Standards Committee, 15 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999

Official Report 206KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Standards Committee Wednesday 15 September 1999 (Morning)

[The Convener opened the meeting at 09:32]

We will now press on—

Before we start, may I make a point about our agenda?

Certainly.

I note that item 3 on our agenda is a discussion on the draft code of conduct. I also note, convener, that you did an article about lobbying for Holyrood magazine. Given that, and given your statement at the Standards Committee meeting on 1 September, I think that it would be worthwhile if this committee were given the opportunity to debate today the chapter of the code on lobbying. We as a committee, rather than as individuals, would then have a view on it. Now that the matter is in the public domain, it seems to be running away—from this committee in particular. It is only right and proper that we deal with the chapter on lobbying at the earliest opportunity—today—and that the committee has an opportunity to express its view.

At our previous meeting, I suggested that we should look again at the agenda. I think that it was my suggestion to bring the matter forward, but the committee decided to deal with everything in its allotted place—that was before you arrived, Tricia. The views expressed in Holyrood magazine are entirely my own. I made that clear.

I accept that.

I was not speaking on behalf of the committee. I am happy to discuss that point, but I am not sure that we can do so today. I can certainly put it on the agenda for next week. I know that one member is missing at the moment, and it would only be right and proper for us all to come prepared for such a debate. [Interruption.] I have just been informed by the clerk that it is a requirement of standing orders to publish the agenda for a meeting in advance.

But surely it is appropriate, as is the case with every other committee that I have been on, to accept for the agenda something that the committee wishes to discuss.

Do other members have any views on that? [Interruption.] I have now been informed that notice of such a discussion has to be published in the business bulletin.

I think that Tricia's request is reasonable. Lobbying should be discussed. I was quite cross about the agenda for the previous meeting, which contained the item "Statement of Convener" but gave no indication of what the substance of that would be.

We cannot have it both ways. We either need a clear agenda, which says explicitly what the items are and what is to be discussed—that is good committee practice—or we allow more flexible contributions.

I entirely agree. It was unfortunate that I wanted to raise the issue as an agenda item; it was decided that I should present it as a brief statement. The issue was opened for discussion, which had ended by the time Tricia arrived.

The advice that I have received is that such a discussion would have to be an item on the agenda. I am happy to take it at the next available meeting, if that is what members want.

I suggest that we put it on the next agenda, but I would like members to agree that no member of the committee will discuss lobbying outwith the committee until we have had a chance to discuss it.

It is perhaps unfortunate that some of the views aired publicly have appeared to close off some of the debate that needs to be had. We are all going through a learning process, but we should have a relatively early debate on the issue, which is important for the Parliament. If you are saying, convener, that we will have a debate at the next meeting with appropriate information that can be gathered in time, I would be prepared to accept that.

I would be grateful if, when this issue is debated fully, we could have evidence about the countries that have had registration of lobbyists—and those that have not—and about how that has worked. That would be useful because it looks as though we will have to come to a key decision on this matter.

The clerk has advised me that we should, as Lord James suggested, have core witnesses to give us the benefit of their expertise about the registration—or lack of it—of lobbyists. It is important for us to deal with this issue properly and get it right. [Interruption.] It has been suggested to me that, to enable the core witnesses to have the proper evidence for us, it would be best to have the discussion at the first meeting after the October recess—the next meeting but one.

Frankly, I am not happy about that, convener. The matter is in the public domain—you put it there with your article in Holyrood magazine. It seems unfair that we do not have an earlier opportunity for at least an initial discussion. I accept that it is right and proper for us to take evidence before coming to a final conclusion, but I really think that the committee should have an earlier opportunity at least to discuss the issue. I am still pushing for a debate on lobbying to be on the agenda for the next meeting. We can become better informed in the future, but we need to have the initial debate.

I will try to be helpful on this matter. Registration is not the only factor. A preliminary discussion about which issues we feel are appropriate to raise might be a useful starting point to this exercise. We could have that at the next meeting and then set a timetable for taking things forward.

I think that that is an excellent suggestion.

I reiterate that the article in Holyrood magazine is one of several that I have been pressed on since we started up in May. The issue of lobbying has not entered the public domain because of the article in Holyrood magazine. I have been asked to respond to a number of media inquiries and have made it absolutely plain that I am speaking entirely in a personal capacity. I was asked for my views—that is what I gave. On each occasion, I said that the matter in question had not been discussed at the Standards Committee. It is my view that that did not close off any options. I also believe that it would be valuable to have the debate as suggested by Tricia and Des—that is the way forward.

May I raise two other procedural points about the meeting before we proceed to the full agenda? First, I want the minutes of the previous meeting to be an agenda item to find out whether any issues about accuracy need to be raised.

That is not parliamentary practice. The minute is an informal document for members' information only and is not published. However, if a member has concerns about accuracy, he or she is most welcome to inform the clerks outside the meeting.

If there is an issue about the accuracy of the minutes, will there be an opportunity to raise the point at the start of each meeting?

I am not sure that that can be put on the agenda.

The proceedings are published in the Official Report, of course.

Yes, there are two accounts of a committee's proceedings: the Official Report and the copy of the minutes that goes to each committee member.

Because of the quasi-legal nature of some of this committee's business, it is important for the minutes to be accurate. We need to establish a procedure so that the committee can resolve disputes where members disagree with the given account of a meeting. It might be better to deal with the matter before it becomes inflamed.

May I take detailed advice on that point? I will get back to you.

My second procedural point is that, after the previous meeting, information about a draft code of conduct was circulated to me and other committee members with a Friday deadline for comments. I received the draft code on Wednesday afternoon, which is when parliament meets. As Thursday is also a parliamentary meeting day and as Friday was taken up with constituency engagements, it was not possible to deal with that business. May we have a slightly more reasonable time scale for making responses in future?

Yes.