Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 30 Oct 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Official Report 126KB pdf

---

Code of Conduct

Item 5 is a review of volume 2, section 8 of the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament". This will be the biggest piece of work that we have dealt with so far. The paper proposes a remit and approach to the committee's review of the section in question and volume 3 of the code of conduct, which members will recall details aspects of members' conduct with one another, with ministers and with the public when working in their constituencies. Members are aware that the Presiding Officer has written to us on interpretation of that section and have had the letter copied to them. It is also contained in annex A to paper 4. In addition, members expressed their concern at the previous committee meeting about the impact of the section on their work in constituencies.

The paper proposes a timetable for seeking written evidence from a number of organisations, both parliamentary and external, as well as for seeking the public's views on aspects of a review. Given the matter's origins in the consultative steering group, the public obviously have a genuine interest in how they interact with MSPs. That is why, unlike the two previous matters which are more internal, it is proposed that we include the public in the review.

Does any member have any questions about or comments on what is proposed?

As it stands, the proposal looks to be a perfectly acceptable and consistent way forward.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I should mention for members' benefit that, although we do not intend to issue a formal press release about the work that is to be undertaken, an appropriate paragraph will be put on the front page of Parliament's website tomorrow, which will link to the consultation information that is contained in the annex. The work will be publicised in that way, and I think that there will be subsequent entries on the web page at various stages of the inquiry to encourage members of the public to come forward.

As a new member, I do not know whether that it is normal procedure for attracting contributions and submissions from the public.

The clerk, Jennifer Smart, is saying that the procedure has been used in the past. I am in the same position as Hugh O'Donnell in not having experience. I am also advised that it is open to us to go further or to work in a different way, but apparently an invitation on the webpage is how that has been done in the past.

If that has produced a satisfactory result in the past, I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Is everyone happy that we go ahead on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.