Official Report 152KB pdf
At our last meeting, members gave their initial views on the determinations that are required under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. Although the precise mechanism for agreeing determinations has yet to be finalised by the Procedures Committee and agreed to by the Parliament, we are not being too presumptuous in that we anticipate that that will happen before the December recess. That will allow us to ensure that things flow smoothly when the next session of Parliament begins. We must at least have matters ready for consultation so that when determinations are made by the Parliament, we will be in a position to proceed.
In my view, the bandings are reasonable and the detail that is requested is to the degree required, rather than excessive. I am content with both the current bandings and the level of detail that is specified in the draft statement.
I concur.
I am slightly inclined to think that we should have bandings of nought to £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000 and intervals of £5,000 after that, but that is nit-picking stuff. If other members are content with the suggestion, I am happy for us to go ahead with it.
There are differences between the bandings that are suggested in the paper and those that appear in the draft statement of interests. Which do you want us to use? Page 6 of the draft statement suggests a banding of "up to £1000". There is a range of options, which we can vary. I favour an initial banding of up to £1,000.
I will not die in a ditch over £500. It is fine by me if we opt for an initial banding of up to £1,000, as suggested on page 6 of the draft statement.
The argument in favour of a banding of up to £500 is that £500 is the level at which gifts need to be registered. We could opt for that.
There is a certain consistency in having the bandings the same. However, we are dealing with two different schemes of registration, so there is an equally valid argument that there is no reason that they should be the same.
You are right to say that there is no reason that they should be the same. What we recommend at this stage is what will go out to consultation. I suspect that the figures that we recommend may end up being the figures that are accepted.
There is an argument for having the same bandings in the two schemes—that of simplicity. I am a great believer in simplicity in such matters. If the figures for the two schemes are the same, they will be far easier to understand and it is less likely that a mistake will be made. I argue quite strongly that they should be the same.
In that case, the bandings would be up to £500, £500 to £1,000 and so on.
Do we agree that we will consult on the figures that appear in paragraph 9 on page 2 of the paper, as opposed to those that appear in paragraph (vi) on page 6 of the draft statement?
Page 6 of the draft statement lists other information that we will require of members. Is that reasonable and not too burdensome? Should we consult on the matter?
I do not see it as in any way burdensome. It seems sensible, not excessive, that we should get that amount of detail.
If that is clear enough for the clerks, is that agreed?
Paragraph 10 of the paper deals with related undertakings. Again, we need to look at page 7 of the draft statement of interests. Are members content that that is a reasonable way of balancing the burden on the member and the interests of the public in terms of transparency?
Yes, I would say that it strikes the right balance. It has got the right blend, so I have no problem with that.
Is that agreed?
Election expenses are dealt with in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the paper, and on page 8 of the statement. How do members feel about publishing exact figures, rather than a banding? Do members want to revise any of the details specified in the written statement?
Given the point made in paragraph 12—that information on exact figures is already publicly available—it makes sense to have the same information available in both places.
If members are content with that, how about the level of detail specified in the draft statement?
It seems to be the minimum that would be required.
I do not think that there is a problem with it at all.
How do members feel about identifying private donors to a greater extent than just providing the name? What is suggested is that, where the donor is a business, more information than just the name should be required. Although it is not suggested in the paper, how do members feel about identifying private individuals by more than just a name?
I think that the name is enough. If you have the name and you want to dig about for further information, that is fair enough. I am not exercised too much one way or the other, but I think that there is enough detail if a private individual is named.
If you do not need an address for a private individual, I do not see why you need it for a business either, particularly given that it is easier to discover the address of a business than it is to find out where an individual lives if he does not want his address to be discovered. I agree that the information required in points (iii) and (iv) of the statement might be unnecessary.
I understood that we were being asked whether we wished to revise any of the level of detail. Mr Johnstone seems to be suggesting that we take out point (iii) on page 8.
You mean Mr Fergusson.
I beg your pardon, Mr Fergusson.
There are too many Alexes.
I have made that mistake before. I do apologise.
Too many people do not appreciate the difference between the two.
Now that you are both slim and beautiful.
