Item 3 is our forward work programme. There are all sorts of things that we could do and some things that we must do. There may well be other issues to which members have given some thought, which have not been included in the proposals that are before us. The non-Executive bills unit will be available to discuss and provide a briefing to the committee on the draft members' interests bill, which was carried forward from the previous session of Parliament. NEBU will be available to talk to us about that in January. The researchers who undertook work on the cross-party groups will also be available to brief the committee in January.
Once we have gone through the particulars of the paper, can we also have a discussion on our relationship with the commissioner? I have been a member of the committee for six months but, if the commissioner walked in the door, I would not recognise him, let alone know about his work load. I know that we cannot ask for the details of individual cases; however, I notice that the commissioner sought and obtained permission from the corporate body to bring in additional lawyers and legal advice. The Standards Committee should be consulted on such issues before they go to the corporate body, because if the work load is so big that we have to recruit more lawyers and all the rest of it, clearly there will be implications for the committee as well.
Your last point is helpful. The commissioner has offered to meet us on 13 January. You will note that a number of meetings have already been scheduled. I agree that it would be sensible to have an agenda on the commissioner's staffing and approach to discuss with him. I expect that we would do that on an informal basis at the conclusion of the meeting on 13 January, perhaps—I am looking in particular to the Labour members—over lunch, but I know that that might present some members with some problems. Some of us could get up a little bit earlier on that day and have the meeting a little bit earlier to accommodate. Committee members can discuss that and let me know how they feel before we set the time for the meeting.
Do you wish at this stage to discuss the content of the meeting, or merely how we should progress with it?
Both. We need to have some early items on the work programme, and we need to decide which items have priority. We may also wish to dispose of some items. We are not bound by what the previous committee decided, unless it is a matter of the law. For example, the previous committee examined lobbying, and did not take it any further. We have the choice of whether we wish to take it further—we may decide to do so, or we may decide, given sufficient time to consider the matter, that we do not wish to pursue it this year. We want that kind of steer.
We should certainly have a briefing on the proposed bill to replace the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1998. I agree with many of the proposals, but not with some of them. That briefing should be held in public. I see no reason why it should be held in private.
It is not legislation that is required, but a recommendation from us to the Procedures Committee, I think.
No. Changes to the code of conduct would be required, which it would be for this committee to bring forward.
Okay.
We should progress with that.
I suggest that we deal with that urgently. I concur with Donald Gorrie on the members' interests order. The Parliament was charged by Westminster to bring forward its own members' interests order. It did not do so in the first session of Parliament. If we are not careful, we may miss a window of opportunity with the non-Executive bills unit. Both those items should be dealt with.
I agree with Donald Gorrie on the three issues in the paper that are most urgent. For some time, there have been issues surrounding cross-party groups, such as how they work and whether there is duplication. In this session of Parliament the groups' conveners have attempted to streamline their work where there has been a crossover, but I think that the Parliament is looking to the committee for guidance on the matter. We have a responsibility to finish the work that the previous committee started and to make any necessary changes to the code of conduct.
Are you talking about a bill that would introduce a registration scheme for lobbyists?
No, I mean the proposed bill on the members' interests order. We need to do something about that now, as it could take up to two years for such a bill to go through all its stages, even though its intent would be quite simple: it would review and clarify the obligations that are placed on members, to ensure that the system works effectively.
Am I right in thinking that the four issues that you suggest that we consider are the replacement of the members' interests order; lobbying; and two issues around the cross-party groups—membership, and the general point about the need for more research?
Yes.
I agree with the members who have commented on the recommendation about our three priority concerns.
I think that there is a tendency for some committees to bite off more than they can chew. None of the issues that have been highlighted is so urgent or of such importance that we need to move on it in January or February. We should address those matters timeously, but we should not overload the committee, as there will need to be a fair bit of briefing, research and consideration on many of the issues before we reach a point at which we can make a decision.
I agree broadly with Alex Neil's points. There is no rush. During the first six months, we were conscious that we were not making much progress on standards business, but if we consider the issues involved, none of them is so urgent that we must drop everything to concentrate on it.
