The third item on our agenda is consideration of a paper on the so-called Reid principles, which have been referred to us for approval by the Parliamentary Bureau. Members will be aware that discussion of these matters has been taking place between the various party groups. I am advised that there has been general agreement between all groups. If the committee endorses the paper, the bureau is keen that the paper should be put before the Parliament before the recess, with a view to its incorporation in the code of conduct as an annexe. Would members like to comment?
I have not received the paper.
The paper arrived on my desk late yesterday afternoon and I have not had the opportunity to examine it in detail. This smacks of our being bounced into doing something.
I received a request for the committee to endorse the paper only yesterday.
My understanding is that the Standards Committee is to decide whether this paper should be included in the code of conduct as an annexe. It is not the role of the committee to go through the paper line by line and to suggest changes. The paper has been agreed and all that remains for us to do is to decide whether it should become an annexe to the code of conduct. After that, we can debate it in Parliament.
I am informed that the paper has been approved by all four parties that are represented on the Parliamentary Bureau. However, we are the Standards Committee and it is the intention that the paper should be included in the code of conduct that we have recommended to Parliament. That means that we should ensure that we are content with it.
This might be a silly point, but if the paper is to be incorporated in a code of conduct referred to Parliament by the Standards Committee, I do not think that it should be named after a member of the Parliament. That would be inappropriate.
I agree. I was going to suggest that we replace all statements in the paper in the first person with statements in the third person. That is appropriate for an annexe to a code of conduct. The principles should not, perhaps, be referred to as the Reid principles.
I understand that the paper is the working document that will govern relations between members of the Scottish Parliament. Its title should reflect that and should not refer to any member. The matter has been the subject of considerable debate and speculation in all groups. The title of the paper should reflect the fact that it has gained substantial cross-party support. We have moved on from where we were.
I should inform members that I have the suggested draft, which I was given only yesterday. I will lodge the draft amendments on the committee's behalf. The paper is headed "Relationships Between MSPs: Guidance from the Presiding Officer". The paper can be made available to members.
Does the guidance need to be "from the Presiding Officer"?
Yes. We should—as Tricia Marwick suggested—agree to the paper being included as an annexe to the code of conduct and relate that agreement to Parliament.
I second that.
Why must the annexe be headed "Guidance from the Presiding Officer"? I ask for clarification.
Disputes are referred first to the Presiding Officer. If the Presiding Officer is unable to sort the problem out, it will be referred to the Standards Committee. The guidance is, initially, from the Presiding Officer.
Does the code of conduct say that it is guidance from the Standards Committee?
No.
I do not know why the guidance should be headed as it is.
I have an interest in the matter, because I am on the Parliamentary Bureau—as, indeed, are Tricia Marwick and Patricia Ferguson. Des McNulty is a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, so we all have one interest or another. The document was worked up over many months by the Presiding Officer after consultation through the business mangers of the various party groups. The initiative in the matter was taken by the Presiding Officer.
I understood that we would all have seen the document in our party groups.
Most groups have had discussions in the past few months about the principles of the code of conduct. We have inched towards agreement.
The clerk is prepared to draft a motion asking the Parliament to endorse the paper and to agree to it being annexed to the code of conduct. I understand that such a motion could be decided on without debate. Are members happy for a motion to be lodged in those terms and in my name on behalf of the committee?
Is Karen Gillon happy about that?
I am less than convinced about the title of the annexe, but I will accept that.
If members are content to—
I would like to make the point that I hope that the code of conduct will be reviewed in due course in the light of experience, so that whatever is decided now is not going to be the last word on the subject.
The issue is not that I do not accept the report, but that guidance from the Presiding Officer is being included as part of a document which will result in referrals to the Standards Committee as the final arbitrating body. It could be argued that the code will be merely guidance from the Presiding Officer and that it carries no weight in terms of the Standards Committee's position. We must be clear what the committee is saying. Are we saying that this is the code that members should follow and that will be invoked by the Standards Committee? We must make it clear that the code's status is not merely that of guidance and that it is enforceable by the committee.
The advice that I am getting from the clerks—with which I agree—is that if the guidance is adopted by Parliament and annexed to the code of conduct, it becomes part of that code and carries with it the code of conduct's full authority. The code of conduct mentions conduct at meetings and refers to the Presiding Officer in paragraph 7.3, so the guidance would have the same weight as any other part of the code of conduct.
Most complaints will come to the committee—that is why difficulties will arise. The members of the committee must be clear—we will have to enforce the guidance. If we are saying that we will enforce it, we must know what the guidance's status is and how we are to enforce it.
I accept that. I offer Karen Gillon a copy of the draft motion that will go before Parliament before the recess.
I would like to make two points. I agree with Karen Gillon's point about avoiding association of the guidance with an individual. That matter should be dealt with—I do not want sight of that point to be lost. I have some sympathy with Karen Gillon's point, but we must ensure that the legal aspect is properly dealt with. If it is necessary that the guidance come from the Presiding Officer, that is the way it must be. The guidance should be examined properly in terms of legal processes to ensure that Karen Gillon's concern is addressed. That can be done off-line; the committee can agree in principle to accept the guidance and we can deal with the issue of the title and the extraction—if necessary—of any association with somebody's name.
The advice that I am getting in relation to Des McNulty's points is that the entire code of conduct is guidance. Decisions on the guidance regarding any matter that comes before the committee are for the committee to make. The Presiding Officer's guidance—if it is incorporated in the code of conduct—will have the same weight and authority as the rest of the code of conduct. Therefore, if a problem arises with a member in relation to the Presiding Officer's guidance, it will have to be dealt with in the same way and using the same authority as any issue relating to the rest of the code of conduct.
I would like clarification of the meaning of "more than 2" in paragraph 17. Does that mean at least three?
It means more than two.
But what does that mean?
It means three or more.
My question is for clarification—it is important to have that on the record.
That point exercised greater minds than ours for quite a long time. All the parties agreed to that wording.
I have no problem with that—I just want to know what it means. If I am going to enforce the guidance, I want to know what it means.
It means three or more.
It means a minimum of three.
Okay—it means a minimum of three.
The words "in at in more" in that paragraph do not make grammatical sense.
That matter has been addressed in the motion. I will ask the question again. The clerks have prepared a draft motion that asks Parliament to endorse the paper and agree to it being annexed to the code of conduct. I understand that the motion need not be debated. Are members happy that the motion should be lodged in those terms, in my name and on behalf of the committee?
I do not have a problem with that, except—
Yes—except. [Laughter.]
Paragraph 1 refers to Mr George Reid. I have no problem with the reference to Mr Reid, but I do not want the guidance to be referred to as the Reid principles from now on. They are far bigger than that. George Reid started an important debate, but the conclusion of it is far removed from the start. The line that mentions Mr Reid is unnecessary.
It should not be difficult to remove that.
It is not a fundamental problem—if it cannot be removed, it cannot be removed, but we need to try and move on and establish that this code of conduct is a cross-party, all-party agreement about how we move forward. We must also establish that it is not the domain of an individual.
The committee has accepted the guidance. I will lodge that agreement in the form of a motion to be put before Parliament.
Meeting continued in private until 10:45.
Previous
Cross-party Groups