Proposed Committee Bill (Members' Interests)
We come now to the second debate, which is on the Standards Committee's "Report on Replacing the Members' Interests Order: Proposal for a Committee Bill".
It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the Standards Committee's proposal to introduce a committee bill on members' interests. If the Parliament endorses our proposal today, it will be only the fourth committee bill to have been introduced during this session, although it will be the second time that the Standards Committee has proposed legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the committee for their unflagging commitment to what was, at times, a complex and intensive inquiry.
Members will recall that our first committee bill is now the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002. That act, which comes into force in January, will introduce robust arrangements for investigating complaints against MSPs, including the appointment of an independent standards commissioner. The proposal that I will outline today is intended to enhance the substantive rules that the Standards Committee and the standards commissioner will be required to enforce.
Our proposal for a members' interests committee bill is intended to replace the current transitional arrangements, which are set out in the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. The members' interests order sets out the various requirements on the registration and declaration of members' interests, prohibits paid advocacy, and makes contravention of certain provisions in the order a criminal offence. Article 10 of the order anticipates the eventual replacement of the order by an act of the Scottish Parliament; today, we debate the Standards Committee's proposals to introduce that legislation.
The members' interests order already establishes a rigorous and exacting regime for members' interests—indeed, as I have just mentioned, certain breaches of the rules are a criminal offence—and so gives the Parliament one of the toughest codes of conduct anywhere. However, in the period during which the members' interests order has been in operation, the Standards Committee and others have identified a number of areas that need to be addressed in replacement legislation.
In September last year, we began the process of examining the provisions of the existing members' interests order in detail. We published interim proposals for replacement legislation and invited written and oral evidence in response to our tentative recommendations. In crystallising our thoughts on what shape the new legislation should take, we have examined not only the written and oral submissions that we received but the practices and experiences of other legislatures in the United Kingdom and beyond. We have also consulted colleagues and I would like to thank those members who took the time to respond to our consultation paper, which we published in early 2000. We believe that the package of proposals that we offer today will build on and enhance the provisions that we already have in place.
I will now take members through some of the key elements of our proposals. In relation to the interests that members are required to register at present, the major changes that we have recommended relate to gifts and shareholdings. The current rules on gifts require members to register all gifts in excess of £250, regardless of source or context. That means, for example, that an MSP who has the fortune to receive such a gift from a spouse, partner or relative must register it. The infrequency of such gifts being registered with the clerks suggests that we have less-than-generous other halves. Similarly, any gifts of more than £250 to a member's spouse or partner must also be registered. Again, a quick perusal of the register suggests that MSPs are not given to lavishing expensive gifts on their loved ones.
Joking aside, the committee believes that the current rules on gifts represent an unacceptable invasion of the privacy of family members and that such gifts are highly unlikely to influence a member's political life. Paragraph 4.1.1 of the code states:
"The main purpose of the Register is to provide information about certain financial interests … which might reasonably be thought by others to influence Members' actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament, or other actions taken in their capacity as Members."
We see the current requirement as doing very little to achieve that. There is little legitimate public interest in disclosing in the register gifts such as those that I described. We have therefore decided to recommend that only gifts that are received by an MSP in connection with his or her parliamentary duties will be registrable. Additionally, we have decided to recommend that the value of a gift that will be registrable will be linked to a member's salary as opposed to being a fixed sum that could become outdated. We believe that that approach will strike an appropriate balance between transparency and privacy.
Members are currently required to register shares where the nominal value—that is, the share price at issue—exceeds £25,000 or 1 per cent of the issued share capital of a company. However, the difference between nominal and market value can be huge. We are convinced that the latter is a more meaningful reflection of the significance of a member's shareholding and the influence that it could have. However, we also recognise that the market value may fluctuate—as indeed it has done in recent days—and we have no wish to impose a heavy and bureaucratic burden on members. We therefore recommend that MSPs register their shareholdings with a market value of more than £25,000 or 1 per cent of the issued share capital of a company, and that they update the registration annually, at the beginning of the financial year.
In addition to reviewing the existing categories of registrable interests, we have recommended the creation of a new category—non-pecuniary interests. The category will include unremunerated directorships and memberships of voluntary and charitable organisations, professional bodies, societies and sporting or cultural organisations. Many members already choose to register such interests voluntarily. The committee thought long and hard about imposing a mandatory requirement on colleagues. However, having taken written and oral evidence on that specific point, we have decided to recommend the mandatory registration of non-pecuniary interests for three reasons. First, we see non-pecuniary interests as potentially wielding the same influence over members in the conduct of their parliamentary duties as pecuniary interests. Secondly, we see the mandatory registration as a positive step, fulfilling the broader purpose of the register, which is to provide information about an MSP's expertise and experience. Thirdly, we are conscious of a similar requirement that is imposed on councillors and others by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. We do not want MSPs to be accused of double standards.
