Standards Committee, 27 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 27, 2002

Official Report 121KB pdf

---

Members' Interests Order

Let us move quickly on to agenda item 4, which concerns our work on replacing the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. We have already agreed that any proposals for replacement legislation should, if possible, be considered in this parliamentary session. The time scale is tight, to say the least.

To enable any proposed committee bill on the members' interests order to be published prior to the summer recess, we should aim to take oral evidence at our next meeting, which is on 24 April. We need to consider possible witnesses today, so as to ensure witness availability. I stress that that will not preclude us from calling further witnesses at our first meeting in May, when we might wish to take more evidence in the light of the responses to our written consultation exercise, which closes on 15 April. However, it would be helpful to start the process now. Do members have any thoughts about witnesses?

Any individual MSP who has expressed strong views on the members' interests order should have the opportunity to give evidence. The members' interests order is for MSPs, so they should be the first group of witnesses. I am sure that we can identify which members have strong views.

I agree that we should invite members from the Wicks committee. I do not believe it necessary to invite representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but we should ask people who were on the consultative steering group. We should also consider consulting others on the question of non-pecuniary interests.

I am in general agreement with what has been said. My only query is whether the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Consumer Council should be invited, but we do not need to decide that now. If we were to take evidence from the Wicks committee and the CSG, that would be a good start.

As far as I am concerned, the list of witnesses that is suggested in the paper is fine. I am happy to go along with Tricia Marwick's suggestion. It is difficult to take a firm view until we have seen the written submissions, but I have no worries about the proposal that we initially take evidence from the Wicks committee and the CSG. I believe that COSLA would have something to offer, but I am happy to see its written submission first.

I believe that it is important to take evidence from COSLA on the ground that it has a substantial responsibility for the code of conduct that was introduced under the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. We should hear the views of local government on that. Not to invite COSLA could allow some folk in local government to suggest that we do not value their experience. I accept that we sometimes overdose on asking COSLA, but I believe that, on balance, because of the role that it plays, it is better that it be invited.

I presume that, where the paper refers to the "Grand Lodge of Scotland", it means the Grand Masonic Lodge. I ask just in case. It may be interesting to see some of my constituents.

The paper suggests that representatives of other organisations, such as the unions and the voluntary sector, be invited. It might also be worth looking at the register of members' interests to check whether other organisations pop up. I want to be candid about the fact that at least seven of us have constituency plan agreements that are sponsored by the likes of the Scottish Co-operative Party. We need not necessarily invite the Co-op, but some of us have the same sort of relationship with the Co-operative movement that other members have with the trade union movement. For the sake of openness, we should at least give such people the opportunity to submit written evidence. We might also look at the register to see whether any other interests are popping up that have not crossed our line of vision.

It might assist the committee if we asked the groups mentioned in the final paragraph of the paper to supply written evidence before our next meeting. If their written evidence is good enough, we will not need to call them. Otherwise—or if we have further queries—we could call them to give oral evidence.

If I understand the gist of what has been said, we will take evidence from organisations that are interested in non-pecuniary interests later. However, we want to invite oral evidence from a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, from a representative of COSLA, from a former member of the CSG and from MSPs who have particularly strong responses.

We should ask the Co-op movement to give evidence. I would like to ask why it does not sponsor me, even though I can still remember my mum's store number, which was 8058.

Mine was 9218.

Because of the number of suggestions, I think that we will need to have a second session of oral evidence taking. We have got the gist. Having identified whom we want to question, we can decide on the type of questioning at a later date.

As agreed at the beginning of the meeting, we now move into private session for the final agenda item, which concerns the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. I ask members of the public, official report, press and broadcasting to leave the meeting please.

Meeting continued in private until 11:28.