Petition
Parliamentary Standards (PE951)
The petitioner, Professor Walter Dean, contacted me as an MSP for the north-east and as the MSP for Aberdeen North—members will note that he says that he has written to the MSPs for the north-east. However, he lives in the area covered by Highlands and Islands MSPs, so if he has had negative responses from north-east MSPs, that might be the reason why.
The petition is in three parts, but members will note that only the first part falls within the committee's remit. We are asked to consider amending the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 to allow an appeals process for complainants whose complaints the commissioner has rejected. The act sets out criteria against which complaints must be judged and any decision is made against those criteria and the code of conduct for MSPs.
The committee is reviewing the code of conduct, but do we think that the 2002 act also needs to be reviewed? Are we tackling some of the petitioner's concerns by reviewing the code? I am more than happy to hear what members have to say about that.
I do not know what other members think, but I think that to consider amending the 2002 act at this stage is premature, to say the least. I really do not think that we should involve ourselves in that discussion, which might or might not take place much later, in future sessions.
Resources are a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We might want to refer the petition to the Finance Committee, which is considering the implications of overlaps among commissioners. Other than that, we should close the petition—or our consideration of it—at this stage.
It is not uncommon for me to agree with Bill Butler and I do so again now. Is it in our remit or the Public Petitions Committee's remit to close the petition?
It is in our remit to close it in relation to the matters that have been referred to us.
If that is possible, I agree that we should do so.
I seek clarification. At the end of the petition, on page 3 of paper ST/S2/06/5/2, the petitioner gives an example. The third point that he makes is:
"Protocols ensure the MSP's actions inhibit other, Regional MSP from taking interest".
I have been assuming throughout that the MSP in question is the constituency MSP and that it should read, "Regional MSPs", rather than "Regional MSP". What protocol is he referring to? If such a protocol exists, I have had a complete misunderstanding of the role of all MSPs.
It seems that Professor Dean is under a series of misapprehensions and that he simply does not understand how the process works. He states on page 4:
"Approaches have been made to my local MSP, seven N.E. Region MSP"—
it should be "MSPs", rather than "MSP"—but his address is in Forres, so he should be approaching Highlands and Islands MSPs.
You are right that there is nothing in any protocol that prevents a regional MSP from taking up a case. The protocols govern how they go about doing that and their conduct in relation to the constituency MSP, according to whether the constituent wishes to inform them of the matter.
It might be useful for us to point out to Professor Dean that he ought to be dealing with the regional MSPs for the Highlands and Islands and to let him have a copy of annex 5 to the code of conduct, which might help to clarify those points. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
At the previous meeting, we discussed the Reid principles and asked for the Presiding Officer's view on them. This is another example of why the time is now right for us to consider these things. There is confusion about what is a constituency case and what is a general issue for the purposes of parliamentary questions. There are variations in how particular constituency MSPs translate the Reid principles in relation to their contact with regional MSPs. It would be healthy for us to seek clarification of the Reid principles and to discuss them further.
Are members content for us to advise Professor Dean that we do not consider this the appropriate time to review the 2002 act, as it is relatively new? Professor Dean referred to the MSPs for the wrong region, so we could advise him who the seven regional MSPs are for the Highlands and Islands. Shall we enclose a copy of annex 5 to the code of conduct, which explains the protocols? Shall we also advise him that we are currently reviewing the code of conduct, but that the other matters to which he refers are not within our remit, and that we have therefore passed on his reference to the resources that are available to the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner to the Finance Committee, which is currently reviewing the role of commissioners?
We should also point out that the standards commissioner has chosen not to employ staff and not to have a separate office. That is a matter for the commissioner. He is independent, and he is entitled to make that choice. Resources have been made available by, or are potentially available from, the Parliament to address the matter. If there are no further points to make, we will now close the petition, as far as the Standards and Public Appointments Committee is concerned.
Members indicated agreement.