We recognised the complex definitional issues in specifying what non-pecuniary interests should be registered. One option would be to attempt to define the types of interests in the replacement legislation. That sort of approach has been used by some Australian legislatures. However, we believe that that could be overly restrictive and inflexible, and that it would risk excluding certain interests. We have therefore decided to mirror the approach that was taken in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. MSPs will be required to register interests that the public might reasonably think could influence their actions. That would be supplemented by extensive guidance in the code of conduct, which will provide illustrative examples—but illustrative examples only.
Another key recommendation in our proposal is to clarify the rules on paid advocacy. The Standards Committee recognised back in 1999 that the members' interests order contained a major flaw in the provisions on the very serious offence of paid advocacy. Specifically, the members' interests order fails to specify a connection between remuneration and the subsequent action taken by a member as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. That means that, on a strict interpretation of the members' interests order, a member who participates in a debate on a subject on which he or she has a related registrable interest could be caught by the paid advocacy rule, even when the interest has been properly registered and declared and when the member is not participating in return for the benefit that he or she has received. However, our interpretation of the paid advocacy provisions is based on the wording of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Parliament's code of conduct for members.
We propose that the replacement legislation should make it clear that paid advocacy takes place only where there is a connection between the receipt of payment or other benefit and the MSP's subsequent parliamentary action. We also propose to close a potential loophole by ensuring that the new paid advocacy provisions should apply in relation to future or expected interests as well. That will prohibit members from undertaking a parliamentary action in consideration of remuneration or other benefit that they expect to receive in future.
Finally, as I indicated at the outset, contravention of the rules on the registration and declaration of interests and paid advocacy is criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 on conviction. However, the members' interests order does not provide any defences. Liability is strict. For example, a member who failed to register an interest that he or she is not aware of would still commit a criminal offence. Although we believe that it is right and proper that serious transgressions of the members' interests rules should continue to be a criminal offence, we are of the view that MSPs should not commit a criminal offence where they have taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that they have complied with the rules.
In reviewing the members' interests order and developing the proposals for replacement legislation, the Standards Committee has sought to balance the requirements of transparency and proportionality. We were struck by the approach taken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has highlighted the importance of proportionality in developing rules on conduct. In its report on the House of Lords, which was published last year, that committee stated that it
"now sees proportionality as a test to be kept constantly in mind by any body drawing up rules for conduct. Such rules will command more respect and adherence if they are comprehensible, simple and proportionate."
Given the simple approach that Mike Rumbles has just mentioned, does the member have any examples where action has been taken against a member for an instance of paid advocacy?
I am delighted to say that there is no example of paid advocacy transgressions. In 1999, there was one case that brought to our attention the fact that the wording of the Scotland Act 1998 was different from the wording in the members' interests order. I am pleased to say that there have been no cases of transgression in this Parliament; there might have been in others.
The Standards Committee believes that our proposals will bring greater clarity to the rules on members' interests while not diluting or weakening the high standards of conduct to which we must all adhere. The members' interests regime and the prohibition on paid advocacy are essential components to ensure the accountability of members for their parliamentary actions.
We recognise that time might be a bit tight to see the proposal go through the legislative process before the end of the session. However, it is an important bill proposal and it would be helpful to get it on the statute books prior to the new intake of MSPs. We hope that the Parliamentary Bureau will acknowledge the importance of our proposed bill and give us a fair wind.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill under Rule 9.15 contained in the Standards Committee's 7th Report 2002, Replacing the Members' Interests Order: Proposal for a Committee Bill, (SP Paper 621).
The Standards Committee did not seek a response to its report from the Executive. That is quite proper because the matter is for members. I am sorry that the Executive has not yet provided a formal reply, although I understand that one is in process.
The issue is for the Parliament as a whole rather than the Executive. It is clear that the committee has engaged in a very thorough consultation process in working up its proposals. In my view, the proposals to replace the members' interests order are sensible and well founded.
I do not intend to go through the points that Mike Rumbles has already made so eloquently. However, I believe that the proposals will improve the transparency of the registration scheme and thereby improve its effectiveness.
The committee has succeeded in meeting its declared objective, which was to strike a balance between respect for individual privacy and the need to ensure transparency and high standards of probity, openness and accountability.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Bureau will give a fair wind to the proposed bill and I agree with Mike Rumbles that it would be desirable to have the legislation on the statute books. However, the parliamentary session is drawing to a close and there is a great deal of legislation that needs to be completed. There is also a lot of pressure on members' time. We have to bear those points in mind and seek to achieve the objective, but we will need to see how things go.
