Official Report 133KB pdf
Item 3 is consideration of whether we should have a legacy paper and what it should contain. It is common practice for committees to produce legacy papers, but it is not obligatory. It can be helpful for incoming committees to be aware of work that was being undertaken by previous committees or that the previous committees were unable to do but suggested that future committees undertake. Do members think that there is any need for a legacy paper?
We probably should compile a legacy paper to note what has been done during the session. My caveat to that is that the paper should be as short as possible—it should probably contain bullet points that refer to where people can find out more if they wish to do so. I do not think that we should give the clerks an awful lot of work in the production of reams of paper.
I agree with that, convener.
That is precisely why I asked for the item to be placed on the agenda. I have one other suggestion to make, but Mr Butler is going to have a go first.
I agree that cross-party groups and their workings need to be reconsidered. We might suggest to our successor committee that no cross-party groups should be formed in the final year of a parliamentary session unless there are exceptional circumstances. It takes most, if not all, of a session to play a cross-party group in, although I accept that there will be exceptional circumstances. We should place the issue in our legacy paper at least for discussion by our successor committee.
Are members content with Mr Butler's suggestion that we include, as a bullet point in our recommendation about cross-party groups, the statement that consideration should be given to not allowing cross-party groups to be formed in the final year of a parliamentary session? We cannot bind any incoming committee. I found it odd that we received very few late applications.
I know that we have only just agreed the code of conduct, but it and the members' interests legislation will continue to be tested by events and incidents. Perhaps we should recommend a further review of those matters in the light of experience in the third session.
The paper indicates that that would be appropriate. As members are nodding in agreement, I am happy to include such a recommendation. Do members have any other suggestions for inclusion in the legacy paper?
Paragraphs 16 and 17 in the clerk's paper should be included automatically.
I have a somewhat more controversial suggestion. In the two parliamentary sessions that we will have completed, the standards committees have carried out the substantial work of establishing the procedures for the members' interests order—and, subsequently, the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006—the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 and a major review of the code of conduct. The committee in the next Parliament might not have such a heavy workload. Perhaps the incoming Administration, Parliamentary Bureau and, indeed, Parliament might consider the possibility of having freestanding committees to deal with largely internal matters.
I am not against including such a proposal in the legacy paper, but I believe that the Scotland Act 1998 stipulates that there must be eight standing committees, two of which have to deal with standards and procedures.
You mean mandatory committees.
Yes.
I do not think that that would prevent the bureau from allowing two committees to have exactly the same membership and to meet on alternate fortnights.
I am grateful for your response to my query. I am not against including the suggestion in the legacy paper.
If such a proposal were considered, it might have to be referred to the conveners group and the bureau as well as to the successor committee.
Before you received that advice about the mandatory committees, I had been concerned that such a move might send out the message that standards are not seen as particularly important and can simply be wrapped up with procedures. Indeed, I am still slightly uncomfortable not only about that issue but about the value that might accrue to the work of any committee that took in such a broad range of matters. However, it is fair to raise the point in a legacy paper for debate.
I am grateful that very few cases have come before the committee and feel that that says quite a lot about how well the procedures introduced by the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 have worked. It is always difficult to anticipate the workload that might be associated with such matters. I am certainly not suggesting that we downplay the role of any standards committee; I am simply trying to find ways of making the best and most efficient use of members' time. Members might well have a range of views on the matter, and they should be considered.
It is an interesting idea to include in a legacy paper. After all, the volume of complaints has, thankfully, been fairly low.
I accept the point. I simply wanted to discuss the suggestion, and I am pleased that we have done so. If we include the point in the draft legacy paper, we can make our minds up whether to leave it in at a future meeting. Are members content with that?
I take it, then, that we will have another chance to discuss the legacy paper.
Absolutely. We will discuss it again in two weeks' time.
On that basis, I am very content.
We now move into private for item 4. I ask members of the public and press to leave the room.
Meeting continued in private until 12:00.
Previous
Code of Conduct