuing basis. If we clarify one section, we should clarify all the sections.
Yes, that point is clarified in the last sentence of section 4.2.43. We could repeat the same sentence elsewhere.
That sentence relates to sponsorship.
The kind of wording that is used there—although not legally binding—could be helpful if used elsewhere for clarification.
I have been advised by the clerk that there is a distinction because there is no limit for sponsorship.
Generally yes—but I would like to raise a couple of issues for clarification. In section 5.2.6 on page 40, I wondered whether the word "only" was needed after the word "member". Without "only", the sentence could simply say:
We could remove it; but the clerk has pointed out to me that, if we are trying to clarify to members exactly what their legal position is, we should say that a member has a declarable interest only in relation to registrable interests. Keeping in "only" clarifies that.
We could call it a legal declarable interest.
Yes—if that will be helpful.
Under section 5.3.5—
Can we return to that? I am not convinced about it. Des, can you explain why you want to change it? I though that it was fine as it was. We are, perhaps, trying to complicate something that does not need to be complicated.
Possibly. The code refers to a declaration being made of a declarable interest. We are trying to suggest to members that the onus is on individual members to decide whether they have a declarable interest in relation to the matters that are being discussed. Ultimately, members must make a judgment in every case. If "only" is removed, the paragraph means that a member definitely has a declarable interest in relation to interests that have been registered, or for which a statement has been lodged. A member might consider that he or she has a further declarable interest, and the inclusion of "only" might discourage members from declaring when they might want to. We should try to avoid that confusion.
I am advised by the clerks that the word "legally" would be helpful in explanations. Do members have any other comments on this section?
I draw the committee's attention to section 5.3.5, on page 43, which says:
If members have no other comments, let us move on to section 6 on paid advocacy. At its previous meeting, the committee asked the clerk to provide, alongside the original, a condensed version of the text that related to the purpose of the paid advocacy rule. The new text is included in the draft as version A. Can I have the committee's views on what should be included in the final text? I would like you all to read this through. We do not want it to be rushed. Let us spend two minutes reading it again.
I suggest that we go through the other sections first and come back to this one after that.
Okay.
That would be helpful, convener.
Okay—we will take it page by page. The first is page 56.
I propose a minor textual amendment, but I shall take that up with the clerks afterwards, if that is okay.
Are there any comments on page 56? If not, we will move on to page 57. There are no comments on that.
The last sentence of section 7.3.3 is:
Let us be clear: the important part of that sentence is:
We will, I believe, discuss in a future meeting whether lobbying organisations should be regulated by the Parliament.
Indeed. Remember that the focus in the code is purely on the MSP.
Section 7.3.3 is helpful. It seeks to clarify the distinction that we tried to make previously. My only concern is one of interpretation. The current wording reflects our earlier discussion and the emphasis that we put on the matter. However, I am worried that the paragraph, which I think absolutely necessary, could be construed to say that people who lobby, but not on a fee basis, could be given to understand that they might get preferential access to ministers. I know that we came up with the emphasis, but I wonder whether there is a problem with the phrasing.
If the convener recalls, I made similar points at previous meetings, when we were defining "professional lobbyists", so I would emphasise Karen's point.
We need to be clear why that sentence is there: it has been written following our experience as a committee. It was clear that professional lobbying organisations, certainly the one that we investigated, used the bait of preferential access, or imagined preferential access, to secure clients. That is what we wanted to highlight: if, in a sales pitch, a lobbying company approaches someone and claims to be able to provide preferential access to ministers, that is not true in the eyes of the Parliament and its members. If people are offering such a sales pitch, the wider public and the relevant companies should know that, as far as the Parliament is concerned, that is not acceptable. It would be a breach of the code of conduct for members.
At the same time, we should emphasise the fact that preferential access is not acceptable full stop, and that, as far as access is concerned, everyone gets a fair crack of the whip.
I understand that the Neill committee may issue a statement today on the subject of lobbyists, which is a topic that we will consider later. It would be very helpful to have a copy of the Neill committee's recommendations and thinking on the subject before we come back to the issue.
I have asked the clerks to ensure that we all receive a copy as soon as possible. The committee is interested in best practice, from whatever source it comes. The Neill committee report will be of deep interest to us.
Members probably give preferential access to organisations with which they have sympathy. For example, I have met the National Asthma Campaign, because I am an asthmatic and I wanted to speak to it and hear the issues that it wanted to raise. The fact that I have a particular interest in asthma, and that it is at the top of my agenda, means that I probably met the campaign more quickly than I will meet other people. We can never take that away, but that is not what we are talking about.
No. We cannot legislate against that.
