Register of Interests (Members' Staff)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1217, in the name of Mr Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on the register of interests for members' staff. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Mike Rumbles to speak to and move the motion.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Standards Committee, I am pleased to present our third report of this year, which proposes a register of interests for members' staff. This report supersedes that which was debated at a meeting of the Parliament on 16 March. The committee was informed by members' contributions to that debate and we agreed to conduct a consultation exercise. Written submissions were invited from members and their staff, as well as from the staff associations and trade unions representing members' staff. The committee considered in detail the responses that it received and agreed to make some adjustments to its original proposals.
Before I go into the refinements that we propose, I want to emphasise that the committee remains convinced of the need for a register of staff interests to be established, as envisaged in our code of conduct. The committee believes that the proposals contained in the new report re-emphasise its commitment to ensuring openness, transparency and probity in the business of Parliament. As well as enhancing the transparency of our democratic process, the proposals that I offer members today are intended to provide protection for MSPs and their staff against allegations of improper influence.
When Parliament last debated our proposals for a register, I said that the Standards Committee was a listening committee. The committee has listened to the views that have been expressed by those who responded to the consultation exercise. That is reflected in the refinements that we offer in our report. I will outline those changes briefly.
A number of written submissions argued that the register should not be published on the internet. The committee was persuaded of that. We propose, therefore, that the register be published in hard copy only and that it be held and made available for public inspection in the chamber office.
Some members were concerned that our definitions of who was a member of staff lacked clarity. The new report proposes that the register will cover staff employed under the members' allowances scheme to assist MSPs
"with the carrying out of Parliamentary duties".
That includes staff employed on a full-time or part-time, temporary or permanent basis, and staff employed through an agency or on a contract for services. It also covers unpaid staff who are carrying out similar work to paid staff employed under the members' allowances scheme. However, the register will not cover staff employed or carrying out work on an unpaid basis for 20 or fewer working days in any calendar year, or individuals carrying out solely party political work.
I refer now to registrable interests and the £50 threshold for gifts. The interests that are to be registered include the receipt of gifts, benefits and hospitality. Some respondents to the consultation exercise expressed the view that by requiring details of gifts, benefits or hospitality of a value greater than £50, the committee was opting for a threshold that was too low in comparison with the requirements that apply to members. The committee considered that in some depth, but we remain of the view that the £50 level is appropriate because it applies only to gifts and hospitality that MSPs' staff receive directly in relation to their work. Members, by contrast, are governed by statutory rules and must declare all gifts and hospitality to the value of more than £250, regardless of their source. Failure to do that could result in criminal proceedings against members. Members of staff will not be subject to those sanctions.
In the previous debate, some members expressed concern at the requirement for them to return details of their staff to the clerks within seven days. That may have been based on a misunderstanding. MSPs are required simply to provide the names and contact details of their staff within seven days of being contacted by the clerks. Staff will then be asked by the clerks to provide details of their registrable interests within 20 working days. I do not think that that will impose too heavy a burden on either MSPs or their staff.
Our proposals for a register of staff interests represent a further step in our commitment to build a Parliament with the highest standards of probity—a Parliament that the Scottish people can trust and have confidence in. The principles of transparency and openness underpin our recommendations. In the past few months, the committee has listened to the views of others, and we will continue to do so. We see the new arrangements as evolutionary, and we are committed to reviewing and, where necessary, to proposing amendments to them.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the establishment of a Register of Members' Staff Interests as set out in the appendices to the Standards Committee 3rd Report, 2000, and agrees that the provisions contained in those appendices shall apply to all MSPs as of 23 October 2000, that the provisions shall form an annexe to the code of conduct for Members and that the annexe shall be published for sale in hard copy and made available on the Parliament's website.
I do not have a great deal to add to what Mike Rumbles said on the substance of the motion.
The committee has taken on board several points that were made in the course of debate. We have also taken advice from members through the questionnaire and have had contacts with members' staff. I hope that we have responded positively to the concerns that were identified. We have not agreed with all of them, but we have taken all the points that were made seriously, considered them closely and produced recommendations, which we are putting to the chamber today.
A balance must be struck between confidentiality and openness. It is sometimes difficult to establish the correct balance. Perhaps in future we will consider the recommendations again and produce further revisions.
We have established a consistent principle that members of Parliament are the people who are answerable to the Standards Committee and accountable to the public. We have minimised the requirements on members' staff and streamlined the process so that the burden of responsibility is not too onerous.