Monthly meetings are a great idea.
Absolutely. The primary duty of the Standards Committee is to deal with any complaints that arise as timeously as possible and that will always be the case.
On housekeeping, I want to highlight the internal complaints process that is mentioned mainly on page 8 of the paper. I find it pretty bizarre that, if we dislike what a convener is doing and complain about it, the convener deals with that complaint. I am sure that that will not occur in this committee; however, it might well happen in other less regulated and less well-run committees. As a result, we should perhaps have some neutral court of appeal, which could be this committee or some other group. The issue is worth considering and will not involve a great deal of legislation. Presumably, we can simply rewrite our own rules.
I seek guidance on that issue.
Donald Gorrie is right. We could simply change the code of conduct.
As far as I can gather, members feel that the members' interests order should be progressed, although some have suggested that we need to be careful about getting too tied up in internal affairs. However, a duty was placed on us when the Parliament was set up to examine that issue. Do members agree that the members' interests order is a higher priority than the issue of lobbying?
I must admit that I share some of the concerns about focusing too much on lobbying. After all, it was quite a controversial issue in the previous parliamentary session and there is no universal view on it. Perhaps we should put to one side the issue of taking a legislative approach to the matter.
After reading the papers, I felt that we should deal with that matter urgently, but I am quite happy to go along with the committee.
The reality is that most of the cross-party groups, particularly the newer ones and the groups that have merged, have not yet bedded down. After all, they did not really get up and running until after the summer recess. As a result, we should not carry out a review of how the groups are functioning too early on because we have to give them time to bed down and to work out any problems that they might have. We want any review to have some value. In other words, many of the problems that might be highlighted in a review that we might carry out early in the new year might simply be teething troubles experienced by the new or merged groups settling down. There has been an attempt to streamline some groups and we have to give them time to function in this parliamentary session before we evaluate how well the system is working.
My concern was about whether the interim arrangements were satisfactory. The rest of the committee thinks that they are.
Although I feel that they are working, given anecdotal evidence, I was looking forward to hearing the results of the research so that we could take a decision.
We will have those results, so we will be able to decide where we go.
I am in no rush to deal with any of the issues, but I would prioritise the cross-party groups above the members' interests order.
Is that agreed?
There are a number of other issues to consider, but it is up to members whether we pursue them at this stage or later.
I suggest that you and the clerks use your discretion to find time. All the issues are important and worthy of our attention, but none is absolutely pressing. It is a case of finding the most suitable slot to make progress on them all. I notice that some depend on work being done elsewhere.
If the committee wants to pursue your suggestion, we could commission papers on the issues. When we have a bit more background on them we can make a more informed decision about whether we wish to make more progress on them and what should take priority. There appears to be general acceptance of that. No one mentioned the opportunity for an away day. There seems to be no desire for one.
The tradition of not having one should be pursued with a vengeance.
That is a fairly clear view, which the committee appears to share. I have absolutely no problem with that.
Briefings in public, as and when they are necessary, are fine.
I accept the point that Bill Butler and Donald Gorrie made that as many of the committee's activities as possible should take place in public. I seek guidance as to whether we should work on a monthly cycle or a fortnightly cycle, putting to one side urgent cases, which we will deal with as soon as possible.
Why do we not go with the three suggested dates—two in January and one in February—and see whether we are overloaded or whether we can get by with monthly meetings?
I will not be here on 27 January, so I suggest that we do not hold a meeting that day. If we do, Kenneth Macintosh will convene it. Business is pencilled in for 13 January, including an informal meeting with the standards commissioner. I am happy to be guided by the committee on that.
In principle, I prefer scheduling meetings that are cancelled subsequently. I would like us to go for the fortnightly system, because we would not then book in anything else. It is always good news when the clerk says that there is not enough business and the meeting is cancelled.
Is that view shared by the rest of the committee?