Is it not adequate that we have the name of the business? I ask, because a donation is a donation, whether it is from a business or from a private individual. Indeed, the same person could make a donation privately or through his or her business. I wonder why we even consider making a distinction. A distinction might be important to a private individual if their private address were to be provided, which might raise data protection issues. I take Alex Fergusson's point. If we know a business's name, do we place an unnecessary burden on a member by asking them to identify the principal business address? If the member does not get that right or fails to provide it, will they risk breaching the rules?
As the proposal is to go out to consultation, why do we not leave that open? We can say that there is much to be said on both sides, refer members to our brief discussion today and wait for responses.
Are members content that we ask a question on the issue as part of the consultation?
Sponsorship is covered in paragraphs 13 to 16 on pages 3 and 4 of the paper and on page 9 of the draft statement. Do members wish to specify bandings or any details? Members will note that the question of addresses is raised again. In the light of our previous discussion, I take it that we will ask about that as part of the consultation. Are members content with the suggestion on bandings? If so, which bandings do we want?
The bandings are the same.
They are not quite the same.
Are they not?
No. Paragraph 16 contains a little more detail than is under item (iii) on page 9 of the draft statement.
We should just go with the bandings that are on page 9 of the draft statement. The level of detail is fine, but we will have to ask the same question as we are to ask in relation to expenses.
One unique aspect is item (iv) on page 9 of the draft statement, which asks for
It would be wholly inappropriate for any organisation that sponsored a member's bill to attach such a condition. Members who have had the good fortune to receive support for a member's bill would say that that support is welcome but does not mean that the sponsoring organisation or body dictates to the member what is in the bill, which would be wrong.
We should not focus only on support for a bill, although that is the issue that has arisen. A member might have a particular interest in the subject area and might have received paid support, which is conditional. We have to make it clear that if there are any conditions to sponsorship, they need to be in the public domain. Alternatively, are we saying that there should never be conditions attached to sponsorship?
Perhaps it would be an idea to get legal advice as to whether an organisation or body would have the right to sponsor an MSP in lodging a member's bill? Would that be inappropriate or even unacceptable?
I would certainly welcome advice on that.
We can come back to that. You would have to be wary about the paid advocacy provisions if you were going to place conditions on sponsorship.
Those who have helped with the drafting of the paper might have had in mind something other than the example that I gave and which Mr Butler pursued. Would you care to share with us what you had in mind?
A condition that could be put on sponsorship is a timescale; an organisation might sponsor an MSP with the condition that a bill would be passed within a session. The sponsorship would be for a specific period.
That is covered in question (v), which is on duration of sponsorship. It is not necessarily a condition. A condition is something along the lines of an organisation saying, "We will do this for you, if you do that for us." The point that Mr Butler is making is that having conditions on sponsorship might be inappropriate, other than conditions such as that staff would be employed with appropriate conditions and treated appropriately. What conditions did you have in mind?
That perhaps sponsorship could be paid in instalments or set tranches.
That is a totally different matter about which we would feel much more comfortable than we would about the kind of conditions that I was considering.
I am struggling to think of any conditions other than something like allowing payments to be made in instalments, which would be acceptable under all kinds of other rules of the Parliament on the registration of interests. Attaching conditions that oblige the member to guarantee a certain outcome could not be delivered and I am not sure that they would be legal.
It should certainly be left in during the consultative process. The concerns that members have raised are absolutely legitimate.
The purpose of the meeting is to scrutinise the detail before we go to consultation. I think that members are content with that point.
Before we leave the issue of sponsorship, I want to clarify where we got to on the bandings, which I understand are slightly different. I make the plea to keep the bandings the same all the way through, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. I do not see any such reasons in this instance. There was a suggestion that there is slightly more detail on page 9—
There is a little more detail in paragraph 16 of paper ST/S2/06/9/2 than there is in paragraph 9.
I repeat the point that we should keep the detail the same throughout the document.
Are members content that we stick with paragraph 16 on page 4 of the paper?
Are members also content that we accept that level of detail to go out to consultation?
I am sorry to keep banging on about this, but I am also rather worried about the wording of question (vi) on page 10 of the draft statement. I think that it is actually two questions. This is my campaign for plain English I am afraid. The question,
Should the question not be "to whom", rather than "who"—if we are being pedantic?