We have also taken account of concerns that information on members' staff would be available through electronic media. The arrangements that are proposed for access to information on members' staff deal with some of the more serious concerns that members and members' staff had about confidentiality issues that were related to the electronic accessibility of information.
The validity of measures of this kind is proved by practice. We will have to put the procedures in place and see how they work. I hope that we have taken account of legitimate concerns that were expressed by members and their staff and have come up with proposals that we see as workable and in line with the principles that we have laid down in the code of conduct and through the other recommendations of the Standards Committee. This register will, I hope, do what the Parliament requires in relation to transparency, accountability and fairness. Those are the important principles that the Standards Committee is there to safeguard.
The public are suspicious of politicians. They are suspicious of politicians because they think that we can be bought or are on the make.
Sometimes I am not wild about politicians either, but I do not think that we can be bought and I do not think that, by and large, we are on the make. It is important that we have the Standards Committee and a set of rules and regulations to which we must adhere because, among other reasons, it will convince the public that we are open to scrutiny, that our business is being conducted transparently and that they have the right to see what is going on in Parliament.
We are required to be meticulous in our accounting, as I am sure members know. That is right for public scrutiny. The downside is that my back pocket is full of railway receipts that will have to be written up in the not-too-distant future.
It is equally sound that our staff should be bound by the same principles as we are. It is highly likely that every member in the Parliament is clean, but one could foresee—if one were using one's imagination—that an MSP might be clean in every respect, but their assistant could do dirty deeds for them outwith the rules and regulations. If the rules and regulations did not exist, it would be easier for them to do that. That is highly unlikely. However, it is consistent that the same principles that apply to MSPs should also be applied to our staff.
I am waiting for someone from the Standards Committee to address the duty that is now placed on MSPs in relation to declaration. I do not know whether Colin Campbell can address that issue, but I am pleased that so many concerns have been taken on board, particularly those of the staff trade unions. I am a bit uncomfortable with the duty that is to be placed on MSPs if a declaration is not made. After all, my reading of the report is that we could be dragged in front of the Standards Committee if a declaration is not made.
I am not on the Standards Committee, but I know that my colleague Tricia Marwick will sweep up the more detailed aspects of the issue.
It is important that MSPs' assistants are subject to the same principles of behaviour as we are. The question has been raised that unelected members of staff should not be put under the same scrutiny as we are, but the report makes it clear
"that the public interest in securing disclosure is the over-riding consideration."
I agree with that and, for the record, so does my assistant.
While everything that can be done is being done to establish a watertight code, which we will endorse today, it will not necessarily be the definitive set of rules and regulations. There might be ways of infringing them that no one has yet imagined, and the provisions might have to be updated in the light of experience, as Mike Rumbles said. That is a reasonable proposition. The business of standards is an on-going process and must be one of constant improvement and constant attempts to increase transparency.
I thank the committee for its work, which I hope everyone will endorse.
I support what Colin Campbell said. This measure increases public confidence in the Parliament in general. The committee's work in developing the Parliament's code of conduct, together with its experience of investigating the so-called lobbygate allegations, convinced the committee of the need for the interests of MSPs' staff to be disclosed, be they paid or unpaid, or in a position where they have the potential to influence members. The committee's proposals will enhance the transparency of the Parliament, and above all give confidence to the public, as well as providing a safeguard for staff against allegations of undue influence, which is important.
The principle behind the register has been accepted by the Parliament. The principle of a register of interests was not always accepted. I remember Enoch Powell in the House of Commons refusing to sign the register, but the principle is now well established, and the public expect it.
The debate in March revealed cross-party support for the committee's proposals, but there were concerns that there had not been consultation. As Mike Rumbles said, the committee rightly conducted a consultation exercise to make certain that we would get this right. Members and their staff, staff associations and trade unions were fully in the picture.
More than three months have elapsed since the publication of the revised report. The committee considered the comments that were made and the results of the consultation exercise in detail, and the revised report addresses a number of issues. We agreed to adopt the definition that is used in the members' allowances scheme, with which all MSPs will be familiar. It makes certain that individuals working on a strictly party political basis, for example on canvassing, will be excluded from the proposals. The register will include the following: staff employed on a full-time or part-time, temporary or permanent basis, and through an agency or on a contract for services. It will also include unpaid staff. The register will not cover staff employed or carrying out work on an unpaid basis for 20 or fewer working days in any one calendar year. We looked again at the inclusion of unpaid staff in the proposals, but came to the conclusion that they also had the potential to influence members.
