Official Report 206KB pdf
Item 3 concerns the draft code of conduct. At our previous meeting, the committee agreed to consider again—at this meeting—the draft introduction and key principles of the code of conduct.
That principle, which forms the second clause of that sentence, is repeated in the third paragraph:
Are we taking out the bit that refers to the principle of integrity?
I can just see tomorrow's headlines.
It would read better if the second and third paragraphs were swapped.
Are we agreed that we should do that? We are agreed.
There is more repetition. The first sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction reads:
We could replace the wording on the first page with the first line of the last paragraph of the introduction.
Yes. That would mean that the last paragraph of the introduction referred only to members' responsibility, which makes it clearer.
I am happy with that.
My only other point relates to the third paragraph on the second page. We should insert the word "best" into the paragraph that reads:
I might have raised this last time, but perhaps I imagined it. Does the document have to say that we are drawing heavily on the recommendations of the code of conduct working group of the consultative steering group? Do we want to continue to make references to the CSG and the Nolan committee for ever? We might agree with other bodies' recommendations, but surely the code is ours.
The advice that we were given last time was that the code is an interim document. It will not stand for ever and a day. There will be an opportunity to remove such references when the code is revised.
At this stage, it would be useful to retain the reference to the consultative steering group as, for many people in Scotland, it underpinned what the Parliament was about—consensus, cross-party working and discussion of business with the public. If we took that reference out, at this early stage, it would look a wee bit bad. I know what Tricia is saying, but the consultative steering group set an agenda or standard for the Parliament, and I think that we should keep the reference to it. However, I understand that, in the longer term, we might want to take that reference out.
Let us move on to the key principles of the code of conduct. We removed the words:
We proceed to the paragraph entitled, "Public Duty".
That might require a fairly lengthy discussion. As there are implications for members other than ourselves, I wonder whether it would be worth asking other members of the Parliament for their views. We might get a good cross-section of views. It is quite important whether that paragraph is left in or taken out, and opinion should be sought outside the Standards Committee.
Are there any other views?
My party would be against dropping the oath of allegiance or affirmation. The paragraph stresses the choice of affirmation, so there is religious tolerance. Such a gesture is viewed as an act of loyalty to the country.
The issue is not whether it is an oath of allegiance or an affirmation—we have already discussed that. At the previous meeting, I highlighted the fact that I wondered about its place in the code of conduct; that was the issue. If we are asking MSPs to sign up to this part of the key principles, they should have the opportunity to comment on it before we debate it.
Having read the paragraph, and having spoken to people about it, I understand that it is a statement of fact. It is not a matter for discussion. By taking the oath of allegiance or by making the affirmation, a person becomes a member. If that is something that we do to become members of Parliament, why should it not be in the code of conduct for members?
I shall try to crystallise the argument. The debate is not yet on the substance of the issue, but on whether we deal with it now—and at our previous meeting we agreed to delay dealing with it—or whether, as Tricia suggests, we should delay dealing with it.
Lord James and Karen both highlighted exactly what I was saying. They have discussed the matter with other members, and other members have views. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask all members for their views on the key principles that they will be asked to sign up to.
I have been advised that it is unusual to suggest such a consultation.
The reason that I was asked about that particular section was because it appeared in the newspapers, following our meeting. That is why it became an issue for discussion. Other sections of the code of conduct were not picked up on by the newspapers and did not become issues discussed by other members.
The majority view seems to be that we should consider the matter now.
I tend to agree with Tricia. We certainly have not discussed the matter with SNP members, although it appears that other members of the committee have discussed it within their parties. Neither Tricia nor I have discussed it with our party, so we appear to be at a slight disadvantage.
I can say that the Liberal Democrats have not discussed it.
It has been discussed by individual members who liaised as a result of a press article.
I have not discussed the matter formally with my party, but I know what members' views would be and I hope that I am interpreting those accurately.
I think that we should address the matter now.
