Standards Committee, 21 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2000

Official Report 132KB pdf

---

Members' Interests Order

Our second agenda item is a draft consultation paper on the members' interests order. At our previous meeting, we agreed to consult members on their experience of the order before setting out to replace it with an act of the Scottish Parliament. Before we consider the draft paper in detail, I seek the committee's views on whether members should be invited to submit their responses anonymously, as envisaged in the draft paper. That would encourage members to be frank in describing their experiences of the order. However, it would prevent the clerks from identifying which members have not responded and from following up any issues with individual MSPs. I would like committee members to comment on whether we should expect anonymous responses to the consultation paper or named responses.

We could do both. We can ask MSPs to put their names to their responses if they want to do so. If they do not want to do that, they should not have to. We should give them the option: it should not be an either/or situation. We should encourage MSPs to put their names to their responses, for the reasons outlined, but if they have a specific issue that they want to bring to our attention and do not want to be identified, we must respect that.

Is that the feeling of the committee?

It is inconceivable that an MSP would not want to identify himself if he is putting forward a legitimate point. A constituent might want to raise an issue, which he might want to be dealt with anonymously, but I would have thought that an MSP would not need that protection.

Shall we agree to Tricia Marwick's suggestion to accept anonymous returns but to encourage members to identify themselves?

Members indicated agreement.

Let us go through the draft consultation paper page by page. I ask members to look at paragraphs 1 to 6 on the first full page of the document. Do members have any comments on them?

In the context of what we have just agreed, paragraph 6 will have to be amended.

It will be changed.

Paragraph 7 deals with paid advocacy. Does anyone have any views on the questions that the paper raises?

It would be helpful if people lodging members' bills knew exactly what they could and could not do. On occasion, charities or voluntary organisations might want a member to lodge a bill to clarify the law. Having a clear guide might be of assistance.

What you are referring to is covered in paragraph 10, which deals with complaints against a member who has lodged such a bill and the subsequent inquiry.

Okay.

So far, members' bills have not worried me too much. Most of them have been clear cut and the travail of Mike Watson's bill has now been resolved. On one or two occasions, however, I have been slightly uneasy about the subject of members' business debates, because I have felt that the subject might be tied up with a member's interest. Some of those subjects have been debated and some have not but none of them has crossed the boundary into unacceptability. We might want to raise that issue as well. The problem lies not with the ability to legislate—there is no vote at the end of a members' business debate—but with the fact that such debates raise the profile of an issue.

That is a good point.

A danger of issuing a questionnaire of this type is that people might go through it too quickly and not spend enough time thinking through the issues in depth. We might want to ensure that some of the dilemmas to which the questions relate are properly flagged up. We have gone a long way towards doing so. Paragraph 2 contains the sentence:

"The Committee is keen to ensure that the replacement legislation promotes the highest standards of probity in the Parliament without unduly hindering MSPs in carrying out their Parliamentary duties."

Could we amplify that and put it in bold? The questionnaire must be focused on the need to find the correct balance between high standards of probity and ensuring that MSPs can do effectively what they were elected to do. We must toughen up that aspect.

Obviously, we would not send the questionnaire out on its own. It would be accompanied by a covering letter.

I have a question on paragraph 5, which suggests that members send their responses to the clerk to the Standards Committee by a date in January that is not yet specified. Do members have any opinions on when we should expect responses?

If we set a date at the end of January, we would have an opportunity to send members a reminder close to the end of December. Many members will want to consider the questionnaire closely before they respond. I do not know whether, even after the Parliament has been up and running for a year, many members are aware of what the current members' interests order says. Perhaps we could attach it to the questionnaire so that it can inform their replies.

That is a good idea.

As well as sending the questionnaire to MSPs, we should inform the business managers directly of the fact that it has been sent out. The business managers could encourage members to respond to the questionnaire through their party groups. The more responses that we get from MSPs throughout the groups, the better the new members' interests order will be. More responses would mean that the new order would meet MSPs' needs in a way that the current members' interests order does not.

Thank you, Tricia. That was a good point.

Patricia Ferguson and I were wondering whether it might be appropriate to hold a seminar or discussion session for members.

Yes, that is a good idea and a sensible suggestion. A seminar would be helpful to members. We will look into that and come up with a date.

We will move on to the section headed "Registration and Declaration of Members' Interests", which covers paragraph 11 onwards. I will ask for comments as we go through each paragraph.

On remuneration, which comes under existing categories of registrable interests, there are two simple questions:

"Have you encountered any problems with the requirements on remuneration? Please give details."

and

"Should salaries and other remuneration received from Westminster or the European Parliament continue to be a registrable interest?"

If we are happy with that, we will move on to the question of gifts, which may exercise members of the committee. The first question is:

"Do you think that the current requirements on gifts are appropriate?"

Convener, you know my view on the £250 limit on gifts from spouses.

I was waiting for you to come in, Tricia.