It depends how much notice we are given that a meeting is going to be cancelled. If someone arranges to be in Edinburgh on a given day and then finds out at short notice that they do not have to be there, it is difficult for them to rearrange their diary.
I would prefer to have a monthly meeting that lasts three hours rather than have two monthly meetings that last two hours—they always end up lasting two hours, because when people meet they talk.
Not you, Alex.
Bill Butler's suggestion is good. Why do not we run with having three meetings over the next two months—whatever dates have to be settled on—and see where we go from there? If we have the work load to justify more meetings, we can have them. If we do not, a three or four-weekly cycle would make more sense.
If the convener cannot make the meeting on 27 January, I see no need for us to meet then. We should start off with a monthly cycle and meet on 13 January and 10 February and take it from there. If we have a meeting on 27 January without the convener, that implies that there is pressing business for us to address, but there is not. We should start as we mean to go on.
I suggest that if pressing business arises we have a meeting on 27 January; I am happy to leave that to the discretion of the deputy convener. I will be away from 22 January to 2 February.
Would it make sense to schedule a meeting for the beginning of March, given that in April we will be into the Easter recess? We could review our work load at the March meeting to see whether we need to meet more regularly.
We will hold the third meeting on the first Tuesday in March, if that is agreeable. If cases arise that need to be disposed of, the convener, the deputy convener and the clerks will discuss whether a meeting is required.
I have a point about the timing of the first meeting, when we will meet the standards commissioner. The other Labour members and I would find it difficult if the meeting were to be extended through lunch time. An earlier start would make it easier for us, if that is acceptable.
Will you leave that to the three of us—the convener, the deputy convener and the clerk—to deal with?
Certainly.
I am happy to accommodate members. We will also have to discuss the timing with the commissioner.
In the meantime, could we get a briefing from the clerks on what we can find out about the commissioner's work load? I do not seek information on individual cases at stage 1 of the complaints procedure. However, I think that it would be reasonable for the committee to get an up-to-date report on how many cases the commissioner is dealing with at stage 1, stage 2 and so on. That would give us an indication of his work load and a feeling for what is happening.
I do not think that that is the case.
Perhaps that is not the case, but nevertheless I think that we should be consulted on those matters. The committee should not be bypassed. I would like a briefing on that.
Do members agree that such information would be helpful in advance of our meeting with the commissioner? It may well be that some of those issues will be addressed at the meeting; we might not be able to get all the answers before then, although I am sure that the clerks will do their level best to get the information. If members have specific questions for the standards commissioner or if there are specific issues that they would like to discuss with him, it would be a good idea to flag them up for the clerks in advance. The issues can then be flagged up to the commissioner so that he will be prepared and the meeting will be more useful.
Although this is not the commissioner's annual report—I believe that he will report annually—the more information that we can get that is not individualised, the better. For example, I would like information about the sort of complaints that are made, classified by the amount of time he has taken to deal with them and by their nature, without going into individual circumstances. We can address some of those matters in our meeting with him. I am trying to get a picture: we are talking about the period immediately after the election and there might be something specific about the post-election period that creates a flurry of interest.
You are talking about getting a feeling for the quantity and nature of the complaints.
Exactly.
If we could have an idea of the percentage of complaints that convert from stage 1 to stage 2, that would be a good indicator—by proxy—of our likely forward work programme. I remember David Steel saying that the most unpleasant aspect of the Presiding Officer's job was dealing with nitpicking complaints between members, and not just those between first-past-the-post and list members. If a lot of the commissioner's work is dealing with childish stuff, those complaints should be nipped in the bud before they get to the commissioner, and if that is happening over a period of time, we should be prepared to consider that and do something about it.
Perhaps the commissioner's work load could be considered in terms of annex 5 of the code of conduct, which deals with the relationship between constituency and regional MSPs. There were some specific issues around that relationship and I would be interested to hear whether the present Presiding Officer is finding that his work load is affected by having to deal with such issues, as well as how the previous Presiding Officer felt about the situation and whether he wants to recommend any changes. I suspect that although many of the complaints are interesting to the members concerned, the public would think that they were very childish.