Official Report 112KB pdf
Our final item relates to our work on replacing the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. We have to consider a short paper on paid advocacy and a draft motion for debate next week. Taking the draft motion first, are members content with what is proposed?
Okay, I will move on to paid advocacy. Members should have an updated version of the paper with a new paragraph 5. The committee will see that the members' interests order currently states that members should not do anything in their capacity as an MSP in any proceedings of the Parliament in return for payment.
My first thought was that the members' interests order should prohibit members from doing anything in their capacity as MSPs; it should apply to the duties of our office and not just to part of our office or part of our duties. Is the wording used anywhere else? Do we have to be consistent? I am concerned that by introducing such provisions we are creating inconsistencies.
The Scotland Act 1998 does not prescribe either form of wording. It is quite broad. We could consider other models if the committee wants.
I do not want to hold things up. I hate to bring up the House of Commons as an example, but what does it have?
I would have to go back and check that.
I have a question for the clerk. If we opt for the catch-all provision, which would prohibit members from doing anything in their capacity as MSPs, what would the situation be if a newspaper paid someone to write because they were an MSP? Would such practice be caught by the provision?
What would happen if an MSP wrote an article in favour of hunting with dogs and were paid for doing so—not that I ever have been?
That would be a matter for the draftsmen. I imagine that the order would include a form of words that referred to work that someone had done in their capacity as an MSP in the course of their parliamentary duties. The term "parliamentary duties" is broader than "parliamentary proceedings". It would include engagement with ministers but would exclude writing a newspaper column, for example.
Are we saying that we want an all-inclusive provision that would catch a member who writes as a member rather than as a journalist?
I favour taking a broader approach. The key issue is the causal link between money and action. We need to cover situations in which money changes hands in order that someone should promote a particular cause. We are concerned not about situations in which a newspaper pays an MSP to write an article about fox hunting, but about situations in which a fox-hunting group pays an MSP to do so. I do not know whether that distinction can be captured in drafting. I am happy to defer to the expertise of our legal adviser on that issue.
Our legal adviser is keeping quiet.
Do we need to resolve the matter today?
We need to clarify the issue for drafting instructions, which are on-going. The committee can return to it at a later date.
So if we fail to reach a conclusion today, that will not scupper next week's debate.
No. Next week we will seek the Parliament's permission to produce a committee bill to change the members' interests order. We have plenty of time to resolve the matter. We merely wanted members to give us a steer.
Over the years, part-time journalism has been regarded as legitimate. I remember a Westminster MP being forced to resign because he wrote a letter in which he said that he had not been paid enough for speaking up for certain interests in committee. That was considered totally unacceptable.
Quite. Members have given us a firm enough steer for now.
Meeting closed at 10:22.