Official Report 287KB pdf
We now come to the seventh paper: a letter from Alex Neil asking that we require people who come before committees to declare any interests. That seems reasonable in principle; the question is whether we should have a paper on it. There may be practical difficulties and broader issues of which I am not aware.
By and large, the people who come before committees are there because they have an interest. It is possible that someone could appear in a private capacity while getting an inducement from somewhere else, but normally it is because they have an interest.
That is a key point. As members declare interests before committees, there is no harm in asking people who appear before committees, at the beginning of a meeting, whether they have an interest in the matter that is being discussed. It is possible that people may come as individuals. We have seen that at Westminster, and Alex Neil raises a fair point.
I am not sure of that. My experience has been that committees know the reasons for inviting people to meetings. It would seem strange to go through such a process. On the surface, it seems unnecessary, but I shall be interested in what the paper suggests. We should know whom we are inviting and why we are inviting them, and we should know anything else that we want to know about them before we invite them. The proposal seems a bit of a tail-end-Charlie way of inviting people to submit evidence to a committee.
We are not intended to be considering an urgent report on changing standing orders; the issue is part of the evolution of the Parliament in the longer term. It may be that outside witnesses who have had experience of appearing before committees will assist us in deciding whether the issue has substance. It is important that the matter has been put on the record by a member and that it has been discussed by this committee, which has asked for a paper. It is something that we can consider in the fullness of time, and comparison with other Parliaments might help us to judge it sensibly.
It would be unfortunate if any draconian rules were to discourage people from coming to give evidence. The paper should bear that in mind.
Previous
Conveners