We cannot legislate against people's interests. We can, however, legislate against companies using MSPs for their own financial gain.
That is right. It is an important point, but I think that we should leave the discussion at that, although it was worth while clarifying our thoughts on the matter.
I want simply to clarify that the purpose of the guidance is to prevent commercial lobbying, not to prevent voluntary organisations or charities from making legitimate representations.
Absolutely. Are there any comments on pages 60 or 61, which bring us to the end of that section?
I have two points on page 60. We should amend section 7.3.7 to remove the words "‘buying' influence over MSPs" and replace them with something along the lines of, "doing so in the expectation that they will receive subsequent preferential access to or treatment by MSPs." We are fundamentally opposed to people "buying influence" over MSPs and using those words in the code is perhaps not the best thing to do. The alternative that I suggest should be sufficient.
Do members agree that we should remove that phrase? Karen, you are frowning.
My only concern is that when we had this discussion previously, the issue was raised of people buying tables at events to gain influence—people buying something in order to receive something. The wording is quite clear and I would be concerned about removing it. We are saying categorically that such behaviour is not acceptable in any circumstances. The wording should remain. It makes it quite clear that members should not participate in any event where the fact that somebody is buying something—for example, a table at a dinner—could be construed as unduly influencing an MSP.
My concern is that we are saying the same thing twice when we could just say it once.
I am inclined to leave the wording in.
We want to make the point as forcefully as possible. The wording stands perfectly well as it is and should be retained. We are reiterating our opposition to such action. Guidance to MSPs ought to be firm on this matter.
I agree. We are talking about not just the influence that might be recognised at the event, but what happens subsequently—the relationships that might arise as a result. It is important to have things differentiated in that way.
Okay. We will leave it in.
My second point relates to section 7.3.10, which says:
Okay.
If we are to be seen to have learned anything from the lobbygate inquiry, we must send a clear message that members' staff are a potential route to MSPs. The key allegation was that Beattie Media was able to gain access to Jack McConnell through his member of staff. We must have a code of conduct and a register of interests for members' staff. If the inquiry taught us nothing else, it taught us that.
I agree completely with Karen. If we start to say that there might be logistical problems, we put hurdles in our own way. There may be logistical hurdles, but our approach all along has been that whatever those hurdles are, we will get over them to ensure that the Parliament is as transparent, open and accessible to everyone as it can be. We should not be the ones to highlight potential problems in the system. The system will be made to work in the way that we want it to.
I was saying simply that logistical issues will arise.
Yes, but the committee's view is that we should leave the requirement in and highlight it clearly. We will consider all the arrangements and produce a report to Parliament on the register of interests for MSPs' staff.
No.
Okay. Let us move on to section 8, on cross-party groups. Some clarifications have been proposed, in particular on the MSP acting as signatory and on compliance with the rules, on page 68. Are members happy with section 8? It is fairly straightforward, but there have been changes on page 68—especially in section 8.4.4. It reads:
I refer to the point that was made about section 1, regarding the clarification that the breach of any article of the code—not just the statutory ones—can be the subject of a complaint against a member of the Scottish Parliament.
Yes. That condition will apply to the breach of any part of the code, once Parliament has agreed it.
Convener, when you take the report to the chamber, perhaps you could clarify that there are differences in the eyes of the law, but that, in the eyes of the Parliament, there is none. In the eyes of the Parliament, any breach of the code is an offence. The member may be open to other sanctions, if he committed a criminal offence. In the eyes of the Parliament, every section of the code has equal importance, and it is no worse an offence to have a paid advocacy, than to mistreat a member of staff in the Parliament.
I confirm what Karen is saying. Once we have agreed the code, and Parliament has accepted it, it is the code of conduct and any breach will be dealt with accordingly. For us, there is no distinction between statutory and non-statutory. Are there any other comments about section 9?
I have a comment about page 79, on the conduct of a meeting of the Parliament or a committee meeting. My concern is that the wording gives the impression that a committee member who is not satisfied with the action of that committee's convener cannot report their dissatisfaction to the Standards Committee. In future, there may be an issue of party political bias. Obviously, the complaint should be taken to the convener in the first instance and, if appropriate, the convener should take action. However, if the convener does not take action, it should be open to the member to bring their complaint to the Standards Committee.
Would it be helpful if we considered changing the second sentence, which reads:
The last sentence, which reads:
We can change that paragraph to ensure that your comment is taken on board.
Section 10.2.9, on page 78, reads:
Okay, we will tighten that up.
Section 10.2.10, on page 78, reads:
We could change "deliberate" to "meet".
