Members' Interests
I invite everyone to switch off their mobile phones. I have received apologies from Donald Gorrie. I welcome everyone back after the Easter break and hope that they are all refreshed and ready for the long haul to the summer.
Before we get too far into item 1, I should explain how our work on replacing the members' interests order will proceed. I will be looking for guidance from the clerks in case I do not get the detail absolutely right. In light of one or two press inquiries and misunderstandings about what we are up to, I would rather spell it out.
Under the Scotland Act 1998, there is an obligation on the Scottish Parliament to provide for a register of members' interests. The Standards Committee in the first parliamentary session did a lot of the groundwork on a bill but, for a variety of reasons, that was not taken all the way through the process. At the moment, we are preparing for a replacement to the members' interests order by producing what will eventually become a draft bill. At this stage, we are producing the material that will be used for the consultation.
The Standards Committee will not deal with the detail. Parliament will have to set up a committee to take the bill through the process because it will be a committee bill promoted by a designated member of the Standards Committee. We are now considering the items that ought to go into the committee bill. There is certainly a significant degree of misunderstanding among the public and the press that we are making final decisions on the detail of a bill. That is not the case.
I hope that that preamble will clarify matters, and we can now move to more detail on the replacement to the members' interests order. We have papers before us and, as far as I can see, we have a variety of options.
I also ought to welcome David Cullum from the Scottish Parliament non-Executive bills unit and Mark Richards from the directorate of legal services. They are here to field any technical questions that might be asked.
The two parts of what we have to debate today are set out in papers ST/S2/04/5/1a and ST/S2/04/5/1b. I suggest that we start with ST/S2/04/5/1a. The first choice that is open to us is not to include non-financial interests at all, which would be the end of the matter. The other option is to include non-financial interests, which is what we have already decided to do. However, that is not quite the end of the matter, because we need to make a fairly firm decision on which non-financial interests should be included. Perhaps we could do that by putting the matter out to consultation. Presuming that members are happy to proceed along the lines that I have outlined, I am more than happy to hear their views on the matter.
I think that we should put the matter out to consultation because, although the paper is extremely helpful, we still do not have enough information to make a final decision. I want to satisfy and assure the public by ensuring that MSPs declare enough of an interest to show that there is no conflict between their private interests and what they might promote as MSPs.
On the other hand, we must strike a balance between taking such an approach and having a manageable system. If we go too far, we could end up unacceptably invading the privacy of MSPs and their families, or the system could become so byzantine that it would be unmanageable, which would defeat the very purpose of introducing it.
As a result, I want to hear the views of interested parties, organisations and individuals outwith the Parliament to get a better measure of the matter. We are not in a position to take a final decision one way or the other and consultation should be the order of the day.
I totally endorse Alex Neil's comments. The difficulty is that the process could be overly bureaucratic or cumbersome and, frankly, I am not sure what would be achieved by declaring only some interests. For example, as far as non-pecuniary interests are concerned, there is a clear difference between involvement in semi-secret or private organisations and the membership of a church or voluntary society. Such a list could be unhelpful rather than helpful. That said, although I have my doubts about such declarations and, as an MSP, I can see the downside to that approach, the public might still need more information about the background of various MSPs to find out where they are coming from.
I can see that we need to strike a balance. In any case, we have to make a clear distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. If we came up with a manageable scheme, I would go with it. Apart from anything else, I was persuaded by a point made during a discussion in the previous Standards Committee that we had already stipulated such a requirement for councillors. After all, if we introduce a scheme that requires councillors to declare non-pecuniary interests, we should be consistent. However, I am not yet persuaded that we have formulated a manageable and workable scheme that will benefit anyone as far as sharing information is concerned.
Picking up on the points that Ken Macintosh and Alex Neil have made, I think that we need to seek views on this matter. However, I too would have reservations if, after setting particular standards for local government, we introduced a different system for ourselves. Such an approach might look bad to the general public, who might think that we do not want to have standards that are as open and as transparent as those for local government. I do not think that any member of the committee holds such a view, but we must guard against giving that impression.
It strikes me that all members of the Parliament, irrespective of their party, try to be open and transparent. However, members register some interests but not others and there is no real clarity about what is required. The committee has a duty to identify the framework with which we expect MSPs to comply, so that members of the public can access information that might well have an effect on decisions that MSPs take about the issues that they choose to pursue. We have a responsibility to ensure that the framework is open, transparent and fair and we must take account of the standards that other democratically elected bodies set, so that there is parity and equity.
I do not have a problem with Alex Neil's suggestion, to which Ken Macintosh acceded, that we go out to consultation. We must have a workable scheme.
The principle of using the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 is fine. The previous committee recommended that approach, which offers a good way of proceeding. We must also be mindful, as other members have mentioned, that we cannot be seen to be operating one scheme for ourselves and another for other bodies. That would smack of double standards and the previous committee was mindful that such a perception could be created. We must have a consultation that considers the development of a practicable scheme. I think that we all agree on that principle—I certainly do.
Before we draw the matter to a conclusion, we need to decide whether the contravention of any scheme would be regarded as a criminal or a non-criminal offence. I think that in the past the view was that such a contravention would not be a criminal offence but that it would be subject to the usual range of sanctions that are available. Do members agree with that general approach?
Members indicated agreement.
I take it that the committee accepts Alex Neil's suggestion that we go to consultation and that it is agreed that we contact a range of organisations. The matter might attract considerable interest, so we should approach the appropriate organisations—perhaps the clerks and I can determine which ones. If members are happy—
Could we also issue an open invitation to any organisation that wants to contribute?
Absolutely. It will be open to any organisation, MSP or member of the public to contribute to the consultation exercise when we reach that stage. It might be useful in this case, however, if we were a little more proactive and drew up an appropriate list of folk to contact.
Paper ST/S2/04/5/1b considers the circumstances in which members should be required to make a declaration and whether the requirement should be extended to apply outwith parliamentary proceedings, for example when members write or speak to ministers or deal with constituency cases. Do members have strong feelings about how we should proceed in relation to the recommendations in paragraph 13?
For what it is worth, I think that the recommendations in paragraph 13 are entirely sensible. If we were to oppose the first bullet point, for example, we would be involved in a lot of work that would be impracticable and cumbersome, as the previous committee said. The other two bullet points speak for themselves. The recommendations are fine.
Do members agree with that?
Members indicated agreement.