As I have indicated, the Executive will provide a formal response to the report in due course. However, I do not anticipate that there is anything in the report or recommendations that will give rise to any difficulties.
The Parliament is only three and a half years old, but I am sure that we will all agree that we have had a steep learning curve. That was especially true for the Standards Committee when we embarked on the review of the members' interests order. Underpinning our task were the principles of openness, accountability and transparency.
I am proud of the Parliament, as I am sure that we all are, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Whether we like it or not, and whether we think that it is fair or not, public opinion has tarred us all with the Westminster brush. Politicians are corrupt, sleazy and only in it for themselves. If we are to gain the respect of the people of Scotland and give them pride in their Parliament, we must ensure that all our actions are above reproach. That means that we must be accountable in all that we do.
When we reviewed the existing categories of interests, we paid particular attention—as Mike Rumbles has said—to the registration of gifts to MSPs and their family members. At present, members are required to register all gifts with a value of over £250, even if that gift was a birthday or Christmas present from a spouse or partner.
I do not know about everyone else, but if I got a gift worth £250 or more from my husband, I would not wonder what he wanted. I would be wondering what he had done.
I was not the only one on the committee who felt that gifts between partners or family members are unlikely to corrupt the political process. We decided that only gifts to a member that were received in connection with their parliamentary duties should be registered. The same criteria will apply to spouses and partners.
Anyone who has been watching the fluctuations of the stock market over the past year will appreciate the need to change the current requirement to register shares held with a nominal value of over £25,000. That might have seemed fair when the stock market was booming. It certainly erred on the side of those registering their interests. However, ask the thousands of people who are watching their pension funds disappear and they will tell you how much a £25,000 stake is worth in the current market.
Of course, what goes down just might go up. That is precisely the thinking behind our recommendation that the market value of a stockholding is a more realistic criterion for registration. Because of fluctuating markets, it will be necessary for members to update their entries annually.
Probably the most contentious recommendation is the registration of non-pecuniary interests. When is a club or organisation deemed to be a non-pecuniary interest? We were aware of that problem and that is why we must ensure that there will be extensive guidance in the code to assist members in deciding whether they should register a particular non-pecuniary interest.
I have already decided that my membership of an informal group of ladies of a certain age who have been friends since school and are commonly referred to by our husbands as the joy luck club, or the golden girls, should probably not be registered. We recognised that genuine errors of omission could be made and that is why we decided that failure to register a non-pecuniary interest should not be a criminal offence.
I hope that members are positive about the new criteria. After all, the register will show the breadth of experience and expertise that is held by members across the chamber. It must be said that members appear to have been meticulous in the registration and declaration of interests. I hope that we can all accept that things have moved on since the members' interests order was made.
As I said at the start of my speech, it has been a steep learning curve. We must use what we have learned in the past three and a half years to ensure that the members of the Scottish Parliament put clear blue water between themselves and the archaic secrecy that sometimes envelopes that other Parliament. I believe that the Standards Committee will go a long way to doing just that.
I support the motion. Registration and declaration of members' interests are central to the Parliament's core principles of transparency and openness. The Parliament already has a tough system of rules that govern members' interests and certain breaches of those rules constitute a criminal offence.
It has been mentioned that the Standards Committee has undertaken a thorough and comprehensive review of the operation of the existing legislation and has proposed changes to be incorporated in a committee bill on replacing the members' interests order. We believe that the amendments will enhance the rules.
We propose changes to the rules on the registration of gifts and shareholdings. Under the bill, members will have to register any gift that is worth more than 0.5 per cent of the salary that they receive in connection with their parliamentary duties. They will no longer have to register gifts from spouses or relatives. We recommended that the threshold for registration of shareholdings should be set by market value rather than nominal value. That will provide a far more realistic measurement of the possible significance of a shareholding.
Perhaps the most difficult area that we considered related to non-pecuniary interests. We propose that members should register non-pecuniary interests that might be thought by the reasonable man or woman in the street to have a possible influence on an MSP in the performance of their parliamentary duties. I accept what Kay Ullrich said about "golden girls" membership not needing to be included under that heading.
The committee did not get down to dealing with complex definitional issues, but I think that the principle to be applied is that if membership of a body leads to disproportionate, considerable or substantial influence, the MSP should consider that membership. For example, freemasonry has been in the press, although we did not consider it in detail. The test should be that an MSP should not be beholden to anyone. An MSP should be their own man or own woman and not beholden to any person or body, only to his or her conscience. If a person was a freemason many years ago, I do not think that that is relevant. However, if a person is currently a freemason, that would be a matter for their conscience and the test that should be applied is whether considerable influence could or might be applied.
