Standards Committee, 26 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000

Official Report 110KB pdf

---

Work Programme

We must now turn our attention to other matters. Members will have received the briefing pack identifying pressing issues. It contains a proposed work programme that will take us to the Easter recess.

The work programme proposes that we consider models of investigation of complaints against MSPs. Members will recall that the arrangements in the draft code are proposed as an interim measure, pending the opportunity for the Parliament to consider models. The programme also proposes that we draw up recommendations for a register of interests of MSPs' staff and further consider the issue of lobbying in relation to the conduct of members in carrying out their parliamentary duties. Does the committee agree that we should go forward on the basis of the proposals in the briefing pack? I would like to hear members' views on the proposed work programme.

Are those issues to be dealt with in a particular order?

The proposed timetable is that there will be meetings on 9 February, 23 February, 8 March, 22 March and 5 April. We propose to deal with the issues in the order set out in the briefing pack.

Okay.

Are people happy with that, or do they want to make some changes? We are proposing to start work on the model for the investigation of complaints by taking oral evidence on 23 February. At the following meeting, we would discuss our options in the light of that evidence and agree a model. We should not close off any options today; we should first investigate the matter, so that we consider all the possible options.

The most important thing is to establish, and have clear agreement on, the mechanisms that will govern the investigation of complaints. However, I am a little concerned that we are leaving the initial discussion of lobbying until 5 April. We should be considering the scope and remit of that inquiry sooner. Once we have agreed that, we can decide when to initiate the inquiry.

I would like us to meet on 9 February to consider oral evidence on the investigation of complaints, because that may take up two meetings. I appreciate that there may be timetabling problems with that. I see that Alice Brown is on the list of proposed witnesses, but it would be helpful to hear from someone from the secretariat of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Neill committee—who could go through the minute details. I would like to hear from Elizabeth Filkin relatively early, if possible, and I would like to use the meetings of 9 February and 23 February to take oral evidence, because there is a lot in the Neill committee report.

On the face of it, I think that that is a good idea. However, the inquiry into lobbying will be a major piece of work, and the fact that we will not consider the scope and remit of that inquiry until 5 April does not mean that no background work will be going on. Members of the clerking team are already working on that, and I am in close liaison with them. At the meeting on 5 April, we will, therefore, be presented with a host of ideas.

I think that Des is right: we should meet on 9 February, because one or two other issues—such as cross-party groups—are cropping up. I sat down with the clerks to discuss this programme, and I am advised that two weeks is not a long time in which to arrange for people to come and give oral evidence. However, it was felt that we would certainly be in a position to get started on 23 February.

I appreciate that two weeks is not a long time, but it would be a mistake to try to take all the evidence on one day. We should hear from whomever we can on 9 February. It may be that some of the people we want to hear from have appointments on 23 February, so having only one day on which to take evidence could be a problem.

It may take us more than one meeting to agree on the terms of our lobbying inquiry. If we defer that to 5 April, we will not have the opportunity to have two goes at it. I think that we should bring that meeting forward. The issue is very complicated and to try to cover it in one meeting is probably not advisable.

I disagree with almost everything that Des has said. We must understand the purpose of the Standards Committee. We already have a draft code of conduct for members, which deals with lobbying and clearly sets out what is acceptable and unacceptable. We also have an interim complaints procedure, which deals with members. We are in danger of putting individual causes at the top of the agenda and allowing the things that matter the most to fall to the bottom.

I suggest that the most pressing matter for the committee is the register of interests of MSPs' staff. If we have to have a huge discussion about who investigates whom and whether we need a standards commissioner first, we will be looking at 22 March before we can consider the proposed arrangements for MSPs' staff. If the last inquiry taught us something, it is that staff can be used or blamed for something in a complaint against a member.

