Official Report 463KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is consideration of the rules on lobbying and access to MSPs. During the lobbying inquiry, the committee agreed to review the terms of section 5 of the code of conduct; it later agreed to consider the proposals that were put forward by Jim Murphy relating to consultancy roles and directorships as part of that review, and there was a brief reference to that in our debate in the chamber yesterday.
In order to initiate this work, I think that it would be useful to get the committee’s initial views on the issue, and I therefore propose that we work our way through the paper before us. Members have the opportunity to contribute in any way they feel appropriate.
The paper contains a number of questions relating to section 5 of the code, and I will go straight to them and invite comments from members. The first, which can be found in the fourth paragraph of page 1, is
“Do members want to apply Section 5 to in-house and commercial lobbyists wherever possible?”
Does the committee have a view on that? Indeed, do members want to move away from the term “lobbyist”? In our deliberations so far, we have focused on the activity rather than on the job title or on the perceived role that people have.
I think that it would be confusing to change the word “lobbyist”. The public know what that is, and the public know what they do—by and large, anyway. We certainly know what we are talking about when we discuss lobbyists and their role. If we changed that, we might do something that we never want to do: confuse the public, or make the public think that we are trying to hide something. A lobbyist is a lobbyist, and I think that we should stick with that.
I totally agree. I think that, as a term, “policy advocates” are just fodder words. We all understand what a lobbyist is. Even if it has bad connotations in some circumstances, I think that we should keep the term “lobbyist”.
I think that we are quite clear on that.
Moving to the subject of activities undertaken by members—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon. Before that, we should consider whether the tone and content of volumes 2 and 3 on lobbying reflect the nature of our experiences with lobbyists. Should we change the tone to reflect the current lobbying landscape?
I am sorry, convener, but had we decided on our position on in-house lobbyists?
I simply noted what was being said. I am happy to continue that discussion.
I thought that the question that was answered related to whether we wanted to continue to use the word “lobbyist”. I presume that, by “in-house lobbyist”, we are referring to organisations that happen to have a function that could be seen as lobbying rather than to people who are commercial lobbyists. I wonder whether, instead of talking only about “commercial lobbyists”, we should take out the word “commercial” in section 5.1.4. It is important that anyone who lobbies, for whatever motivation, is covered. Rather than making it a big thing, I would just take out the word “commercial”.
Is everybody okay with that? I certainly am.
Members indicated agreement.
Good—that is fine.
Returning to page 2 of our paper, does anybody want to address the question about tone and content? We do not have to do so—the questions are merely what they are.
As members have no comments, I will move on to activities undertaken by members and the Presiding Officer’s referral to us of Mr Murphy’s letter, which relates to consultancy and directors. Do you wish to say anything on that, Patricia?
I think that my position is quite clear on that one, convener.
If no one else wishes to comment, I should say—not as convener but as a member of the committee—that I have difficulties with the use of descriptive terms. I have no difficulty whatever with ensuring that we capture a wide range of behaviours, and it might be important for us to understand how people are influenced and who might benefit. After all, there are many types of director, including directors of charities and so on and so forth, and it will be difficult to find a definition that catches commercial directors who are remunerated for perhaps relatively large sums of money as well as directors who serve in the public interest in, for example, charities, for no reward other than personal satisfaction, you might say.
We should look at people’s activities, but we should not get too hung up on considering the particular difficulties that particular job titles carry with them. For example, I have absolutely no clue what “consultancy” is. A lot of the time, it seems to be simply a title that people appear to append to their activities to enhance the value of what they do, rather than its being a description on which we could base a formal definition.
I am against the proposal. Consultancy and paid directorships should be permissible, providing that they are declared in the register.
Like you, convener, I am not sure what a “consultancy” is. I have found in my experience of business that the title is often used by someone who has been made redundant and who does not have any other title to put to his or her name.
According to your entry in the register of members’ interests, you are currently a director.
Absolutely. Those interests, whether they are paid or unpaid, are in the register of interests. This proposal is a step too far.