I support Karen's view that this is a statement of fact. We have all already done it, and, at one level, we cannot uninvent that. I think that it should stand.
Yes, that is right. We are now in the process of considering the issue and Des is suggesting that we reconsider the wording of the paragraphs. The clerk and I discussed that before the meeting, and we might suggest a change if the committee is willing to examine the wording. How would members feel if we changed it to something like: "Members have a duty to uphold the law and act in accordance with their oath of allegiance and affirmation made in Parliament, and with the public trust placed within them"? That would combine both elements.
My view is that we should leave the second paragraph, because it is a statement of fact. However, if we consider the first paragraph, we could say something along the lines of: "Members have a duty to uphold the law and act in conformity with the requirements of the procedures of the Scottish Parliament. Their primary duty is to act in the interests of the Scottish Parliament as a whole and the public that it serves".
Perhaps we can come back to the first paragraph at the next meeting.
I would like to suggest a different emphasis for the first paragraph. I would prefer the words
The proposal is that the first paragraph should read: "Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act in accordance with the public trust placed in them; and a duty to act in the interests of the Scottish people and their Parliament." Is that acceptable?
Again, I would prefer not to finalise that until we have had a chance to see it on paper.
Remember that we will return to the whole document at the end of the exercise. The proposed text is not set in stone and this is not a final statement. I remind the press and public of that as well. If we changed the first paragraph as Adam suggested, we would keep the second one as it is.
I would prefer to delete the second paragraph, primarily for the reasons that we have already discussed. The first—
We should put it to a vote.
Please let me finish. The first paragraph begins:
Adam is trying to use the code of conduct to establish his view of the constitutional position. Although he may want the code of conduct to operate as he would wish it to, it does not necessarily do that. He is not being entirely in line with something that would operate on behalf of the whole Parliament, but our responsibility is to arrive at a code of conduct that recognises the existing position and is acceptable across the board. We are not having a debate about constitutional structures; we are trying to establish a code of conduct that deals with public duty.
No, I regard—
Hang on a minute.
With the best will in the world, we are not going to reach consensus on this, even if we sit here for the next three weeks and debate whether this paragraph should be included. I understood that we had decided to deal with it now. If necessary, we should have a vote.
I do not wish to push things to votes. My understanding is that the majority view is that the first paragraph should be changed as Adam suggested and the second paragraph should remain the same. Can we move on?
We are not necessarily accepting the words that Adam suggested for the first paragraph. I think that we should look again at the first paragraph, but accept the second paragraph. That gives Adam the opportunity to make his case, if he wants to.
If we are looking at the first paragraph again, we should look at the totality of the key principle. We cannot have one law for the first paragraph and another for the second.
I am trying to ensure that we do not keep going back to items on the agenda. We will review the whole document again once we have amended it. Adam can raise his point again at that stage. We must try to move on. We have a majority view on the second paragraph, and I seek guidance from the committee on the wording of the first paragraph.
As in previous instances when there has been a discussion about particular wording, I suggest that the clerks come back to the next meeting with a slightly revised form of wording for the first paragraph.
My argument with the second paragraph is that I do not think that it has any place in a code of conduct that regulates how MSPs act in carrying out their duties. If a majority of the committee agrees today that the paragraph should remain, I want to flag up my disagreement with that decision.
Tricia, it is your right to do that and your disagreement will be minuted.
I would like to disagree as well. It is a fundamental mistake to include that paragraph in the code of conduct.
We will move on to "Duty to Electors". Please examine the first paragraph at the bottom of the page.
The change that we made to the first line has been picked up. "Duty to Electors" now needs to be changed, as we said that we have a duty to all members of the public in our constituencies—those who are too young to vote and those who are in institutions where they are unable to vote.
Yes, it should read "people" rather than "electors".
Perhaps it should read "duty to the public".
Are you suggesting "duty to the public" or "public duty"?
