Procedures Committee, 24 Sep 2002
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Official Report
123KB pdf
Standing Orders (Standards Commissioner)
Item 4 concerns further changes to standing orders, which have been requested by the Standards Committee. We are joined by Mike Rumbles, the convener of the Standards Committee, and its clerk, Sam Jones.
I am delighted to be here. I had quite forgotten that three members of the Procedures Committee are also members of the Standards Committee, so a fair amount of expertise on the issue is present.
I thank the Procedures Committee for giving me the opportunity to attend the meeting to give some background to the standing orders changes that the Standards Committee has asked the Procedures Committee to consider. The draft rules were considered and fully endorsed by the Standards Committee at our most recent meeting on 11 September. The proposed changes to the standing orders are consequential on the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002, which received royal assent in July.
The proposed rule 3A.1 will enable the Parliament to appoint the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner. The draft rule reflects the provisions in rule 3.13, which relate to the appointment of members of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. Rule 3A.2 sets out how the commissioner may be removed from office. It is an important rule that reflects section 1(7) of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002, which states that the commissioner may be removed from office only following a motion of the Parliament that receives the support of two thirds of those voting. Rule 3A.2 will provide the commissioner with a high degree of security of tenure.
The Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 also permits the Parliament to make various directions to the commissioner. The Parliament can make directions on how all investigations should be carried out; for example, it could direct that all interviewees should be informed that they have the right to have a third party present. The Parliament can also direct the commissioner on how certain classes of complaint should be dealt with; for example, it could direct that all anonymous complaints should be referred to the Standards Committee in the first instance. The Standards Committee could, nevertheless, authorise the commissioner to investigate. Our proposed rule 3A.3 will provide that the Standards Committee make such directions to the commissioner.
I should stress that the act prohibits the Parliament and the Standards Committee from directing the commissioner on how any individual investigation should be carried out. That is to ensure that investigations that are carried out by the commissioner are carried out independently of the Standards Committee and the Parliament.
Rule 3A.4 will provide that the commissioner's reports be made to the Standards Committee, which is consistent with the committee's remit, as set out in rule 6.5.1 of the standing orders. I know that members of the Procedures Committee have just discussed committee remits.
The proposed new standing orders are set out on the back page of members' documentation. Mike Rumbles has added to the reasons that have been provided for agreement to the new standing orders. We will deal with the changes one by one. I offer members the opportunity to ask questions or to seek clarification.
Are there any points on rule 3A.1, which deals with the appointment of the commissioner?
Members indicated disagreement.
Are there any points on rule 3A.2, on the removal of the standards commissioner?
Members indicated disagreement.
Are there any points on rule 3A.3, which relates to directions by the Parliament?
I would like Mike Rumbles to give us a bit of background on the Standards Committee's discussions about anonymous complaints. I understand that the Standards Committee is reluctant to go on fishing expeditions if there is no proof or if the member is not named.
When the Parliament debated the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill, it was clear that members wanted strict measures under which the standards commissioner should act. The commissioner will be independent. The act stipulates that when a complaint is lodged, it must be accompanied by certain facts; for example, the MSP concerned must be named. However, a complaint that has been lodged that does not name an MSP might be such a serious complaint that it would be silly if the commissioner were not able to investigate it. Therefore, we felt that the Standards Committee should be able to refer the matter to the commissioner for investigation. That means that an independent commissioner will not need to go on fishing expeditions elsewhere. If a complaint that does not meet the requirements of the act is lodged, the complaint will come to the Standards Committee, which will direct the commissioner.
Does that issue relate to cases in which the MSP to be investigated is anonymous—in other words, it is not known which MSP is involved—and to cases in which the complainant is anonymous?
That is correct.
Are there any other points on directions by the Parliament? Are there any points on rule 3A.4, which concerns reports to the Parliament?
Members indicated disagreement.
Do members agree to the proposed changes to the standing orders and do members agree to report to the Parliament?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes this morning's business. Thank you for your attendance and your contributions.
Meeting closed at 11:16.