Sticking with the question of directors, I have with me a copy of my entry in the register of interests. I will need to change it, because I am no longer a board member of Rape Crisis Scotland. In that role, I received nothing; there were no expenses. The work was all voluntary.
Like the convener, I would be extremely worried about using the term “director”. If I thought that it were advisable to use the term—and in some regards, I do not—it would need to be qualified heavily for those who participate on, give their time to or find themselves on the boards of charities and other organisations. Some charities—not Rape Crisis Scotland, unfortunately—bring in enormous amounts of money. Nevertheless, some people give their time freely and receive no expenses. If we proceed along such lines, we will need to be very careful.
I might have something to say later about declaring interests, but I would like to point out that I have already declared an interest by saying that I was a past board member of Rape Crisis Scotland.
On paid directorships, even if you have declared and registered such an interest, who is to say that you are still not being influenced by that position? The very act of being a director means that you have responsibilities. Can they be put completely to one side?
I suppose that the question is: why focus just on directors? In the past, we have had an MSP who continued to operate as a Queen’s counsel. The same rules could apply to them—and I could the make the same case for many other roles. Is not the core of this discussion, which Jim Murphy has properly put into the debate, that we must make it absolutely clear that the primary responsibility of those of us who are privileged to be elected to this Parliament is to our electors and that all our other activities, particularly those that are remunerated, must take second place?
My responsibility is to my constituents. That is—and should be—my only responsibility.
I have no concerns about the use of the words “directorship” and “consultancy” for the reasons that members have put forward for not being concerned about the use of the words “lobbying” and “lobbyist”. This is all about what people outside understand those terms to mean, and I think that people are quite clear about that. I accept that people do voluntary work and that what they do might be called a directorship, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about paid directorships and paid consultancy. That is what Jim Murphy’s letter describes.
10:45
So if a director of a commercial company ceases to take reward during their time as an MSP but otherwise continues to work in the same way, that is acceptable?
It must still be registered.
That is a different issue. We are talking about whether to ban people from doing that. Equally, of course, in some—but not all—circumstances, directors of charities may be directors in terms of the Companies Act 2006.
It might be appropriate for me to say that there is a flaw in that argument. I must declare an interest, because I am going to talk about my business, which I own but my son runs. There are ways to circumvent that. In my own case, I have recorded exactly what the position is in my entry in the register of members’ interests.
We are a private company, so when the chartered accountant does the books and there is a profit in the business, it is allocated to me. There is nothing that I can do about that unless I sell my business. It is a private family business, so I would need to give my business up, which I do not intend to do. The money can sit in the business, but it will be taxed to the business in any case. I can get round that simply by moving it to my family. There are ways round that.
I spend almost all my time in Parliament—folk will know that I am here early and leave late. I visit my business from time to time, that is for sure, but nothing like the 20 days that I have declared. I know a person who is an MP and a crofter. At times such as lambing time, he needs to spend time on his croft; it is a family thing. Therefore, I am not just talking for myself. If we are going to have a Parliament whose members have a broad range of experience and expertise, we need to think about folk like me who have a private business. My main concern is that they will be locked out of the equation. I would worry about that—not just for my sake, but for the sake of the Parliament.
Does anyone else wish to contribute? The question in the paper before us is whether there is merit in expanding the definition of the activities that members cannot undertake in section 5 of the code. The question mentions “activities” rather than people’s roles. That is perhaps a fine distinction. The question that we must consider today is whether we wish to take that forward.
Yes.
Using Gil Paterson as an example, if he does not mind—
Carry on.
If he were to become a minister with responsibility for enterprise, for example, which would relate to his company, what would his position be then?
Just for information, that would not be a matter for Parliament; it would be a matter for the ministerial code.
So that is different.
I am not saying that it would not touch on Parliament, but the ministerial code would operate first.
That is a moot point, given that the Minister for Parliamentary Business could not answer the question yesterday about whether there was a separate register of interests for ministers.
There is not.
There is according to the Scottish Parliament information centre. If there is not, the minister is affected only by the code for members and the register of members’ interests.