I suggest that we delete the second sentence and insert a sentence that would read: "Members have a duty to be accessible to the people of the areas for which they have been elected to serve and to represent their interests faithfully". Would that be reasonable?
Are you suggesting that we replace that second sentence?
I suggest that we delete the second sentence and, at the end of the first sentence, add "and to represent their interests faithfully".
Are members happy with that suggestion?
I want to highlight the word "accessible". I would like an explanation of what we mean by it. We are accessible by phone and by letter, but those of us who are list MSPs have one office between three or four of us. Our ability to be accessible is in the hands of the corporate body, rather than in our hands.
Convener, the issue of accessibility covers not only list MSPs, but those MSPs who have large rural constituencies, such as my constituency. I could have quite easily argued for four or five offices, given my constituency's geographical spread. However, that does not mean that I will be any less accessible to the people whom I seek to represent. Accessibility is about making yourself available, by telephone or letter, or by holding public meetings or surgeries. It has a range of implications as different constituencies will have different needs. It is not for this committee to prescribe to members how they make themselves accessible; rather we must ensure that there is an expectation in the code of conduct that members will be accessible.
Is there a better word that would set the concept down more carefully?
The concept of accessibility comes from the CSG; it is one of the founding principles of the Parliament.
Dedication is another.
"Accountable" is a far better word.
May I suggest "conscientiously"?
I think that "accessible" is an important word, as it appears throughout the CSG report. There is a certain expectation that we are accessible.
Should we not just take that out?
Just remove it, and add—
What is that?
It is the paragraph heading, Karen.
"Duty to Electors" was struck off.
I thought that it had been taken out.
We just need to find some other form of words.
I was suggesting that we put that paragraph headed "Duty to Electors" under the previous heading of "Public Duty".
Lord James, did you suggest a different word in the part "and to represent their interests faithfully"?
Something like "conscientiously" instead of "faithfully". If someone is approached by a drug dealer, who has certain requests, they would not want to act for them faithfully.
Shall we delete that last sentence?
That whole sentence? Is that what you are saying?
No. What are we doing?
That is what Adam was suggesting.
I suggest that we delete the whole of the last sentence and replace it with James's additional amendment to the first sentence.
As I understand it, the section would now read: "Members have a duty to be accessible to the people of the areas for which they have been elected to serve, and to represent their interests conscientiously."
Are we happy about that?
So we are actually taking out headings?
Yes, we are taking out the "Duty to Electors" heading and amalgamating the paragraphs.
One of the things that I said at the previous meeting and which, having considered it again, I want to repeat, is that we have ended up taking the Nolan headings, and it is often very difficult to separate what is distinct about selflessness, integrity and honesty. The compartmentalisation is difficult. We may want to take headings out generally and make the code of conduct a non-headed text.
The other option is to have the section headed "Accessibility". I understand what you are saying, Des, but it would be easier to read if it is split up. "Accessibility" would perhaps be a more appropriate heading.
That is a good point. I understand what Des is getting at, looking at a logical, structured approach. It has just been pointed out to me that, if there is a list of half a dozen words that represent what we stand for, such as selflessness, integrity, honesty and openness, that helps the general public. That is the other side of the coin.
Accessibility?
Accessibility as a heading, then, rather than the removal of a heading?
This may be a linguistic issue. We talk about duties on page 4, and then, when we have selflessness, integrity and honesty on the next page, there is nothing about duties. There is perhaps an argument for being consistent: talking about duties right the way through. There could be a sentence such as, "Members have a duty to take decisions solely in terms of the public interest."
So we should include that?
It could be done that way.
It could be worded like that. Have the clerks got that?
I think that there was a dilemma over the second sentence of the openness section. My first reaction was that the second sentence was implicit in the first. My second doubt was about people who are ill: a patient may not want all their circumstances made known. If information is restricted in relation to a patient, one cannot argue that the wider public interest is involved, but certainly the patient's interest is. Is that second sentence necessary?
Will we delete it? That is agreed.
