The next item is our work on replacing the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. At our previous meeting, we considered a paper on the current categories of registrable interests. When we drafted the code of conduct, we agreed to revisit some of the consultative steering group's recommendations on the code. Today, we will do that and consider possible new registrable interests. Our briefing paper suggests that we bear in mind not only the need for transparency, but the need for proportionality in imposing new requirements on members.
The code of conduct exists to ensure that the rules are clear, simple and straightforward; it is not meant to be an obstacle course to trip up members. It is perfectly respectable to endorse the current approach to non-pecuniary interests, instead of introducing something extremely complex that would be difficult to follow. However, if evidence of serious problems emerges, we should review matters.
As paragraph 6 of the paper points out, a significant number of MSPs are currently registering some non-pecuniary interests, such as membership of interest groups, under the miscellaneous section of the register. Obviously, some MSPs—me included—feel that we should be registering interests other than pecuniary interests up front.
This area is very difficult. As you have pointed out, convener, many MSPs voluntarily register their non-pecuniary interests because they believe that it may be perceived that such interests impact on how they do their job. Very often, we are talking about perception rather than fact. MSPs are erring on the side of caution, which is the right approach.
I am perplexed by the major issue of whether non-pecuniary interests should be included. As you say, although the meeting is quorate, four committee members are not present. As I would like to take other members' views, I would be happy to postpone this discussion until our next meeting. Are members all agreed?
After taking advice from the clerk, I think that we should put our discussion of the whole paper back to the next meeting. As the issues are controversial, I would like other members to be present.
I am content with that recommendation. However, I want to make a drafting point about paragraph 6 of the paper, which mentions membership of groups where
On a general point, I would find it helpful to have a record of previous committee decisions on these matters when we are discussing papers such as the one before us today. For example, we have previously dealt with the issue of gifts from members' spouses and so on. We should consider this paper alongside a record of what we have already agreed.
I welcome Kay Ullrich to the meeting. Kay, we are on item 2, which is about replacing the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999, and whether we should register non-pecuniary as well as pecuniary interests, which is a controversial issue. There is a feeling that all views on the committee are not represented. I know that you have just come in to add weight to the meeting, but a whole group of MSPs is not here. I would have preferred it if there had been a member from the Labour group. Are members content that we delay discussion of this issue until the next meeting?
Do you want to discuss the later items in the paper or suspend the whole discussion?
There is not much point in going through the paper if we feel that all parties should be represented. If members agree, I will bring forward this paper at the next meeting.
We will move straight on to item 3, which is correspondence from Fiona Hyslop that was passed to us by the Presiding Officer. As we agreed at the beginning of the meeting, we will move into private session. I ask members of the public, press, official report and broadcasting to leave the meeting.
Meeting continued in private until 10:19.
Previous
Items in Private