Standards Committee, 26 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 26, 2002

Official Report 173KB pdf

---

Work Programme

The next item concerns the committee's work programme after the recess. The clerks have prepared a summary, which members have before them. Are there any comments?

The section that deals with lobbying says:

"The Committee published its report on lobbying on 8 February 2002. The Committee is awaiting a response from the Executive".

Is there a time scale within which the Executive has to respond to reports? I thought that there was a maximum period of about three months. I am conscious that we are still waiting for some sort of response.

Through the clerks, I have been chasing up the matter with the Scottish Executive. Normally, the Executive should respond within three months, but it has not done so in this case. The clerks have informed me that the Executive hopes to respond within the next few weeks.

As soon as we have the response, I will make a pitch with the conveners liaison group for a slot for a debate in the chamber. However, it is important that our report be debated along with the Executive's response.

I did not realise that we were waiting for the Executive response. We should make it clear that, while we would welcome a response from the Executive, we do not need one. We are making standards not for the Executive but for MSPs, some of whom are members of the Executive. The report is the committee's, not the Executive's.

However, there are two codes of conduct—the one for MSPs and the one for ministers. We felt that the ministerial code of conduct should reflect the views of the Executive, which is what we are asking about specifically. I am loth to push for a debate before we get that response.

I am sure that members of the Executive—the civil servants, at least—will read the Official Report, but I am extremely disappointed that, having spent a long time carrying out an investigation into lobbying, we are still waiting for a response from the Executive. I have sympathy with the view that, at the next meeting of the CLG, we should try to get a slot for a debate in the chamber. If the Executive has replied by that point, that is good, but if it has not, we can point out during the debate that the Executive has been tardy in its response to a report by a committee of the Parliament and that that is unacceptable. We should not delay; we should fix the date as quickly as possible, so that members of the Scottish Parliament can have a debate. If the Executive wants to contribute to that by providing its response in advance, that is fine. We should not wait any longer for the response before we seek a slot.

Would it be in order for the convener to write to the Administration to ask for an early response to our report on the lobbying inquiry?

I could do so. I have made informal approaches through the clerks to Scottish Executive staff, to make ministers aware of our concerns about the delay in the response. I invite the clerk to add to what I have said.

I spoke to the departmental liaison officer, because I was conscious that we had not received a response. It had been indicated that we would receive a response prior to the end of the summer term. I have been assured that a response will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. When we receive it, we will circulate it straight away.

Our discussion is academic to some extent, because the next meeting of the CLG will be in September. If we have not received a response that we can go through in detail by then, something major will be wrong. I expect to bid for a parliamentary debate slot at the next meeting of the CLG. [Interruption.] The clerk is ahead of the game. She has spoken to the clerk to the CLG. The networking that goes on in the clerking system is amazing. She has warned the clerk to the CLG of what I will be looking for in the autumn.

It is fair to say that the matter is primarily parliamentary, as it comes within our jurisdiction. Although the Executive has the right to submit its views, it is not in the driving seat on the issue. If the Executive is so overloaded that it cannot submit its views—frankly, that would astonish me, given the number of civil servants that it has—we should go ahead anyway.

My concern is that we published our report on 8 February 2002. We were seeking to establish a statutory registration scheme. I felt that we took a long time to carry out our lobbying inquiry. I was clear in my mind that we were looking for a statutory registration scheme by May 2003. The longer the Executive delays—or the longer we delay the debate that needs to take place in the Parliament—the less chance we have of getting that statutory registration scheme in place by May 2003. That would be most unfortunate.

We started our lobbying inquiry in October or November 1999. It would be unacceptable to me if we have not come to a resolution of the matter in the form of a statutory registration scheme by May 2003. No obstacles should stand in the way of achieving that goal. It is important to kick the matter on as quickly as possible, so that we can do the kind of work that we set out to do.

I hear what you say, but we have done extremely well, given the legislative programme for committee bills. For example, the stage 3 debate on the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill will be held tomorrow. That will be only the second committee bill to go through all its stages. We have done remarkably well to achieve that in the time scale that was involved.

We are considering a second committee bill—the one on replacing the members' interests order. I do not wish to slow down the pace, but I am conscious that a third committee bill by next spring represents a tall order for the committee. I am prepared to push the pace, but we must accept that we are doing a huge amount of work and that we have our review of cross-party groups to contend with. We have a huge work programme. I do not for one minute suggest that we take the foot off the accelerator, but I flag up to members the fact that, although we have done an awful lot, there is still an awful lot to do. I hope that our time scales are realistic.

That sounded like Tony Blair's

"a lot done, a lot more to do".

The message is obviously getting home.

Notwithstanding Tricia Marwick's comment about the need to remove obstacles, I was surprised that we were waiting for a response from the Executive. I did not realise that. I am not entirely sure that the Executive realises that either.

The Executive knows that we are waiting for its response.

We certainly did not agree to wait for a response before proceeding. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton suggested, we can dictate only what is in the code of conduct for members, not what is in the Scottish ministerial code. The important point is that the committee should be totally in charge of the process and should conduct the inquiry at its own pace. The committee should decide how to put the code of conduct through the Parliament. In many ways, the Executive is on the sidelines.

I have tried to be fair to all concerned, but I hear the message from committee members. We will progress our inquiry into lobbying as quickly as possible.

I acknowledge what the convener has said about the committee's work load. It is true that we have done a lot and that a lot more must be done before May 2003.

In many ways, the Standards Committee has been unfortunate, in that some of the rules and regulations that were drawn up by those who helped to set up the Parliament took little cognisance of the fact that we would be a working Parliament. That has meant that we have been left with a lot to deal with, such as the members' interests order, the registration scheme for lobbyists and the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. All those things are worthy in their own right and need to be done. However, I am keen to ensure that the completely different Standards Committee that will be set up in May 2003 does not need to tie up loose ends. If it wishes, that new Standards Committee will be able to have another inquiry into lobbying, but we need to ensure that that committee can have a fresh start.

I will make a formal application in writing to the convener of the CLG in advance of the group's next meeting. I will also formally write to the Executive to spur on its response.

If members have no other comments, is the committee content with the work programme?

Members indicated agreement.

We have a lot to do.