Does the same point apply in the third paragraph? If a member is given information in confidence, they should respect that confidence under almost all circumstances.
On my first reading, I would have been happy that the first sentence was sufficient, but perhaps there needs to be a mention of confidentiality there. The wording in the last paragraph is a little clumsy. Perhaps a tighter form of words could be used on confidentiality for individuals, which does not compromise members, for example, in criminal cases. If somebody tells me that they had committed a murder, I would not be able to keep that confidential, but if they tell me about a personal problem, confidentiality is an issue.
Perhaps we should reinstate James's deletion. The second sentence is a statement that we will do our best not to restrict information. We could leave that in and slightly amend the next paragraph to say: "However, where a member has received information in confidence, or where disclosure of information might breach an individual's privacy, that confidence or privacy will be respected."
This goes back to a point that I made at the previous meeting, that we are discussing two issues. There is constituency casework and there are decisions that I make in the chamber or in this committee. We should perhaps have two sections. I have no problem with justifying how I vote on an issue to anybody. That is my duty. However, how I deal with an individual constituency case is a matter between the individual constituent and me. I am concerned about constituency cases becoming wrapped up in the issue of openness.
There are definitely two themes.
On selflessness, integrity and honesty, the requirement not to take decisions on the basis of financial or material gain is stated. However, some of the local government codes go beyond that and state that you must take all reasonable steps to avoid the inference that you have acted in that way. We should perhaps consider including that.
I think that there is a reference to that somewhere else in the paper, I cannot remember exactly where.
Can we come back to that point?
Yes, we should, to tie that up.
The decision at the last meeting was to move the paragraph under the heading of "Responsibility for Decisions" and to amalgamate it with the section on "Accountability", which now says:
Could not we combine that with the first line from the section on openness? That line is:
Those are different issues.
That is what I mean. That may not be helpful.
There is an issue about decisions in the section on openness. Openness should be about actions and accountability should be about decisions.
Are there any other views on that?
It is suitably open.
We could put the two together as Karen has suggested, but I understand that Des is opposed to that. They are technically different issues, but they would go neatly together. What does Des feel about that?
I am quite relaxed about that. We have based our work on the Nolan procedures, which relate to people in governmental or quasi-governmental posts.
That is one view. We are certainly accountable for the way that we vote.
That is in the best Liberal Democrat tradition, Mike.
How do we proceed?
There is some duplication of sentiments in those two sections. They are two different subjects, but the code of conduct would read much better if they were together.
We will do that, then.
It is not exactly clear what "appropriate scrutiny" means. It might mean an appearance in court in the box for the accused, or an appearance before a tribunal. I am slightly uneasy because it is subject to misinterpretation.
Is it necessary to remove that sentence? Members think not.
If the Parliament is to be open and accountable, then it is implicit that we will be scrutinised.
Is that the case even if we must wait four years for scrutiny?
Yes.
The next heading is "Leadership."
Yes, agreement and consensus.
There is still the last bit about "Guidance on the Code of Conduct" to deal with.
Is the clerking department happy with that section? We have to ask that question as the section puts a lot of responsibility on members of staff.
That is unfortunately part of the job.
I just wanted to clarify that.
The section is acceptable. The code explains that while the clerks are willing and happy to give advice, it remains the members' responsibility to ensure that they comply with the code.
We are approaching the two-hour mark. If everyone is in agreement, I think that this would be an appropriate place to stop.
Can we finish that section at the next meeting? The adjustments appear to be quite minimal. When we come back to the committee, we can deal with the changes and get the section out of the way as soon as we can. Then we can move on. We need to consider only the bits that we have got to change and do not need to go through it all paragraph by paragraph again.
It has just been suggested to me that we set a time limit, but I am not sure that that is appropriate. We just need to have it in our minds that we do not spend an awful lot of time on the matter. We will deal with it quickly at the beginning of the next meeting and move on.
Meeting closed at 11:21.
Previous
Cross-Party Groups