Official Report 110KB pdf
The committee felt that establishing a register of interests of MSPs' staff was a priority. We have a paper setting out a draft annexe to the code of conduct, containing the provisions on registration, and a draft covering report, to communicate our recommendation to Parliament.
The introduction says that it is the responsibility of the member to ensure that their staff comply not only with the register but with the other aspects of the code of conduct, in particular in relation to leaks—that is an issue that we are very aware of at the moment. It would be a member's responsibility to ensure that their staff did not leak, in any way, any confidential parliamentary document.
That is absolutely correct, and it is also emphasised in the staff contracts. It would be the MSP's responsibility.
As well as people who have a parliamentary pass, does this cover staff or volunteers who do not necessarily have a parliamentary pass and who could be based in a constituency office?
It covers everyone who is employed as a member of staff, whether they are based in your constituency office or in the parliamentary complex. The important phrase here is "as a member of staff". Members should be aware that that is different from the Westminster approach.
It is different, and it is very welcome. People who do not receive remuneration are as able to be influenced as those who do.
This section covers staff who are employed by a single MSP or by a group of MSPs. It may well be that there will be members of staff who are, for example, employed by an MSP and an MP, or by an MSP and an MEP. In those circumstances, would staff have to declare their interests in a variety of different places?
The code makes it clear that if staff are employed by MSPs, even if only part-time, and even if they are also employed by MPs or MEPs, they come within the locus of this code of conduct.
The key thing to remember is that it also refers to staff who may not receive remuneration from an MSP. There are arrangements whereby an MSP may employ a member of staff and an MP another, but the two members of staff work for both the MSP and the MP. They are both working for the MSP for more than 10 days a year and should therefore be registered.
Would it be helpful to expand on that point in the code, to make it clearer?
Yes, it would. All the parties now employ staff who are paid through members' allowances and who are, in effect, employed by members. Does the code cover them as well?
Yes, indeed.
Can we make each of the parties' business managers aware of this section, to ensure that staff who are employed to do research are aware of the need to register?
When we expand this section, it might be clearer if we include that information.
Yes, that can be done.
Does an issue arise over members of staff who are paid using Short money?
This code emphasises that our locus is members of staff of MSPs.
I understand what you are saying, convener. My only concern is that a number of those members of staff work in the Parliament buildings and are, on occasion, party to confidential information relating to committee business. If we are to look at the issue of leaked reports, we should consider that possible source of leaks. It is not covered by any of the codes of conduct at present.
I understand Karen's concerns, but we have to bear in mind the committee's remit; it is specifically on MSPs. We have a code of conduct for MSPs and we are attaching this to it, as a code of conduct for MSPs' staff. It is not within our remit to expand it beyond that.
As the Presiding Officer is keen to develop codes of conduct on various matters, he might want to consider that issue as part of his work on relationships between constituency and list MSPs and between MSPs and MPs. He may wish to consider the relationship between the staff employed in the Parliament on Short money.
I will meet the Presiding Officer to discuss this whole subject, and that is one of the issues that I will raise with him.
I have no points on the introduction, but I would like to raise one point arising from the briefing on agenda item 2. It states:
The advice that I am receiving is that it is not any gift; it is when the gift is related to their work.
If that is the case, I would like that to be made clearer.
The code states
I think that the limit, although it is low, is helpful. If somebody were, for example, taken to a football or rugby match by a professional lobbying company, a limit of £50 would cover those sort of events. I understand Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's concerns about the low figure, but we want to pick up on those sort of things within this register—when MSPs' staff are given hospitality, because they are MSPs' staff, in an attempt to gain access to an MSP.
I suggest that although the figure is low, it should reflect occasions when an individual offers hospitality at a low cost, but does it consistently. It would be helpful to have a cumulative approach in this section.
We will take account of that.
Presumably, within five or 10 years, the committee could alter the figures to take account of inflation.
Yes.
On that basis, I am content.
Are there any other issues on paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 on page 2?
On the issue of other work, are we in order, in relation to human rights legislation, to ask somebody for details of their employment over the past 12 months?
The advice is that we cannot alter people's current contracts of employment, so we cannot demand that that is done for current employees, but it can be part of the conditions of employment when we take new staff on, if Parliament agrees to this.
So that part does not refer to staff who are currently employed by members?
Current staff have employment contracts, and we cannot change those just because of this. This does not apply.
That is not what I am asking about. Existing employment contracts are existing employment contracts. Are we suggesting that any new employment contracts should contain a requirement for staff to comply with the code?
People would be directed to comply.
I suggest that we should recommend to MSPs—and we would need to get the wording right—that all staff should be encouraged to comply, although we cannot compel them to. Is that in the code?
Yes, it is covered in section 6, "Responsibilities in Relation to Registration", which we will get to shortly.
Sorry, convener, can I take you back to 4.11?
Yes, indeed. "Ceasing to be a member of staff".
It says:
We can do, yes.
Everybody else has to be informed—the people in accounts and the pass office, for example. If that is being done, it would be simple to inform the Standards Committee as well.
That is a good point, Karen, and could be incorporated in paragraph 4.11.
A pro forma could be drawn up.
Yes. We will move on to section 6, "Responsibilities in Relation to Registration", which covers points that Karen made. Are there any points on paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4?
You know my concerns about ending up in court, convener. In paragraph 6.2.2, it says:
The lawyers have gone through this. Do not worry, Karen. It goes back to the points that we made earlier.
Does it reflect the changes that were suggested?
Yes.
There will obviously be a paragraph—and I am sure that it is here and I have just missed it—to say that if people are in any doubt they should consult the Standards Committee clerks.
That paragraph was in the earlier paper.
It will be included in the draft form.
I suggest that we have the draft covering report circulated, with the amendments that have been made—which are mainly drafting amendments—and that there is no need for us to meet again to discuss this. The covering report could then come into being as quickly as possible.
That was my intention.
It is just that two dates on which we are to meet to discuss this are shown at the top of the first page. I was suggesting that we do not need another meeting, and that we can trust folk to get it together.
Correct. As long as members are happy with the draft. Are there any more comments on the first page? Are there any comments on the last page? Do you have a comment, Des?
No, I think that it is okay. There is, however, just one issue tugging at the back of my mind. I do not think that this has happened here but I understand that at Westminster particular people have been attached to particular MSPs to work on specific bits of legislation. It is not clear to me whether this register will apply to people in that position. They would not be paid from allowances, but they might get a pass via an MSP.
As I understand it, for employees to be paid from the allowances scheme, they must be—
People paid out of allowances schemes are covered.
The key point is that they are covered if they are working as a member of staff.
As I understand it, there is a part of the draft annexe that mentions
That is correct.
They could be included, if an MSP considers them as employees. They are part of the MSP's team.
I would just like to thank the clerks very much for having put an awful lot of work into this. I am glad that we have been making speedy progress on this matter.
Meeting closed at 11:02.
Previous
Cross-party Groups