As for the £50 threshold on gifts, that attracted considerable comment, with some members arguing that the threshold was set too low in comparison with the £250 threshold for MSPs. In the first instance I expressed that view, but that was not a fair comparison. The requirement on staff will be for them to register gifts or hospitality that are received only in connection with their parliamentary duties. MSPs have to register all gifts in excess of £250 regardless of source, and as Mike Rumbles said, failure to do so could result in criminal proceedings. Such sanctions would not apply to staff. Naturally, the £50 limit will have to be upgraded to take account of inflation, and the committee—and this is important—has agreed to review the arrangements in due course.
There is considerable merit in having a register, as it provides greater clarity about which members of staff are covered by the proposals. The report reviews how the register will be published and, in response to staff concerns, recommends that it should not be available on the internet. It addresses some of the confusion that surrounded the £50 threshold on gifts and hospitality that must be registered. The proposals for making the register available to the public attracted considerable interest and comment. There was particular concern about the internet, and the committee responded to those concerns by recommending that the register be made available only in hard copy and should be held in the chamber office.
I commend the report to Parliament. Approving it today can do nothing but good.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Standards Committee, I thank members for contributing to the debate, although I am sorry that there were not more contributions. I shall address Pauline McNeill's point later in my speech.
The report that we recommend to Parliament today is another building block for the Parliament. The proposals of the Standards Committee are aimed at further enhancing the transparency and openness of our proceedings and at increasing public confidence in our work. Although the report places an onus on members to ensure that their staff comply with the registration requirements, our proposals should not be seen as a burden on staff or on MSPs. As Mike Rumbles said in his opening remarks, the report is also intended to provide protection for members and their staff from allegations of undue influence.
The Standards Committee report represents the culmination of a lengthy process in which we sought the views of those in the Parliament who will be directly affected by our proposals. The committee was keen to get it right and I believe that, with the help of those who responded to the consultation exercise, we have done that. I particularly want to thank the staff associations and trade unions that contributed to the process. Although we have not taken on board all their concerns, we have certainly considered them very carefully. I think that the committee has got the balance right, for the staff and for MSPs.
If staff still have concerns, members of the committee have made it clear that they are more than willing to talk to them if they are still not clear about the burdens that they feel may have been placed upon them. It is important that staff do not feel that they are singled out in a way that employees in other industries or workplaces are not. We want to ensure that we have happy staff, who understand why those burdens might have been placed upon them.
We have clarified who is covered by the proposals by using the definition of parliamentary duties set out in the members' allowances scheme, with which we are all familiar. In the previous debate, Richard Simpson raised that problem, because he wanted greater clarity about who was covered—we were asked about volunteers, people who came into the office or folk who put posters up on lampposts. By pinning it down to the duties of the parliamentary allowances scheme, we are all much clearer about which staff or volunteers are covered by the report. I am sure that Richard will agree that we have clarified that point for him and for other members.
We also reviewed how the register will be published, taking on board concerns that it should not be on the internet. That is something that concerned an awful lot of staff. The committee considered that carefully and concluded that the staff were right and that it would be unfair to place all those details on the internet. However, we have taken the view, all along, that a public document would be required. That document will be available for inspection in the chamber office.
We have also set out the rationale behind the requirement to register gifts or hospitality with a value in excess of £50.
If any member feels moved to make an intervention, I would be more than happy to accept. [Laughter.]
When we debated the subject in March, some members felt that we had moved a bit too quickly and that MSPs and their staff had not had sufficient time—
I will offer to intervene.
Thank you.
I would like someone to get to the point that, for me, is the meat of the matter.
The Standards Committee must at least explain to Parliament what the implications are for MSPs in relation to the new requirement for staff to register interests. I am all in favour of that requirement and I accept entirely the reasons for its introduction. I also applaud the concessions that have been made. However, the obligation that the new requirement will place on MSPs remains an issue that the Parliament needs to know about. I want to know why I might end up in front of Mike Rumbles if my staff do not register their interests; I am not too comfortable with that.
Perhaps Tricia Marwick will explain why the Standards Committee thought it appropriate to include that burden.
The reason is quite simple: the Standards Committee is responsible for the behaviour only of MSPs. During the lobbygate inquiry last year, when we were interviewing members' staff, we realised that, at the end of the day, we had no sanction over them.
If we truly want to be open and accountable, we must put the burden on somebody. If we cannot put the burden on the staff, we must be able to say to MSPs that they employ staff and that those staff work on an MSP's behalf in their constituency office; they also work on the MSP's behalf, and sometimes instead of the MSP, in the Parliament itself. Those members of staff are in contact with a great number of people and there is a possibility that they could be under undue influence.