Our report sets out a welcome clarification of the paid advocacy rule. Paid advocacy is the most serious offence in the members' interests legislation and it is important that MSPs are in no doubt as to what behaviour constitutes paid advocacy. My friend Phil Gallie asked whether any elected representative had had to resign over that issue. In the 1974-79 Parliament, one MP resigned from the House of Commons when charged with what would now be described as paid advocacy.
Our proposed changes are sensible and proportionate. We believe that they will ensure that the Scottish Parliament continues to have a rigorous registration framework while enabling members to carry out their duties appropriately and effectively. I support the motion.
I want to refer to what Kay Ullrich said, particularly the important point that she made about Westminster. We must consider whether we are concerning ourselves purely with weaknesses at Westminster. As someone who has recently joined the Standards Committee, I have come to the issue late. The committee has developed a members' interests order that is in the best interests of the Scottish Parliament and has taken account of many weaknesses at Westminster, but there are a number of positive lessons that we can learn from Westminster. In considering the committee's report, we must ensure that we learn from the experiences of the past three years and develop an effective members' interests order that works in the best interests of the Scottish Parliament. Such an order must be made in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament and must learn from the weaknesses as well as the positive attributes of other Parliaments.
The Parliament has received many knocks. As Kay Ullrich said, its integrity has been questioned many times. However, we should give credit to the Standards Committee for ensuring that this debate has been brought before us today. It should be reported that we are progressing a members' interests order that will ensure that every possible interest is recorded.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to non-pecuniary interests. I question what he said about freemasonry. I have little knowledge of freemasonry and therefore am not in a position to clarify whether he should declare his interest in such an organisation. The Scottish Parliament should ensure that MSPs declare such interests.
I am not and never have been a freemason, nor do I have any inside knowledge of freemasonry. I tried to assert what I thought the principles should be.
That is an important point. In submitting ourselves to public scrutiny, it is crucial that every organisation of which we are members is registered, whatever the organisation is. That is particularly so if the organisation is a secret organisation and its membership is not made public. If the Parliament is serious about openness and transparency, it must ensure that membership of such organisations is registered. I welcome the committee's development of proposals in that respect—we should give it great credit.
The committee has presented proposals to ensure that all possible future interests are declared, which is important. Members will also be required to declare any ceased interests.
I do not believe that it is in the public interest that spouses' gifts should be declared nor is it in the interests of MSPs for gifts that are more than £250 to be declared. A number of partners would scrutinise the register of members' interests to find out whether they had spent more than £250 at Christmas. Many MSPs will breathe a sigh of relief this Christmas—if the proposals are implemented prior to Christmas—that such gifts will not be recorded.
There is little to argue about in respect of the motion. To the best of the committee's ability and on a cross-party basis, we have produced proposals that will ensure that every member's interests are recorded in the interests of openness and transparency.
As the most recently elected MSP, I thought that it might be useful to speak about some views that I formed when I had to draw up my entry in the register. I say to Mike Rumbles that I did not respond to the consultation not because of lack of interest, but because of lack of time when the opportunity arose.
We must be careful about being too complacent. I think that we have an honest and open group of MSPs and that all 129 of them maintain high standards in ethical behaviour and the expression of interests. However, our regime is very liberal and far from restrictive compared to that which I experienced before coming to the Parliament.
As a bank employee, I operated under the Financial Services Act 1986, which had restrictive and specific requirements to register and to relate information. In my circumstances, those requirements were difficult, because I worked for one bank, my wife worked for the stockbroking arm of another bank and my brother worked for a third bank. None of us was a banker, but nonetheless, the rules covered us. For example, if I wished to conduct a share transaction, the 1986 act required me to do so through my employer, but because of my wife's employment in stockbroking, the act also required me to transact through her employer, although that was impossible. Fortunately, a procedure existed by which we could nominate the employer that would get the business, although both employers had to be told about it. I could not sell or buy a share in any company without registering the fact that I had done so, or sell or buy a share in my own company except in two four-week periods during the year and with permission. There were significant constraints, only some of which I have dealt with.
I welcome the proposed change from the nominal value of shares to their market value. I spent 30 years with the Bank of Scotland and put my staff profit share away year by year, little amount by little amount, into shares, because of the advantages to doing so. As a result, I had Bank of Scotland shares with a nominal value of £9,800 when I joined the Parliament. However, when I voluntarily registered my interest, their market value was of the order of £360,000. The difference between those values was huge. Even at that level, I did not require to register the shares and would not require to register them under the present order until their market value reached approximately £1 million. I think that members share my view that shares at such a level should be registered. Alas, I have lost about £100,000 in the value of those shares, but I never had that in the first place, so let us not worry about it.
The Standards Committee turned its attention to outside employment. In my previous life, I would have required permission to accept outside employment. I draw that to members' attention as a model that we might think about.
