Standards Committee, 24 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000

Official Report 98KB pdf

---

Members' Interests Order

The next item on our agenda concerns the replacement of the members' interests order. The committee will recall that section 39 of the Scotland Act 1998 requires that provision be made by or under an act of the Scottish Parliament for the registration of members' interests. In effect, that requires us to replace the order with an act of the Scottish Parliament. The clerks have now carried out an initial review of the order and its operation. An issues paper providing an overview of that work has been circulated to members.

This is an excellent opportunity to review the practical issues that have arisen from the application of the members' interests order and to examine those issues that we were unable to touch on in our discussion of the code of conduct because they were outside the existing legislation. Given the scale of the undertaking that is before us, this morning the committee will wish to consider how it should take this work forward. Some of the topics that we will consider are quite sensitive. We will need to strike a balance between respect for individual privacy and the need to ensure transparency and high standards of probity. It is more important for us to do this work thoroughly and to develop carefully considered recommendations than it is for us to reach speedy conclusions. I suggest that the views of other members are a necessary ingredient in the process of developing our policy. The committee may want to consult members directly and seek their views on this matter.

I am glad that we are now discussing this matter. The members' interests order has concerned the Standards Committee as a whole and individual members of it practically since the day and hour on which the committee was set up. We have run into a number of problem areas and have had to interpret the order. There has been a lack of clarity. In addition, the order has been drawn up in such a way as to impede and hinder the work of the Parliament, rather than providing us with the guidelines and rules that we need. We know that there has been a great deal of confusion about the provisions regarding paid advocacy.

This is an excellent paper. I agree that we cannot deal with this matter quickly and that we need to take a considered view on it. Interpretations of the order are robust enough for us to continue our work while we seek clarification of and changes to the order. We should consult members outwith the Standards Committee to get a view on how the order can ensure good practice in the Parliament without hindering the legitimate activities of MSPs.

I am particularly pleased that we will be considering the need to register gifts from spouses. As you know, convener, for some time that issue has exercised the minds of individual members of this committee. I look forward to seeing an end as soon as possible to the need to register gifts from spouses.

I do not disagree with anything that Tricia Marwick has said. It is worth taking the time to deal in detail with the issues arising from the order and to consult other members of the Parliament. Members have a view on many of the issues that are discussed in this paper and it would be good to hear what they have to say. It would be helpful if the clerks produced an issues paper for our consideration.

I support consultation on the order, because as many circumstances as possible must be taken into account. The order should be absolutely clear, simple and straightforward; there should not be any dubiety or grey areas. Reviewing the order in the light of experience and giving members the opportunity to write in with particular problems will help to ensure clarity.

Having read the issues paper, do members feel that the clerks should include other issues in the consultation paper that is sent out to members?

The issues paper is well laid out and highlights our concerns over the past 16 months. That does not mean that there will be no other issues—I am not convinced that all the issues have emerged. That is why it is important to consult colleagues, who may raise other issues on the order. I would like to see a similar issues paper sent both to the party business managers as a basis for group discussion and to individual MSPs.

The legal team may have concerns about some areas—for example, the problem that arose with Mike Watson's bill—and they may be conscious of issues of which we are not. As the clerks work closely with the legal team, they may have already consulted it; if not, I suggest that it would be worth doing so.

We work very closely with the legal team.

Unlike the decisions of the comparable committee in the House of Commons, the decisions of this committee can be legally challenged. The decisions that we reach should meet the test not just of clarity, but of reasonableness. Consulting is the appropriate way forward.

I suggest that we bring a draft consultation paper to our meeting on 21 November.

indicated agreement.