Well, indeed.
I am not getting involved in this discussion.
I was going to try to shut it down and move on.
Could that sentence be reworded, please?
I am content for it to be reworded accordingly. Are other members so content?
We come to gifts, which are covered in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the paper. How do you feel about the bandings and the level of detail that is spelled out on pages 11 and 12 of the draft statement of interests?
With regard to the bandings, paragraph 19 of the paper is fine. It keeps the uniformity that Mr Fergusson was keen for us to follow—and I think that he is right. I think that the level of detail is fine.
We will deal with the addresses in the same way for each of the questions—consistently.
Yes, obviously.
Are members otherwise content with that?
Overseas visits are dealt with in paragraphs 20 to 22, on page 5 of the paper, and on pages 13 and 14 of the draft statement of interests.
I am sorry to go back but, referring to paragraph (v) on page 12 of the draft statement and our earlier discussion about business addresses, if the consultation responses suggest that members are not comfortable with business addresses being included in the previous section, would we apply the same decision to this section?
Yes. We have just agreed that. I made that point.
Did you? I am sorry.
In each segment, where there is a question of addresses being published, we will consult on that, so that there is a consistency of approach.
Yes, you said that—I apologise for missing that.
That is all right. We have no suggestions with regard to bandings for overseas visits. Do we want any? Should we insist on knowing the exact value of visits?
I guess that we could suggest the exact value. Why not? That would be completely transparent.
There is no threshold, I recollect.
No, there is not. Perhaps the exact value would be—
£29.99.
You flew with easyJet recently, did you?
Ryanair?
Whichever one it was.
Whatever it happens to be. Anyway, that makes it transparent for the general public—which is the main concern—and for members of the fourth estate, who seem to be exercised somewhat—
Obsessed.
Yes—with regard to exact costs of overseas visits, although they are carried out for specific purposes, not for entertainment. I think that we should give them the exact cost.
That is agreed. We will put in the exact cost of visits.
Paragraphs 23 to 31 on pages 5 and 6 of the paper come under the heading "Heritable property (market value and income)" and relate to pages 15 and 16 of the draft statement. Do members have any views?
No, I am just deep in thought, although it is pretty unproductive thought at the moment. There will be examples of heritable property that are not buildings or completed houses. Somebody could be left a plot of ground with a value of £15,000 or £20,000 but with planning permission. I take the point, though.
In what way would the public's knowledge that a member had such an interest be diminished by the fact that the register states that it is of a value up to £100,000?
In today's market, that is reasonable.
I take Mr Fergusson's point that some items of heritable property may be worth considerably less than £100,000 but, most of the time, people will be interested in homes of some sort.
Bricks and mortar.
Yes, although it could be bricks and mortar such as a farm steading that is rented out.
I do not feel strongly on the issue.
I am content with your suggestion, convener.
Are members content that we have a category of up to £100,000 and then have bands at £50,000 intervals?
Are you also content that with values above £350,000, members may just put a note that it is—
A lot. [Laughter.]
How do members feel about the figure that will trigger registration of gross income from heritable property and the width of the bands?
The banding that is suggested on page 16 of the draft statement is fine. People will, rightly, be interested in income, even at the lower end of the scale. The banding on page 16 is reasonable.
Identifying incomes that are between £501 and £1,000 is perhaps not that important. I am not familiar with current property rental values, but a category for gross rental value up to £5,000—which is a monthly rental of about £400—would cover the requirements. The interest is largely in rented accommodation.
I am content to go along with that. I will not go to the barricades on the issue.
Is that agreed?
We always have the comfort that the draft statement will go out for consultation. We have agreed to go with the banding given on page 16, but we will delete the first band and change the second band to read "up to £5,000".
No.
I have not received any advice to suggest that the lack of a threshold would cause a problem.
Do members have any concerns about the other details that are specified on—or that have been omitted from—page 16 of the draft statement?
The details seem okay. If members want to state the type of property and so forth, they will be able to do so under paragraph (vii), "Any relevant additional information". We do not need to be too prescriptive about that.