The Standards Committee considered prohibiting members from accepting employment outwith the Parliament. Most committee members felt that being an MSP was a full-time job, but that it was not the committee's place to recommend restricting outside employment.
I understood that. I do not oppose small, relevant, outside interests. I lecture a little in the business school at a local university, which helps me to keep in touch with some matters, but my doing that would be inappropriate if it interfered with my ability to do my job as an MSP. The committee may wish to consider whether prior approval of outside employment could apply that test. My opinion—it might not be the opinion of others—is that an occasional audit could be valuable.
Gifts raise an interesting issue. I forgot my wife's birthday this year, so I can tell members that the absence of a gift can—to use Mike Rumbles's phrase—influence political life. I was a bit grumpy for a few days because my wife was more than a bit grumpy. What is a gift between family members? If the only family member who receives remuneration for employment is the MSP and that person takes their partner on a holiday that costs £500, is that a gift under the order? It might well be. That situation should be considered—it applies to close family members, too.
Outside people could think that many non-pecuniary interests influence members. I voluntarily registered two unpaid directorships. One of those directorships is in a voluntary organisation; I receive no remuneration for it and have no legal obligations under it. The other, however, is in a limited company, which means that the Companies Act 1985 places on me some fiduciary duties that could conflict with my duties as a member of the Parliament, in some circumstances. The test of whether an interest is unpaid is not in itself adequate.
By the same token, we should consider societies and clubs. I am a member of Edinburgh Flying Club. Flying is my hobby, and lest members should think that it is an expensive hobby, I say that if I smoked 20 cigarettes a day, I would spend more than I do on flying, but perhaps that tells members how little time I have spare from the Parliament. As a member of Edinburgh Flying Club, I might—if I were not a member of the Parliament—wish to take a position on developments at Edinburgh airport, which we discussed recently. It would be appropriate for me to make known my membership of that club if we discussed those issues.
I am also a member of an informal group called the escape committee, which comprises former workers in the trenches at the Bank of Scotland, with whom I occasionally have lunch. Like Kay Ullrich, I do not think that it would be appropriate to register such membership. However, if a member were an honorary consul for one of the many small countries around the world that wish to have representation in Edinburgh, it would be appropriate to register that.
I suspect that it would be inappropriate to register the amount of a pension, but there is value in considering registering the fact of a pension, because the source of a pension, the body that pays that pension and the interests of that pension fund might be held to influence a member, in some circumstances.
The members' interests order focuses on services that members provide in their capacity as members and for which they are paid, but members provide services for which they are not paid and which may influence us. For example, I write four newspaper columns for local papers. I am not remunerated for that, but it is in my political interest to maintain a good relationship with the owners of those papers. In some circumstances, members and the general public should be aware that I have a connection with a commercial company that is non-remunerated but is of value to me.
I suggest that having two parts to the register of members' interests could be valuable. One part would be published and the other part would provide the opportunity to record facts. For example, the amount of a pension might be registered but not published. That might be a way forward and might be useful for a range of matters.
I welcome the thought that any changes could be introduced before the election. That would give those who wish to stand for election a clear view of the expectations of them, so that they would meet no nasty surprises when they arrived here. That could be a benefit.
I welcome the Standards Committee's excellent work and I have no difficulty in supporting the motion.
I agree with most of the comments that members have made and I support the principles in the Standards Committee's report. Public confidence is essential. We need to provide the reassurance that all members have the highest standards of integrity. I am sure that we all sign up to that. We are behind the Standards Committee on that.
I agree with some proposals in particular and I will highlight those that are of note. The proposal on gifts takes a reasonable approach, with a threshold of 0.5 per cent of an MSP's salary, which allows for inflation. I am sure that members feel that that is reasonable.
The committee's research on best practice in other Parliaments impressed me. One of the great benefits of being the baby of the Parliaments is that we can learn from examples of good practice elsewhere. That fact influenced heavily some of the thinking in the committee's report.
The committee recommended that we take the ethical standards route on the mandatory registration and declaration of non-pecuniary interests. That is an area of interest to many of us for a variety of reasons, because we have all made voluntary input of one kind or another at some point in our lives. The committee took a reasonable approach to non-pecuniary interests by suggesting that wherever such an interest might be thought by others to influence a member's actions, it should be treated in a similar manner to their remunerated interests. That is fair. The report notes that that approach is followed in the House of Commons and it is one that we have followed from the beginning of the Scottish Parliament. It would be good to continue on the same basis.
The committee's comparison between the standards that should be set for MSPs and those for councillors is fair and reasonable. It would be entirely unacceptable for us to proceed on the basis of setting standards for ourselves that were lower than those that are set for councillors. I was a councillor for a number of years on Fife Council and we took the standards issue very seriously.