Subsequent to the debate, I reminded myself of the situation. Just to be absolutely clear, ministers—as you will recall, because it was broadly the same from the outset—have to advise the permanent secretary of their interests and, indeed, those of their spouse or partner. However, there is not a register, notwithstanding what SPICe may say on the matter.
Well, whatever kind of document it may be described as—
That is it—there is not a document.
It is not published, so the only register of interests that ministers have is the members’ one. Therefore, Margaret McDougall’s point is entirely valid.
Yes, but as far as Parliament is concerned, we all serve equally as members. Being a minister is a parliamentary appointment—that is correct—albeit one that is made on the recommendation of the First Minister.
At the end of the day, I am in the committee’s hands on where we go with this, but I come back to the core issue that has got us here, which is consultants and directors.
I am quite happy if members want to include other categories to debate.
I do not know what some of the categories mean—even the two before us. I do not know what a consultant is.
In that case, we should not use the word at all, either in our code of conduct or the register of interests. However, I presume that we use it because there is a generally accepted definition.
Actually, we do not; only Jim Murphy is using it.
No, it is mentioned in the code of conduct, I believe. The code allows a member to be a
“director of a consultancy firm”,
for example, but it does not allow them to undertake paid employment as a consultant specifically advising on parliamentary matters.
Yes, but that is focusing on the activity, not the role. I am sorry that I am being very picky. I am speaking here in a personal capacity; I am not attempting to speak as convener.
One of the things that came out of our work on lobbying was the difficulty that Westminster appears to have created for itself by using a role—which I think is defined as “consultant lobbyist” or something like that—rather than the activity. We should focus on the activity. It is perfectly proper that we consider extending the range of prohibited activities; it is even perfectly proper that we consider what people should earn from other activities. However, I am very uncomfortable about labels, because the moment we go for labels we simply invite those who wish to do so to use other labels.
We have already done it with lobbyists.
We have not, actually; we have dealt with lobbying.
The code of conduct refers to “commercial lobbyists”.
Yes, but we have not made any particular distinction. We have focused on lobbying.
I think that we are dancing on the head of a pin over this. If we want to have a discussion about the activities that might be covered by these terms, I am happy to do that, but we have to have the discussion.
Sorry—I do not wish to be seen to be attempting to say that we should not have a discussion. It is just that when I am in considerable doubt as to what definition could ever say what a consultant is, I would prefer to focus on activity, not roles.
Once you have a definition, it is open to people to circumvent it and use another word, as we have found with lobbying and other activities. I do not think that we should have a definition. I am against the proposal.
The question that we are addressing is whether there is merit in expanding the definition of activities that members cannot undertake. In other words, should we look further at the subject? Broadly, there is no reason why we should not. Do we all agree to carry that forward and look at it further?
Members indicated agreement.
Right. The general issue is whether section 5 of the code of conduct is sufficiently clear or whether we can make the language simpler. That can form part of our looking at the subject—or do we think that section 5 is sufficiently clear in its present form?
No.
Patricia does not. Do you want to put any specific comments on the record at the moment, bearing in mind that we are on the record?
I do not have any specific comments about how we should change section 5, as we would have to have a wider debate about that, particularly as we are not sure what we would change. However, in general terms it is an area in which members of the public must find it very hard to understand what we are talking about. If we can do anything at all to make that simpler, we should.
So one of the things that we should do—it is not necessarily all that we should do—is look at our language.
Indeed.
That is helpful.
The next question is quite interesting: whether we need to include more information in one place. We have promoted that theme in particular. For example, there have been issues around the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s charities policy. Are members quite comfy with the suggestion that we should pursue the possibility of drawing more information into one place, so that one can see exactly what is going on?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members have anything more to say on what we should include or exclude? I see that they do not.
At the end of our paper, we are invited to discuss the terms of the rules and guidance on lobbying—it is clear that we have done that—and to decide whether consultation would be useful in advance of proposed changes to the code being drafted. Since Patricia Ferguson raised the issue of the public, we should at least give people the opportunity of a consultation, if that is the committee’s view.
Members indicated agreement.
We now move into private session.
10:56 Meeting continued in private until 11:15.Previous
Election of Committee Conveners