I hate to keep doing this, but I think that "deliberate" is a helpful word, because it clarifies what we would be doing. We are not saying that we will meet in private, but that we might deliberate the case in private.
If I remember correctly, it was a deliberate choice of words, because we were making the point that, like a jury, we would say, "Here's evidence. Let's go into private session to deliberate on it". One would not necessarily want to discuss evidence in public. I am not sure that I want to delete "deliberate".
I would like to expand this paragraph a little. At the moment, it reads as if it is a blank cheque and that the Standards Committee might take the decision arbitrarily. I would like to establish the broad circumstances in which we would decide to hold a meeting in private.
The wise legal advice that I have received on numerous occasions is that we must not establish a precedent for all cases. The code is written in a way that gives us the flexibility to act in the way that Karen just described. My personal view is that we should meet in private only when we are deliberating on evidence that has already been presented to us, as Karen and Patricia said.
You are right, Mike. However, I would not want the Official Report to report that those would be the only circumstances in which we would meet in private, as there may be others. For example, if children were involved in a complaint—I am not suggesting for a minute that they would be—it might be appropriate for us to interview them in private.
That might be why Des suggested changing "deliberate" to "meet", as "deliberate" indicates an examination of evidence that has been presented to us; it would not include taking evidence from a child.
It says "normally meet"—it does not say "always".
That is true.
I think that we have covered the point.
Shall we leave the wording as it is?
The wording is wide enough to give us flexibility, while clearly stating that it is our intention to operate openly and in public unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Section 10.2.16 sufficiently clarifies our concerns about MSPs' staff. We know that they have all lodged their contracts of employment with the allowances office or with personnel as appropriate.
There is a lot of highlighted text on page 85, on cross-party groups. Are there any comments about that? [Interruption.] Sorry—we relocated that to the section on enforcement.
I missed the previous meeting and therefore I probably missed the discussion on section 10.2.19 on page 81. Could you clarify in which circumstances the Standards Committee would
As I understand it, if no official complaint has been made but a member of the committee comes to a meeting and says, "Look, I want to discuss this and we should investigate it," the paragraph gives us the opportunity to do so. It would be difficult to do that if the paragraph were omitted.
If we knew—but no one else did—about a cabal operating, we should have the right to investigate it.
A cabal? I need to talk to you about that, Karen.
Do you want to go into more detail, Karen?
No. [Laughter.]
I have just been reminded that we should clarify that we are talking about having the right to take the initiative, rather than waiting for a complaint to be made to us.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now move to section 6, on paid advocacy. At our previous meeting, the committee asked the clerk to provide a condensed version of the text relating to the purpose of the paid advocacy rule, alongside the original version. The new text is included in the draft as version A with the original as version B. Although the lawyers are happy with both versions, version A is far more succinct, which is in line with the views that were expressed before. So, without directing the committee, may I ask whether members have any comments on this section?
I take it that sections 6.1 and 6.2 are automatically in.
Do members want two minutes to read through both versions again?
Yes.
Do the two versions have paragraphs in common?
Yes. Version A is a simplified form of version B.
I prefer version A because, although it is less succinct, it is easier to understand.
I do not want to encroach on a case that is on appeal, but this matter is likely to have a bearing on the case. I think that it is important that guidance be given in relation to bills that are brought before the Parliament. Are we in a position to do that now or should we wait for the outcome of the case?
We cannot afford to wait.
In that case, I support what Patricia said. Section 6.2.7b gives guidance and should go in, but it may be subject to revision, depending on the outcome of any legal rulings.
Because we are finalising the code of conduct we will take legal advice on this matter and return to it. We will try to do what you suggest, subject to legal advice.
I agree with Lord James, but we made our decision on the basis of the law that we had. We need to carry that decision through the code of conduct, because if we are seen to be doubting the decision that we made the courts might look differently on any case. Parliament has been seen to act appropriately and we must carry that through.
Yes, I would like to confirm that as far as this committee is concerned, there is no question of doubting what we have done. We are clear, but the matter is subject to legal proceedings, which everyone will take on board.
I am happy with Patricia's amendment, because it is clearer. I much prefer version A to version B. The only confusion that we need to take account of is in section 6.2.4a, which states:
Yes, we will put that paragraph into context so that it can be more easily understood. Is that the point that you are making?
Yes.
That is the crux of the matter, is it not?
Without a doubt.
The relevant phrase is "in consideration of".
Absolutely correct.
May I raise a general issue about expenses? If the media ask an MSP to come from far afield and offer to put the MSP up for the night in a hotel because he or she cannot get back to their constituency or home, is that a legitimate expense and therefore not necessarily declarable?
