Item 5 is the review of the code of conduct, which we agreed would be part of our work programme. The review, which we are likely to get to towards the end of this calendar year, should dovetail with the work that we have done on replacing the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. We have already discussed some aspects of the code that we might want to examine and we have had input from the standards commissioner in the light of his experience.
What is the position regarding consultation with MSPs about the proposed committee bill to replace the members' interests order? Consultation on the code could be integrated with that.
We have already carried out the consultation on the proposed bill and the committee's report has been placed before Parliament. When we have our committee debate in the chamber on 25 February, the whole Parliament will have the opportunity to comment on our report. Assuming that Parliament agrees, the bureau will set up an ad hoc committee to consider the proposed bill. Before then, members will have the opportunity to discuss a draft bill, which will come to this committee. You are right to draw to our attention the fact that a review of the code of conduct will not happen in isolation. Things should dovetail in the sense that the debate around a bill to replace the members' interests order will take place in Parliament towards the end of the year, assuming that all the other procedures that I have mentioned take place, and we will be considering the code of conduct in parallel with that. Does that answer your question?
I was not sure whether members would have another chance to comment on our report in addition to taking part in the debate.
The short answer to that is no, but members will have the opportunity to take part in the debate that the committee will lead and to participate in the process when the bill is considered by the ad hoc committee and goes through its various stages. The bill will not take an identical route to that taken by an Executive bill; I am happy for the clerk to give the committee some guidance about the subtle differences in proceedings.
My understanding is that, once the report is debated in Parliament, the non-Executive bills unit will produce a bill, which will proceed to the ad hoc committee for consideration and amendment by members. That is a chance to amend the proposals. The whole point of the draft report is to produce clear proposals for the committee's bill.
The main difference is that there will be no stage 1 debate. The equivalent of the stage 1 debate will be our debate on 25 February. In essence, the principal difference is that stage 1 is missed out: there will be a debate on the committee's report, rather than a debate on a stage 1 report. The advice that I have received from the non-Executive bills unit is that the ad hoc committee will probably not meet on many occasions. Although there will be the usual opportunities for members to lodge amendments at stage 2 and stage 3, it is not anticipated that the process will be an extremely long one, unless we have got it wildly wrong and our colleagues in Parliament, or those who are appointed to the ad hoc committee, take a totally different view from us. The two pieces of work should dovetail at the back-end of the year.
I clarify that the debate will be on 24 February, in case you are on record giving the wrong date.
The debate will be on 24 February. I am sure that that will be clear in the Official Report. Thank you for that helpful intervention
We are not fundamentally examining the principles behind the code of conduct. This is a practical update and review of the existing code. We will address a few of the issues that have been thrown up in the past couple of years, plus the issues thrown up by the members' interests order. We do not want to start by putting out a consultation document and inviting comment on it. In many ways, this is a tidying-up exercise, although it will raise issues of concern. We should start in that frame of mind. The code is a practical document and we should approach it in that manner. We should get the views of those who are most directly affected: MSPs. I did not realise that we were thinking about having an adviser, although I am not against that suggestion.
I am throwing the suggestion into the pot. How we proceed is up to members. Although the matter primarily affects MSPs, there is a public interest—I hope, too, that there will be some interest among the public in the review. Perhaps we should consider how we might best get a non-MSP view on the issue. I suggest that, at an appropriate time, I should send a letter to MSPs on behalf of the committee and that we should consider the principle of whether we want to find other avenues for getting people's views.
I apologise for my tardiness, convener. I am afraid to say that it was caused by First ScotRail.
Bill Butler is obviously a mind-reader, because what he has said is almost word for word what I was going to say.
Is the committee content with Bill Butler's suggestion?
In that case, is the committee content to leave it to the clerks and me to draft the appropriate letters and to send them out at an appropriate time? After all, we do not want to confuse members, so it might be better to leave the work on the code of conduct until after the parliamentary debate on a replacement for the members' interests order. We are simply planning our work for the rest of the year. Are members agreed?
I thank members for their attendance today. It is nice to finish at an appropriate time.
Meeting closed at 11:51.
Previous
Cross-party Groups