Not that I have been so lucky as to receive such a gift, which is why I have not registered one.

I would be interested to hear the views of other MSPs before we reach a conclusion on this issue. I would be surprised if their views on gifts from relatives, friends and spouses differ from mine or from those of Karen Gillon. We must ask MSPs that question. I look forward to receiving their responses.

I would like to draw members' attention to the third bullet point under paragraph 12, where we ask:

"Should the threshold be expressed as a percentage of the current Parliamentary salary?"

We should indicate what 1 per cent, or 0.5 per cent, of the salary is.

Are there other points on gifts?

It is unreasonable that gifts from spouses should be registered. Why should it be registrable if a working spouse gives a car to his wife or, for that matter, to her husband?

The present procedure requires that to be registered.

I will move on to paragraph 13, on sponsorship.

I want to raise an issue under sponsorship, although it may have a more general application. The second bullet point under this heading asks members to give reasons for their response. What we want is not so much an opinion poll, with 40 MSPs saying one thing and 30 MSPs saying another, but to get at the underlying arguments. In a sense, we should ask, in bold, members to give reasons for their responses right the way through the consultation paper. The reasons are crucial to the process.

That is a good point, which we will emphasise in the covering letter that will accompany the consultation paper. That is the exact point that we are trying to tease out from members.

Are there any comments on paragraph 14, on election expenses? As we go through these points, I will take it as read that members are satisfied, unless someone stops me.

Do members have any comments on the question on interests and shares?

Dates can be quite significant as far as interests and shares are concerned. The market value of shares can fluctuate at different times, even daily, almost like George W Bush's votes.

Or indeed Al Gore's.

I just wonder whether there should be a question on the dates of interests and shares; otherwise the matter could become repressive.

The only date that could be used is the date of register. It would be somewhat impractical to do things any other way. The clerk advises me that the situation could be reviewed.

I wonder how practical a question on dates would be. The paragraph in the questionnaire explains that, as the market can be volatile, there could be a very wide difference between the value of the shares when they are registered and the date of the annual review. I am not sure of the relevance of such information in that context.

That is a very good point. Speaking as a layman, I think that members can only declare the market value of the shares on the date that they register them. Do members think that that should be reviewed?

An annual review would be a straightforward matter. As I said, the value of shares can go up and down every year.

We could have a question on whether there should be such a review.

I wonder whether we need to review that aspect. Perhaps we should just keep the existing requirement, which is to declare the nominal value of the shareholding.

The existing requirement makes for simplicity and is readily understood. We get into problems when we ask questions about the market value of shares, as that changes.

We should bear in mind the fact that we are not trying to reach a solution; we are simply asking the question and leaving the matter open for members to come back to us. We could include a question about whether the matter should be reviewed. We will take advice on that point, if members are happy for us to do so.

Paragraph 16 concerns heritable property and asks members whether they are content with the present arrangements or have any suggestions for adjustments. Do members have any comments?

No.

Paragraph 17 deals with overseas visits and asks:

"Do you think that overseas visits in connection with work as an elected Member of Westminster or the European Parliament should be registrable interests?

Do you think that visits where the Member is representing the Parliament should be registered?

Should visits paid for by another Government be registrable?"

We must also include a category of visits that have been paid for by other organisations.

I agree. It is not enough to ask about visits that are paid for by other Governments. For example, organisations such as the Organisation for Co-operation and Security in Europe might invite parliamentarians on overseas visits.

We must also be careful about drawing too wide a distinction, because visits that are paid for by organisations could be construed as gifts.

The general phrase "non-governmental organisations" would encompass those organisations.

We will add that to the paper.

I am not sure that I agree with Des McNulty that the phrase "non-governmental organisations" covers every organisation that is not a Government organisation. People have an understanding of what a non-governmental agency is. That does not cover every organisation that might invite MSPs to go on a visit.

Is it not the case that the overseas visits representing the Parliament are quite different from other overseas visits? We must be careful about what we are asking here.

We are talking about visits paid for by a source other than the member or their spouse.

My understanding of the current arrangements is that members have to register visits overseas other than those that have been authorised explicitly by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The current arrangements take account of these different aspects.

It would be useful if, under "Overseas Visits" in paragraph 17, we specified what categories of visits are currently to be registered. We can then ask about categories of visits that could be exempted from registration. Before we make that leap, people need to know what is currently registrable.

The second question under paragraph 17 asks:

"Do you think that visits where the Member is representing the Parliament should be registered?"

I think that I am right in saying that, technically, only the Presiding Officer and his deputies can represent the Parliament. Other members can go on trips and attend events as members of a parliamentary delegation. We do not want to get caught up in a wrangle about that.

Clearly, we need to state what is registrable at the moment and to give members options as to what they think should be exempted from registration.

I understand that at Westminster the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is exempted. However, foreign Governments are very much included.

We need a list of options, so that members can indicate what they think should be exempted from registration.