I give a particular welcome to the fair approach that the committee has taken, in the light of experience, to the registration of gifts from spouses, cohabitees and close family members. I cannot remember when my husband last gave me a gift that was valued at £250 or more. Perhaps my memory is poor—he may chastise me severely when I get home this evening. Sarah Boyack and I were talking about engagement rings. She told me that her ring cost X, Y or Z, whereas my engagement ring cost about £19 10/-. Indeed, I may have contributed to the cost on the day. That is life and it probably says more about the days in which my engagement ring was bought.
I believe that members feel that the registration of gifts is an unreasonable intrusion into their personal life. I am pleased that the Standards Committee has come up with a pragmatic approach to the matter. I agree that the bill should be passed this side of Christmas, rather than in the new year when more political point scoring will be going on.
I accept the totality of the section on expected benefits. The issue is important and it has my support. None of us knows what will happen in the future, but if a member has a reasonable expectation that they will benefit in some way, they ought, in all clear conscience, to register an interest. The committee recommended that such a declaration should be made.
The guidance in the code of conduct on standardised forms will be helpful. I am not sure whether other members have experienced difficulties when filling out forms. I find myself asking, "What does that mean?" The code will help all of us and we look forward to its introduction.
Nothing in the report causes me to feel anxious or to experience discomfort. However, I am concerned about one or two of the points that have been raised in the debate. Members spoke about the masons, which is an issue. However, if we are to be even-handed, other organisations, including the Knights of St Columba, should fall into the categorisation of organisations that is set out in the report. We are talking about organisations that have structures—they are not informal dining clubs. If we believe in openness and transparency, there is no doubt that membership of all such organisations should be registerable.
I welcome the clarification on sponsorship. I am one of the members who was dismayed when, in the early days of the Parliament, it emerged that I might not be able to speak on the issues of mutuality or co-operative development because I had been elected as a Labour and Co-operative candidate. However, voters who put a tick beside my name knew that I wanted to promote the idea of co-operative development. Much thought has been given to sponsorship; members will remember the debate at the beginning of the parliamentary session. I welcome the committee's conclusions on sponsorship. I do not receive a penny from the Co-operative party as a result of its sponsorship. The money goes to the party under the party plan system, which is a situation that must be shared by members throughout the chamber.
I congratulate the members of the Standards Committee and its clerks. Members support the work that they have done on this important issue.
I want to identify myself with some of the comments that have been made by members in their speeches. At the same time, I want to share some of my deep reservations.
The report contains sensible proposals in respect of gifts. There has been much talk of gifts of up to £250 in value. My gift to my wife this year will be in excess of that, as will her gift to me. We are going on holiday together at Christmas and our gifts to each another will be that holiday. I am sure that other members have found themselves in similar circumstances. That makes total nonsense of the present situation. I recall comments that were made along those lines during the debate on the code of practice.
Stewart Stevenson gave ample reason why changes should be made to the rules governing shareholdings. I have no difficulty in accepting his arguments on that subject.
Euan Robson spoke about the busy parliamentary schedule. We are at the beginning of October and the Parliament will, in effect, wrap up its business in March. The Scottish Parliament should want to pass quality legislation, not bits-and-pieces legislation. It would be nonsense for the Standards Committee to try to drive through yet another bill in the time scale that Mike Rumbles set out, especially as the bill will have to cover the complexities that are detailed in the report. Mike Rumbles should think again. The Executive recognises the dangers of going ahead as the committee proposes.
As I am sure Phil Gallie recognises, the Standards Committee has worked for well over a year on the proposals that are before the Parliament today. The committee has also undertaken comprehensive consultation. If the Parliament approves the motion today, the process of progressing the bill through its stages would not be long drawn out. Speeches this morning have shown that there is support for getting the bill on to the statute book ready for the new intake of MSPs.
I refer Mike Rumbles to his own words. He spoke earlier about the complexity of the non-pecuniary interest issue. I do not believe that it is possible to build either the drafting time or the required level of expertise into a three or four-month period. The bill drafters are up to their eyeballs already. I also do not believe that it is possible in the time available to draft a meaningful and realistic bill that will last in perpetuity.
Kay Ullrich talked about the label that has been attached to the Scottish Parliament. She suggested that there are such things as a Westminster brush and a Scottish Parliament brush. I agree that there is a Scottish Parliament brush and it tars us with the fact that some of the legislation that we have passed has been rushed and not well thought out. It has brought disrepute to the Scottish Parliament in the eyes of the public.
Can Phil Gallie name one act that has been rushed through the Scottish Parliament? Is it not the case that Westminster has repeatedly had to introduce other legislation to close loopholes? Have we had to do that yet?
