Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings on the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill. On 26 April, Parliament resolved that stage 3 proceedings that day be adjourned in order to clarify uncertainties that had arisen during those proceedings. Members have before them a second marshalled list, containing an amendment that seeks to clear up those uncertainties. The amendment will be debated before the motion on whether to pass the bill is considered.
Schedule
Registrable financial interests
Amendment 35, in the name of Brian Adam, the member in charge of the bill, is the only amendment in the group.
Before I get into the detail of amendment 35, I offer my apologies to members for the confusion that occurred around this issue during the previous debate. We have worked hard to ensure that the amendment before members today meets the concerns that were expressed. I hope that members have had an opportunity to look at the note explaining the background to the amendment, which, as I promised, was circulated to all members.
The principal reason for amendment 35, which confers power on the Parliament to modify the schedule, is to enable us to keep the requirements of the legislation current, relevant and pertinent in the future. Without such a provision, the only way in which we could amend the requirements that are imposed on us by the schedule would be by way of a further bill. Given that it has taken us seven years to reach this point, I suspect that not many members would be keen on that approach.
In other bills, power is given to the Executive to amend similar provisions by way of statutory instruments. Ministers accept that it is not appropriate in the special circumstances of a bill that is solely about members that they should be given responsibility for that. The amendment utilises a fairly common approach to changing administrative matters by requiring that any changes be agreed by the Parliament. Because any changes would amend the provisions of an act, which in turn could affect what constitutes a criminal offence, it is important to have some means by which the Parliament's resolution is made public. Members will see that, for that reason, the terminology has been revised to refer to a "resolution" of the Parliament, as opposed to a "determination".
Proposed subparagraph (2), which amendment 35 would insert into the schedule, applies the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 to the resolution, which should enable publication by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Members were particularly concerned about how the process would operate in practice. It is envisaged that the Procedures Committee will consider whether there is a need for any changes to the standing orders to set out the process under which Parliament would consider any such resolution. I anticipate that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee will, as part of its existing remit, alert the Parliament when any change is required. Thereafter, I expect that all members will have an opportunity to participate in a debate and to vote on any changes before they are made.
Officials supporting the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am convener, have advised the Subordinate Legislation Committee of the proposed change and I understand that it is content with the approach. I commend the amendment to members, because it will allow the requirements imposed on members to be kept up to date and sets out an appropriate approach to making any necessary, agreed changes.
I move amendment 35.
During the earlier stage 3 proceedings, I do not think that members were against a provision that would allow us to change the schedule without having to revert to primary legislation. However, many of us were concerned that a procedure was being put to us that had not been explained to us in advance and of which we did not have the details. Many of us were rightly unhappy about that.
I accept that the procedure has still to be implemented, potentially through changes to our standing orders, but I think that we are a lot clearer now about what is being suggested. The Scottish National Party will support amendment 35.
I start by commending staff of the directorate of clerking and reporting for the drafting of the note that was circulated to all members. A number of members who were particularly exercised about the issue when we last debated it on 26 April have obviously been completely satisfied by that note, because they ain't here this morning. That is also commendable.
There has been a positive outcome, considering the almost shambolic way in which the previous stage 3 proceedings drew to a close on 26 April. That situation arose because of considerable confusion and consequent uncertainty among members of all parties as to the procedural niceties of what was meant by a "determination". It is, of course, vital that any legislation that we pass, particularly on a matter of this nature, is clearly understood by all members. The positive outcome is that when that threatened not to be the case, we identified a procedure that would allow us to revisit the matter after due consideration, without having to abandon the proposed amendment or drop the bill altogether. I take great comfort from the fact that our procedures allowed that to happen.
I hope that members are now absolutely clear about what is being proposed. It is right that Parliament will be able to alter the bill, when enacted, with the benefit of hindsight, without recourse to primary legislation. I endorse whole-heartedly amendment 35.
I applaud the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for the way in which he handled the fairly bruising experience that he went through on 26 April. He did so with his customary good humour, for which I commend him. His clarification, along with the note that was circulated, means that amendment 35 is completely worthy of members' support. I urge members to support the amendment, because, by doing so, they will strengthen the bill.
We did indeed have difficulty on 26 April, and it was helpful that we had procedures in our standing orders that allowed us to pause at that point and reflect on the issues that were raised. It is particularly important in a unicameral Parliament that we were able to do that and that the culmination of seven years of hard work by a number of members in two sessions was not lost on a technicality.
I appreciate the comments of the other two members who took part in this short debate on amendment 35. We are not in a position to spell out in detail the mechanism that will be used to modify the schedule; that will be a matter for the Procedures Committee. It might even be a matter for the Procedures Committee in the next session of Parliament.
Amendment 35 agreed to.