Are you suggesting that we delete paragraph (iii), given that paragraph (vii) provides an option to provide that information voluntarily?
I beg your pardon—it is my mistake and I apologise. I did not take paragraph (iii) into active consideration. Paragraph (iii) should remain. For any other details, the decision should be up to the member, who can seek advice from the clerks. The details on page 16 already fit the bill.
Just for clarification, I will recap what we have agreed. The bands of gross income from heritable property will be up to £5,000 and subsequent £5,000 chunks. For the market value of heritable property, we start with values up to £100,000 and then go up in £50,000 chunks. We have accepted the ceilings set out in the draft statement.
I am not sure, convener.
Well, I will tell you what I think: I think that there should be bands. I believe that the new act specifies a date by which the figure in question must be revised. However, if the member did not get it exactly right, they would be putting themselves at some risk. If a member had shareholdings worth, for example, £25,349.78, they would have to produce exactly that figure. I believe that that would prove burdensome. Is what is sought the value that the shares would get if they were sold, or should the figure reflect the average price of shares in the market that day? Fees are incurred in buying and selling shares. What the public need to know is how much influence any share interests might have. I therefore think that a band system is just as appropriate for this matter as it is for heritable property or any of the other interests that we have been discussing.
I agree that such an approach allows a little bit of flexibility, given the stock market's ups and downs—which I have to say I do not understand at all.
Under the act, members must revise their share interests annually on a fixed date. Alex Fergusson's point about ups and downs in the stock market is absolutely correct; however, the point is that if we specify absolute values, members will be duty bound to say on a particular date exactly what their interests are worth. I do not know whether that adds very much to openness.
Having listened to your comments, convener, I think that we should have bands. We want to have transparency, but we do not want to impose an excessively burdensome system on members. In that respect, your suggestion is fine.
The question, then, is what bands we go for. Paragraph 37 of the paper makes suggestions about that. I think that the first band should be from £25,000 to £50,000, and that subsequent bands should be in chunks of £50,000 rather than £10,000. After all, having £35,000 or £45,000-worth of shares is different from having £50,000 or £100,000-worth of shares. All that the publication of those figures over a period of time will tell is the fluctuation in the fortunes of the individual member. It will not necessarily reveal the influence that the ownership of those shares might confer.
That seems reasonable.
Or am I being too narrow? It is obvious which members hold shares, is it not?
Yes. I am glad that I have just got socks stuffed with money under my bed. That is much easier.
There are two thresholds: the proportion of the holding, which is specified at 1 per cent, and the market value. I take it that members want to publish both—is that fair?
That is consistent. If someone has something of value, it gives them influence or might influence the way in which they conduct their business. It is the same if they own property—they have something that gives them an income, which could be construed as having an influence. If we are going to register an interest in the case of property, we should register an interest in this case.
I think that that is wholly consistent. We can do that.
You are right, convener. We need to avoid the system becoming overburdensome, both in terms of the clerks having to advise members and members having to remember to update their statements every quarter.
I suggest that we delete point (ii). Although it might be of great interest to certain individuals to know exactly how many shares each member has, if a member has said that they have a shareholding of which the market value is between £25,000 and £50,000, that will give the public a fair idea of what influence it may or may not have on that member's decisions. Stating the exact number of shares they hold would not necessarily do that.
Would it be possible to place a requirement that, twice in their parliamentary diet or at a particular mid-term point and with advice from the clerks, members must update their statement when there has been a change in the name or address of a company? Would that be feasible?
I am going back to our earlier debate on addresses. Why should we expect members to include the addresses of companies in the register?
I agree about the addresses, but the name has to be given. The name is as likely to change as the address—presumably, the address will change if the name does.
It could well do, and I have given one example. Given public accountability and influence, we obviously need the name, but I am concerned that we may be putting members at risk if a company decides to change its name and a member gets it wrong on the register.
A member who has registered a number of shares will consider them once a year to check their valuation and the bands. Would it be sensible to register the name of the company in which the shares are held at the annual review?