I am thinking of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.
I openly declare that I am a member of the freemasons. I became a member in the late 1950s and went to one or two meetings, but I have not attended a meeting since 1961. No doubt I have met other freemasons over time; quite honestly, I have not associated with them as freemasons but as friends and colleagues. I do not see any difference between my associations with such people and my associations with members of the Knights of St Columba and people from other religions.
Irrespective of whether or not it gets me into trouble with the Parliament, I will not declare my involvement with the freemasons in the register of members' interests. It does not impact on any of my actions in the Parliament. That is my judgment, and is the way that I act as a responsible individual who has been elected to the Parliament.
I have demonstrated that responsibility in other issues. For example, as far as remuneration is concerned, the first thing that I did when I was elected was to wrap up my small business consultancy, simply because I knew that it might result in a conflict of interests. However, my support of Ayr United Football Club or Dunfermline Athletic Football Club or my membership of Ayr Rugby Football Club or the Royal National Lifeboat Institution are incidental to my overall involvement in the Parliament. I will not declare those interests. Of course, if we were debating lifeboats, it would be only right and proper to declare that interest at that time. Other than that, such interests have no impact on my involvement in the Parliament.
Is the member saying that, if the bill is passed—as we hope that it will be—he will openly break the law?
For a start, we are talking about a code of conduct, not legislation. Euan Robson has suggested that the time scales for passing the bill before the end of this parliamentary session are perhaps unrealistic.
As for Helen Eadie's question, I will take that decision in the future. Right now, I state categorically that I will not declare my involvement in the freemasons in the register of members' interests. I am not suppressing the information; indeed, I have acknowledged my membership this morning and will tell any constituent who asks me about it. Instead, I want to make it clear that I will not register the interest because I do not think that it is relevant to my job. If that puts me in conflict with the law, I will have to think about my position.
I want to reassure Mr Gallie that I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Executive will put a brake on the committee bill. I simply referred to the obvious fact that we have a lot of legislation coming up and that there is a lot of pressure on members' time. It is important to get the legislation right. I hope that he accepts that reassurance.
I accept that Euan Robson did not intend to suggest that a brake would be applied to the bill. Perhaps I should have referred instead to his argument about practicality and reality. On that basis, I do not think that there is any chance that the bill will be introduced and passed by the Parliament between now and next May. That is certainly my interpretation of Euan Robson's comments.
All MSPs have a responsibility to the electorate to be open and honest about everything, especially in matters that affect their daily work in the Parliament. However, we do not need legislation to ensure that we fulfil that responsibility. If we do, it reflects badly on all of us.
Similarly, we do not need to go through the legislative process to achieve the committee's aims as far as gifts and shareholdings are concerned. Instead, the committee could draw up a code of conduct that would be acceptable to the Parliament. I stand to be corrected on that point. Perhaps someone could respond to it in the summing up.
First, I thank Sam Jones and the Standards Committee clerking team, who have done all the hard work and guided us through this issue.
Although much in our proposal is technical, the chamber must not underestimate the importance of rules on members' interests and paid advocacy. They not only underpin how we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, but govern how we are perceived by the world at large. We need only go back to Westminster in the early 1990s to see how corrosive allegations and impropriety can be to the democratic process. As other members have pointed out, much of the public's disenchantment with politics and politicians probably has its roots in cash for questions and other scandals of the 1990s.
However, it is important that we do not get allegations of sleaze out of proportion. It has been a busy parliamentary session for the Standards Committee, but for all the right reasons. Through the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002, we have established robust and transparent procedures for investigating complaints. We have produced a comprehensive code of conduct and—as we did today—we have not hesitated to make changes to it as we have learned from experience. We have also conducted a wide-ranging inquiry into lobbying, which we will debate later.
The complaints that we have dealt with have generally been matters of protocol not probity. Today, following a comprehensive review of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999, we seek the Parliament's agreement to introduce a committee bill.
Other members have outlined the key elements of our proposals. We have recommended changes to the rules on gifts that will balance transparency with allowing family members to have legitimate privacy. I seem to recall that, when Karen Gillon was a member of the committee, the two of us discussed the fact that our husbands were mean. At that time, she said that she hoped to get a ring worth £250. I have looked at the register of members' interests and have found no such declaration. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that Karen never received the ring from her husband, Jim. That is a disgrace; after all, she has had two children since then.
We have suggested changes to the rules on shareholdings, which will make the registration and declaration of such interests far more meaningful. Moreover, we have proposed the mandatory registration of non-pecuniary interests, which we believe will enhance the current registration framework. The registration of such interests will not only strengthen our commitment to openness but provide a fuller picture of the experience and expertise of the member concerned. Every step of the way, we have tried to ensure that our response has been proportionate. It is not—and never will be—the Standards Committee's intention to overburden members with unnecessary bureaucratic rules that hamper the conduct of their parliamentary duties.