I understand that there are difficulties, but I do not think that it will take us too long to get something worked out. From the timetable that we have, it appears that putting a register together will be a fairly quick process. The code of conduct for members and the "Register of Members' Interests" provide a basis on which to work. We should move this matter up the agenda and deal with the question of a standards commissioner later. Lobbying should stay where it is on the timetable, because it will need a long and difficult discussion. In terms of our responsibility as members of the Parliament, lobbying has been dealt with quite clearly in the code of conduct. Whether we should regulate lobbyists is another argument. It is not the most important issue. We must set our own house in order before we address everyone else's problems.

I agree with most of what Karen has said. We already have the code of conduct and register of interests for members and we must take forward the investigation of complaints, but lobbying will involve a lot of work and we should try to tie up other matters before we begin to deal with that. Our minds should be clear and we should not try to deal with two or three things at once. Although we need to deal with lobbying, it is not the most important item on the agenda.

The Standards Committee has sent out clear messages to those who are engaged in lobbying activities about the kind of conduct that is acceptable. I agree that we can consider the debate about registration at our leisure, because of the inquiry that we held last year.

The registration of staff interests is not a major piece of work—we already have guidelines. However, it must be done quickly. The committee should deal with it and get on with the rest of the programme.

The staff of MSPs would welcome a clarification of their position. If that were advanced in priority, I do not think that it would impose an intolerable burden on our clerks, who are assisting us with the drafting and are helping us to take evidence when that is necessary.

I want to raise two other issues. First, the paper mentions that deficiencies have been identified in the members' interests order, but suggests that consideration of a replacement be delayed for a year. It would be helpful to see a list of those deficiencies, because some of them may require more urgent action. We will be able to come to an informed view on that once we have been given a list of the deficiencies.

I have already asked the clerks to draw up such a list; they are in the process of doing that.

Thank you.

Secondly, I have seen the list of witnesses connected with setting up either a parliamentary commission or a standards commission. I recommend that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards be invited to appear before the committee as a matter of priority. I note that the suggestion has been made that the national standards commission should have a role in this area, and it would be useful to know how a parliamentary commissioner would fit in with a national standards commission. It is important that this Parliament should be seen not as an add-on to local government, but as a Parliament in its own right. I should have thought that that justifies its having its own parliamentary commissioner, for which there is widespread support.

Can we address that issue under agenda item 2, which relates to the models that we will be considering and the witnesses that we intend to call? When we come on to agenda item 2 and consider suggestions for witnesses, it would be helpful if members could suggest officers and departments, rather than names. At the moment it would not be helpful to suggest named individuals.

Before I sum up, are there any more suggestions as to where we go on this item?

I concur with what appears to be an emerging consensus on putting the question of staff to the top of the agenda. That is one gap in our defences that we need to fill pretty quickly. We can then move on to the question of a parliamentary commission. I agree that the lobbying issue will take some time to deal with, and I suggest that we have one meeting to discuss how we go about that. However, it should be put on the back burner until we sort out some of the other problems that we have in front of us.

To sum up, there is an emerging consensus that we want to address as a priority the issue of the registration of interests of staff of MSPs. I will ask the clerks to bring that forward, so that we can deal with it as soon as possible. However, there is a difficulty. This may look straightforward, but it will have to be subject to legal advice, on which, as we know, there is a strain at the moment. Registration of interests of staff of MSPs is an important issue, but members need to recognise that there is a problem in getting the lawyers to consider it at the moment.

Members understand that, but we need to get in place a code that the lawyers can examine. If we do not do that, they will be considering the issue in a vacuum. We have a responsibility to get a code in place, so that the lawyers can go through it line by line and identify any problems. I suggest that we contact Westminster, which has a system that might be easy to replicate.

We have done that. However, there are very different circumstances here.

I accept that but, if a model exists, we ought to consider it.

We are already in close touch with Westminster.

Okay.

To sum up, our intention is to address the issue of the registration of interests of staff of MSPs as a No 1 priority. We will bring a draft code before the committee as soon as we have legal clearance to do so. We will consider having oral evidence on the investigation of complaints on not just one day, but at least a couple of days.