I can perhaps give the committee an example. Most members who have shares will have shares in blue chip companies—the late Donald Dewar had shares in some of the banking companies. There will often be a holding company at the top and then a series of divisions, and the companies will change the way they operate. The public name may never change, but shareholders may receive lots of pieces of paper saying that the company name will be changed at the annual general meeting, for example as part of a restructure. The registered company name may change, and shareholders may not be particularly aware of it. My concern is that a minor technical change, which does not materially affect the influence that the shares might or might not have on a member's behaviour, could put that member at risk if they failed to change their statement.
Members would need to worry about changes only once a year, on 5 April. If they recorded any changes that took place over the year, the latest information would be recorded in the statement on 5 April. It would be an annual update of name and address.
It is fair to have an annual update, but I am trying to tell the committee nicely that although the registered name and/or address may technically change, the member will not necessarily be aware of it because the public persona of the company will not actually change. I am worried about including the need to register that change in the statement. I think that we should get some advice on that point.
This is making me slightly uncomfortable. Obviously, I do not have your level of expertise, convener. It is apparent from what you have said that you know a lot more about the subject than I do.
That is only because I have some very minor investments.
Equally, however, I am concerned that we should not do something that makes the potential for influence on a member less transparent than it currently is. I would like further advice and perhaps to consult on the point.
I have absolutely no desire to make the situation less transparent. I just do not want to include in the statement something that will inadvertently trip people up.
I have one further point. Our objective must be to ensure ease of compliance. We want compliance, so it must be easy for members to comply. I am concerned that our taking this out might, with hindsight, make it more difficult for those who legitimately need to know such things to find them out. I would, therefore, be glad if we could consult on the matter.
Here is another example of the kind of things that happen. British Gas was privatised and divided up into a series of companies, some of which then merged with other companies. A member might have initially bought shares in the privatised company and ended up with shares in three or four different companies. They could write down Centrica, National Grid or the BG Group: all those companies have changed their names.
But it is surely not unreasonable to ask a member to revisit that once a year, when they will be considering the band value anyway, to ensure that they have the correct name in the register. I would not want them to take the name out.
I will give you a specific example. British Gas is now BG. Are we saying that, following British Gas changing its name to BG, if a member failed to change the name that appeared in their statement, they would be in breach of the members' interests order? That is the point. I have no desire to make the system less transparent. I think that we need to find a form of words that will definitely put the name of the company in the public domain; however, it would be inappropriate for us to make a failure to change the name as a consequence of a technical matter a breach of the members' interests order.
Perhaps the clerks and our legal advisers can come up with a brief note that may not need to appear at the next committee meeting but that could be circulated to members informally. We could then consult on all the issues that you have raised and that members have discussed today before returning to those aspects.
That is a sensible course of action, if our advisers are content with it. We can perhaps consult on the matter. Are there any other matters that members want to raise?
I am sorry, but I need to return to something with which I am slightly uncomfortable. My discomfort is prompted by my personal circumstances. It concerns the bands for heritable property, which it has been suggested should stop at £35,000.
That is for the income.
Yes, sorry, I mean the bands for income from heritable property. It is suggested that they stop at £35,000. In their paper, the clerks say that there is currently an entry at £45,000—it is one of the higher ones. I think that it is only right, in the interests of openness and transparency, to point out that that is my entry. I think that it would be wrong for me to sit here and tacitly accept that we need to reduce the top-end band to £35,000. What I suggest may be rejected, but I think it right that I suggest to the committee that there should be a band of between £45,000 and £50,000.
How do other members feel about that?
Content.
If we are going to consult on this, it is for us to put that suggestion in the consultation document and to seek responses to it. I see no reason why we should not accept that suggestion, put it in the consultation document and see what responses we get.
In that case, we will amend the draft statement in that way. I do not think that what Alex Fergusson meant—although this could be the interpretation—is that any income above £35,000 would not need to be declared. It would be declared, but only—according to our previous discussion—as income over £35,000. However, he is suggesting that the upper limit should be £50,000.
There are those who would suggest that there are individuals who would find it in their interest to have a lower top-end band. I just think that it is right to put the matter on the record.
Okay. I thank members for their attendance and draw the meeting formally to a close.
Meeting closed at 12:00.
Previous
Cross-party Group