Official Report 124KB pdf
Do members have any comments on the draft forward work programme? It is fairly full.
I wonder whether we could refer our decision on our discussion with Keith Raffan—the private session issue—to Murray Tosh at the Procedures Committee, as part of the consultative steering group inquiry, at least for information. Would that be worth while?
That is okay, Frank—just you jump around the agenda.
I have just woken up.
Feel free to provide input whenever you want to. Your comments have been noted and I am sure that the clerks will draw the matter to the attention of the Procedures Committee.
I was fully aware that I was moving to a subject that did not relate to the two pages that we are discussing, but I thought that you would give me that flexibility, for which I am grateful.
Can we discuss the forward work programme?
Yes.
The forward work programme is full. Would anyone like to comment?
The work programme is full enough.
I have no doubt that various amendments to the code of conduct for members will be made in due course, arising from the recommendations of the Procedures Committee and possibly other committees. I do not think that we need to add that to the programme now, but it will happen later.
Cross-party groups produce annual reports. Where are those reports collected?
We collect them.
So we could have a summary of them. I have never seen one.
We could circulate the annual reports.
It would be enough to know who had submitted a report. That would be interesting.
The clerks will provide that information.
That might help us in dealing with the number of cross-party groups.
Paragraph 5 of the forward work programme refers to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. We agreed that we would introduce a committee bill to revise the members' interests order. I remain concerned that the committee bill might not be enacted before 2003, because I feel strongly that changes to the members' interests order should be in place before the next intake of MSPs arrives. Otherwise, we will lose the work that we have undertaken. It is imperative that the new members' interests order is in place, so that people know from day one what they can and cannot do. It would be wrong for us to change the order about six months after May 2003. I would like a tighter time scale on the review of the members' interests order.
The present order is strongly in place. The timetable depends on the evidence taking. Past attempts to hurry the committee's work have not always succeeded.
That is why we need a time scale for action, to ensure that our bill has the best chance of being adopted before 2003. Perhaps the clerks could come back to us on that.
Meeting continued in private until 10:26.
Previous
Complaints (Disclosure)