The Standards Committee can take no sanctions whatever against staff. The sole reason for placing the burden on MSPs is that MSPs do the employing. We are responsible for the behaviour of our staff and everything that they do in carrying out their duties on our behalf.
The committee decided that it was not fair to put all the details on the internet, but a copy of the register of interests will be placed in the chamber office.
As I was saying before Pauline McNeill's very welcome intervention, members felt in March that we had moved a bit too quickly. We realised that perhaps we had not got it quite right the first time, so we embarked on the consultation exercise, which attracted a fair amount of comment, both from members and from the staff associations. We tried to allow the maximum period after publication of the report for members to come back to us with comments. The report has now been published for four months and no one has expressed any concerns either to the Standards Committee clerks or to committee members. As a result, we feel that we have got it right this time.
As Mike Rumbles said, the proposals are evolutionary; they are not set in stone. Perhaps we will need to adjust the requirements, and the convener and members of the Standards Committee have made the commitment that they will be more than happy to consider the matter again, if people think that that would be desirable.
The case for the disclosure of the interests of members' staff is powerful; in March, there was cross-party support for that principle and for the establishment of a register. MSPs' staff have the potential to exert influence over members and, indirectly, over the Parliament and the conduct of its business.
The committee's experience in mounting the lobbygate inquiry and its work on developing the code of conduct have convinced us that it is right that appropriate information about staff interests should be disclosed and made publicly available.
The £50 threshold on gifts and hospitality has attracted some concern, when compared with the requirements that apply to MSPs. In preparing the report, the committee closely examined the issue.
On the matter of gifts and hospitality, members of staff very often stay with relatives, friends or party members when visiting areas on MSP business. If that needs to be registered as hospitality in the register of staff members' interests, people might be dissuaded from offering such a service, which saves the taxpayer money.
Although the member will need to seek detailed guidance from the committee clerks on that point, I do not consider that to be hospitality and, as such, it does not need to be registered.
In preparing the report, the committee explored the whole issue of costs and hospitality and we remain convinced that gifts or hospitality to members' staff of a value of more than £50, which are connected in any way with the Parliament's work, are a matter of legitimate public interest. As other committee members have pointed out, the £250 threshold on gifts and hospitality for MSPs not only covers all such gifts and hospitality; it is a statutory responsibility imposed on us by the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. As Karen Gillon and I have said on many occasions, any gifts costing more than £250 that our husbands might be moved by generosity to give us must be registered. Jackie Baillie raises her eyebrows at me; however, it is entirely true that she has to register those gifts. Who knows—she might get lucky.
Any breach of those rules by an MSP could lead to a criminal prosecution. However, under our proposals, no such sanctions will apply to members' staff. Tokens of gratitude such as flowers, chocolate, whisky and modest hospitality will not come within the rules. Furthermore, our proposals will not prevent staff from accepting gifts and hospitality in connection with their work that are in excess of £50, providing that they enter receipts in the register itself.
As for the publication of the register, there will inevitably be a conflict between individual privacy and public access to information of legitimate public interest. The committee does not approach that dilemma lightly, which is why we have listened to the concerns of MSPs and their staff and have decided against publishing the register on the internet. Nevertheless, it is important that, in the interests of transparency and openness, the register is available in hard copy.
Can you wind up now, please?
I commend the report to the Parliament. I am sure that, after this lengthy interlude, members will vote to agree the register of staff members' interests.
It is not often that the chair is grateful to a member for overrunning; however, it has suited us very well on this occasion.
There are no Parliamentary Bureau motions today, and we will come to decision time in a minute. There are two questions to put to the chamber. The first is on motion S1M-1228, in the name of Gordon Jackson, on behalf of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee:
That the Parliament notes the content and recommendations of the 3rd Report, 2000, of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on petition PE14 from the Carbeth Hutters' Association.
The second question is on motion S1M-1217, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee:
That the Parliament agrees to the establishment of a Register of Members' Staff Interests as set out in the appendices to the Standards Committee 3rd Report, 2000, and agrees that the provisions contained in those appendices shall apply to all MSPs as of 23 October 2000, that the provisions shall form an annexe to the code of conduct for Members and that the annexe shall be published for sale in hard copy and made available on the Parliament's website.
Decision time is in about 10 seconds' time. Nicol Stephen criticised me for having the vote early the last time; I see that he is in his seat and ready to put his card in, as is Mr McLeish.