If we decide to keep the second box, we should extend the question. We could ask, "Do you think that visits where the member is representing the Parliament or is a member of a parliamentary delegation should be registered?" That would cover Patricia Ferguson's point. It would be up to members to indicate whether they thought that such visits should or should not be registered.

As I understand it, if a member is invited to go on an overseas trip, they can apply to the SPCB for that trip to be approved. They do not need to register the visit if approval is given. I do not know if that ties in what Tricia Marwick just said. We are getting confused about this item. As Tricia said, the rule governing approval for overseas trips needs to be spelled out.

That is helpful. We need to clarify the situation, indicating what members have to and do not have to declare. We can then set out the options.

We could simply ask whether there are any other categories that should be registered.

We could do it that way and leave it up to members to make suggestions.

Let us move on to new categories of registrable interests. Paragraph 19 is on non-pecuniary interests and invites us to consider the consultative steering group's recommendation that members should be required to register non-pecuniary interests. It goes on to say:

"Currently, some Members choose to register such interests on a voluntary basis in the ‘Miscellaneous' category of the Register."

Many members have chosen to do that. The paragraph continues:

"If the Code of Conduct were to be amended to require registration of non-pecuniary interests, it might be considered appropriate that contravention of this requirement should not attract criminal sanction."

There are two questions:

"Do you think that the requirements on the registration and declaration of interests should be extended to include non-pecuniary interests? Please give reasons for your answer."

and

"Should the current approach where Members register non-pecuniary interests on a voluntary basis in the Miscellaneous category be continued?"

Should we have a miscellaneous category anyway?

Does that question relate to matters masonic?

Gosh. I never thought of that.

Is everyone content with those questions?

Yes.

Paragraph 20 relates to spouses, cohabitees and close family members. The CSG recommended the registration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests of spouses, partners and close family members in almost all cases. However, that recommendation was qualified by a proposal that the failure to register such interests should not be a criminal offence. The CSG also highlighted some problems that might occur. Paragraph 20 makes the important point that

"extending the Order in this way would also increase the complexity of the Register and encroach on the privacy of family members. Moreover, the rare cases which might be of legitimate public interest could be masked by the sheer volume of entries."

Are there any comments on those questions?

It would be unreasonable for the register to be involved in marital breakdown. Perhaps members at Westminster have a worse record than do members of the Scottish Parliament but, even so, the register should not get dragged into it.

It is not what we think of the topic that is important, but whether we are asking appropriate questions.

It is appropriate to ask such questions of MSPs in order to hear their views. I do not want to anticipate those views. We must test how MSPs feel about certain issues, so it is right to ask such questions.

Let us move on to pensions. Paragraph 21 says:

"The current Order does not require Members to register or declare the receipt of pensions, although some MSPs choose to do so voluntarily under the miscellaneous category."

That is what I do. The question is:

"Do you think that Members should be required to register or declare the receipt of pensions?"

I know that I do not look like a pensioner. That is a pecuniary interest and is specifically excluded in the order. Do members think that that question is appropriate?

Yes.

Paragraph 22 is on the provision of services by members. It reads:

"The CSG Working Group recommended that Members who had entered into agreements which involved the provision of services in their capacity as MSPs, such as a regular newspaper column, should be required to ensure that any such agreement is in written form and a full copy is deposited with the keeper of the Register of Interests. This recommendation has not been implemented to date."

We are asking whether members agree or disagree with that and to give reasons for their answer. Is that acceptable?

Yes.

Paragraphs 23 and 24 are on ceased or future interests. The question is:

"Do you think that MSPs should be required to declare registrable interests which have ceased in the previous 12 months?"

Paragraph 25 asks the general questions:

"Are the existing provisions relating to Members' interests clear?"—

I have my own views on that—and

"Do you find the provisions of the MIO and Code helpful?"

I am sure that we will get comments on that. There are a couple of points on other issues, which allow people to comment on anything they wish.

We should ask specific questions on two subjects. One is, "When did you last check your own members' interests declaration? Was it in the last three months, six months or nine months? When did you last change it?" We should also ask whether people feel that the registration of interests should be simplified wherever possible. Do they have any suggestions on how the process might be simplified? That would be useful.

Are there any other comments?

We will circulate the changes by correspondence, rather than addressing them at the next committee meeting.

Mention was made earlier of this not being an opinion poll, which sparked something else in my mind. If we were to get lots of responses on one particular issue, which we thought were not as well informed as they might be, would we be bound to take on board the majority view? We would have to be clear in the paper that this is consultation.

Yes. The covering letter must make it clear that we are preparing for new legislation and that this is our consultation exercise, much in the same vein as a member, committee or the Executive might undertake consultation in producing a bill.

We also need to read through the questions, or perhaps ask the clerk to do so, to ensure that none of the questions ask simply for a tick-box answer. We are not looking for such answers; we are looking for reasoned responses from people.

You made the important point that it is the reasoning behind the responses that we are after, which will inform our opinions when we come to consider the legislation.