It depends on the circumstances. Advice should always be taken and can be obtained easily from the clerks. Remember that with regard to paid advocacy, which is what we are talking about, as Karen just pointed out, the important point is the "consideration" issue. So if you are not doing it for the expenses, it cannot be—
So the member would be in the clear with regard to paid advocacy?
Yes.
But they would have to take advice on declaring the expenses?
Members should take advice if they have any doubts at all.
I also think that version A is much clearer. Comparing section 6.2.9a with 6.2.7b, there is an additional sentence in the latter that adds clarification.
We have dealt with that. Are there any other points?
When we present this, will the code be a draft code or an interim code?
It is a draft. It is not approved until the Parliament approves it.
I was just wondering whether it is a proposed code of conduct or the code of conduct that is recommended by the Standards Committee. We do not want to suggest to the Parliament that the code is a draft that is to be amended.
Are there any other comments on the first few paragraphs? Are there any comments on the rest of the page? I will give members a few minutes to read through the last page.
I have a point about the fifth paragraph. That paragraph might detract from the code itself. There might be matters to which we might wish to return. I do not think that we should detract from the code by saying that we have produced it "speedily".
That gives the impression that we did a rush job, which is not the case. I suggest that we remove that sentence.
Okay.
We have identified a number of areas in which we have found deficiencies in the existing legislation with which we have been required to work. Should we signal that we have identified those deficiencies and that we would be prepared to examine the code again?
Could we have something produced for the committee that expands on the bullet points in the draft report? We ought to discuss that at the earliest opportunity.
As soon as we finish today's meeting, I will discuss with the clerk our potential work programme, which I will then bring before the committee.
I would like to make a point about the second bullet point, which says:
We are merely saying that this is an area that we want to examine, without being specific.
My concern is that we have specifically identified areas in which the existing legislation is inadequate or out of date. The report says something weaker than that—that there are issues that we might want to consider. Further to Karen's earlier point, I was wondering whether we could not tighten that up and say more explicitly, "The committee has identified a number of issues that it is going to consider further."
Do you mean rather than just say that we need to consider the following matters?
Yes.
We have not, however, discussed fully some of these issues. I would hate to use a form of words that suggested that we had taken a decision. There is a difference of opinion in the committee on some of these issues. We need to have that debate and I would not want anything to prejudice it.
I am anxious that the form of words that we come up with does not lead the chamber to believe that the debate should happen there and then. We must be careful about that.
Conversely, if we do not say what is proposed we will be asked whether we have considered the issue. We must be very careful about how we phrase it.
We could say something like, "In particular, the committee noted the need to consider the following in greater detail at a future date." I would not want us to say that we were going to do A, B and C, because I do not think that we have had full discussions on many of these issues.
However, we need to say something more than
Des's point was that we should identify clearly those areas of legislation that are deficient. We also want to indicate the issues that the committee would like to investigate or debate further. However, the committee is recommending that this code of conduct go forward to the Parliament for ratification and immediate application.
Very much in the way that the Procedures Committee—
If we say that the legislation is deficient, does that open the code of conduct up to legal challenge? I would be very cautious about putting in words such as "legislation is deficient". We are in the middle of a court case.
We could say that the legislation lacks clarity in these particular areas or that it does not address these issues.
The argument is more about whether further legislation might be required.
We should take legal advice on this issue. We are getting into an area in which none of us have expertise. We might open a can of worms.
We have our own thoughts about what the problems with the members' interests order are. The committee has not worked its way through the deficiencies—if that is the word that we are using—as it considers that they are not apparent yet. Some members of the committee are concerned about using words such as "deficiency in legislation", so I do not think that we should go down that route. We should perhaps leave it as a general point. The paragraph states:
The way forward might be for the clerks to consult the legal team and come back with an appropriate form of words, in a draft that they circulate to us as they did with the report about the lobbygate inquiry.
It could be couched more in terms of development of legislation, rather than suggesting that there are deficiencies in the legislation.
That is a good point.
Yes.
We will circulate the amended text of the report, in the same way as was done with the previous report. Please get back to the clerks with your suggestions and comments. I do not think that there will be a need to have another meeting to go through the code of conduct. If any committee members want to make substantive changes, we will need to have another meeting. I hope that all members find the draft that the clerks circulate to them acceptable. We will include a date by which, if we have not heard from members, we will assume that the draft is acceptable.
I would like to record the committee's thanks to the clerks for the work that they have done on this. It has been a substantial piece of work, which has been done thoroughly and well. All of our little idiosyncrasies have been taken into account, which I am sure has not been easy. I would like to record our thanks.
Yes. That is unanimous. Thank you.
Meeting closed at 11:07.
Previous
Deputy Convener