Will the member give way?
If Mr Gallie bears with me, I think that I will address his point.
We are determined that the rules on members' interests will establish clear and rigorous standards that reflect the high expectations that we as elected members must strive to meet.
I want to focus on the issue of paid employment, which was raised in the course of the debate. Following oral evidence in April, the committee considered whether MSPs should be permitted to take on paid employment. That consideration followed a suggestion from witnesses that the Parliament and the committee should be able to act if a member's outside employment impacted adversely on his or her parliamentary duties.
The committee feels that the MSP's role should be a full-time commitment. However, provided that outside employment is properly registered and declared, we feel that any decision to accept such work is a matter for individual members' judgment. It is not for the Standards Committee or for the standards commissioner to judge whether a member's parliamentary work is being hampered by outside commitments. That is ultimately a matter for the electorate to decide. That said, it is vital that members' entries on paid outside employment in the register of members' interests contain sufficient information. As a result, details of the nature of the work and its regularity should be provided as set out in the code of conduct.
I will address the matter of non-pecuniary interests and in particular the points that Phil Gallie raised. The bill will not allow members to decide for themselves whether their non-pecuniary interest necessitates an entry in the register. The committee deliberately went down the route of using the wording in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. MSPs are required to register interests that the public might reasonably think could influence their action. Whether something should be registered is not a matter of individual conscience. An MSP must bear in mind the fact that the test is whether the public could reasonably expect that membership of an organisation might influence the member's actions.
I will let Phil Gallie intervene in a minute, although I must say that I was disappointed with his earlier comments. It is incumbent on every member of the Parliament to uphold the Parliament's standards and protect its reputation. I think that Phil Gallie's statement was appalling—notwithstanding the fact that the Parliament may pass an act with which he will not comply.
I thank Tricia Marwick for letting me intervene. I will not respond to her comments; I believe that I made a valid point. I ask her to define how far non-pecuniary interests go. Personally, one of the greatest influences on my thinking and on the actions that I take in Parliament is the fact that I am a member of the Church of Scotland and that I believe, as a Christian, in Christian processes. Should I register that fact in a register? Should those who are Muslim, Jewish or who perhaps follow other faiths do likewise? All those faiths have a major impact on the things that we do and on the ways in which the public sees us act.
Comprehensive guidance, which will include illustrative examples, will be issued to all MSPs but, ultimately, the test is not whether the member believes that there is an interest to declare; ultimately, the test—as in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000—is whether the member has an interest that the public might reasonably think could influence their action. The test is not a personal test; it is about what the public might reasonably think could influence a member's action.
I accept Tricia Marwick's definition of the test. Does she believe that the public would see religious beliefs as being one aspect of that?
Comprehensive guidance will be produced. If we were discussing issues of morality, I imagine that an MSP who is a member of a particular church and has a certain point of view might well register that, and that the public might reasonably think that the member should register it. Comprehensive guidance that contains illustrative examples will be produced. I hope that we will all register all our interests to ensure that the Parliament, which is supposed to be open, transparent and accountable, genuinely meets those standards. The situation is the same for all members.
We believe that the rules on paid advocacy must be clarified and that the flaw in the current MIO must be addressed. Paid advocacy is a serious offence, not only in the sense that it is a criminal offence, like other transgressions of the MIO, but because it is the ultimate betrayal of trust. It strikes at the heart of the relationship between an MSP and the electorate. Any such allegations will be treated with the utmost seriousness by the Standards Committee, the standards commissioner and, if necessary, the procurator fiscal.
It is crucial that the rules on paid advocacy are clear. Although the Scotland Act 1998 is unambiguous, the omission of the link between the payment of benefit and an MSP's subsequent parliamentary action is a failing of the current MIO. Members may recall that that omission gave us great concern in late 1999.
The proposal is not just about parliamentary housekeeping; it is about individual members' accountability for their actions and decisions in the Parliament and about maintaining the highest standards of integrity and probity. Our conduct impacts not only on our individual reputations but on the credibility of the Parliament as a democratic institution. That is why I urge colleagues from all parties to support the bill.
On whether we will get the bill passed by 2003, I have great faith in the parliamentary draftsmen. We have done a lot of the hard work on the thinking behind the bill already. The bill will be a doddle for the parliamentary draftspeople who drew up the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002. I believe that there will be sufficient time for us to make the bill an act by 2003, so that the next intake of parliamentarians to this democratic institution will have the benefit of an MIO that will guide them, protect them and ensure that the people of Scotland have faith in the parliamentarians and the institution.