Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4218, in the name of Brian Adam, that the Parliament agrees that the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill be passed. Bill Butler has seven minutes in which to speak to and move the motion.
Thank you for that generous amount of time, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether I will need it all.
This subject directly impacts on all 129 members of this Parliament. I thank members for their participation and contributions, not only this morning, but at earlier points in the process.
I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and especially to the convener, Brian Adam, as Alex Fergusson did in the previous debate. Although Brian Adam did not, in the debate on 26 April, persuade every member on the subject of determination, what he said made perfect sense to me. However, now that we have changed "determination" to "resolution", I hope that we will now resolve to get on with things. We have agreed to do so, and that is good.
I also pay tribute to members of the committee's clerking team, who were excellent, as usual. Without their help, it would have taken us even longer to reach this stage. I also pay tribute to past members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for their contribution.
I mention in particular the members of the Interests of the Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee, which was formed to scrutinise the bill at stage 2. They had the unenviable task of getting to grips at fairly short notice with a sometimes technical policy that was formed by two separate committees over almost two sessions of the Parliament. They have the thanks of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for engaging with the bill and staying with it beyond stage 2. I believe that they also have the thanks, quite rightly, of the Parliament.
The bill has taken a long time to make its way through the process. In October 2000, the then Standards Committee started to look at replacement legislation for the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 1999 Members' Interests. It is perhaps a good thing that the bill's progress has been measured. As times change, new issues naturally emerge, and members have had time to reflect on the experiences of the past few years. No doubt, some of us will make similar utterances in a few years' time, if or when we review whatever legislation is then governing members' interests.
At this moment in time, the Scotland Act 1998 is the starting point for any bill on members' interests. The requirements of the 1998 act have to be reflected in the provisions of any bill that the Parliament produces. The 1998 act requires that we make provision for the registration of members' financial interests. One of the main areas of discussion at each stage of the bill has been whether non-financial interests should be registered. It is only sensible that I leave more substantive comments on the issue to the committee's convener, Brian Adam, who will sum up following other members' contributions to the debate.
Suffice it to say that in any matter in which 129 people have a shared interest, there is room for divergent opinions. Even given the time that the bill, in whatever form, has been under consideration, we have probably not managed to produce something that fits everyone's expectations. It has been healthy to disagree about and discuss aspects of the bill, and the fact that we have done so is probably also a healthy sign that all MSPs do not think alike, even on shared concerns about members' interests.
Of course, members are open to many influences. Although that is sometimes perceived as a good thing, more often than not it is portrayed as a bad thing. Parliamentarians should be accessible to people and organisations as they consider and act both on issues that affect their local communities and on national matters. However, all members have their personal baggage, and deliberately hiding certain interests or experience could be portrayed or perceived as wrong. For example, the provisions on paid advocacy have quite rightly provoked no argument. However, members have wrestled with ideas about the other influences that should be required by law to be registered and the extent to which such requirements would intrude upon the right of every person to a private life. That aspect of our debates has been interesting and—dare I say it?—compelling.
To conclude, I return to our starting point, the Scotland Act 1998, which requires that
"Provision shall be made for a register of interests of members of the Parliament".
We are currently working under the members' interests order that was laid at Westminster in 1999. Its full title tells us that it is a "Transitional and Transitory" piece of legislation, and its final article states that the order will
"cease to have effect on the day appointed by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament."
I have to say that I am not sure about the difference between transitory and transitional and, after the debate, I will seek Alasdair Morgan's advice on that matter. In any case, I hope that if this afternoon Parliament agrees to pass the bill, as amended, we will be a step nearer to that act.
Overall, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee has tried to hold to the original consultative steering group principles of transparency, openness and accountability, and we hope that they are all reflected in the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill be passed.
In response to Bill Butler, I say that I hope that this Parliament will be a transitional one between the Westminster Parliament and a full independent Parliament, whereas I know that the current Executive is transitory.
Substantial amendments have been made to the bill as introduced, the most significant of which have been the deletion of the requirement to register non-financial interests; the change to the threshold for registering financial interests; changes to provisions on the financial interests of spouses and other relatives; and the fact that, under amendment 35, the schedule can now be modified by a "resolution" instead of by a "determination". Bill Butler said that Brian Adam had managed to persuade him that the word "determination" was perfectly clear; if so, with amendment 35, we appear to have improved on perfection.
The bill has been driven by the need for transparency in the extent to which financial inducements might influence our dealings and the need to give the people of Scotland confidence that the system in place will achieve that. We also wanted to avoid a system that might result in unnecessary bureaucracy and intrude unnecessarily into what remains of members' private lives and, more important, into the lives of their relatives.
Because of the media's criticism of many MSPs, some of us were, at one stage, prepared to declare that which should not be declared. However, over the past couple of months, many of us decided that, regardless of what we did or how open and transparent we were, we were still going to be criticised by some people.
We therefore came down on the side of doing what was sensible, rather than pandering to those who wanted us to expose every detail of our personal lives and of the lives of those around us. It is a balancing act between transparency, the need to give confidence to the people of Scotland and our rights and the rights of our relatives not to be subjected to unnecessary scrutiny. I hope that we have struck that balance. Only time will tell, but I certainly commend the bill to Parliament.
Eventually we get to discuss the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill. The bill has been a long time in the Parliament's committee system and was delayed again for further clarification, so I am glad that we have now got that clarification out of the way this morning.
In session 1, the Standards Committee considered a draft bill and left a legacy paper for those who were to become the members of the committee in session 2, to ensure that the Parliament complied with the transitional arrangements contained in the Scotland Act 1998. When the current bill was introduced, it was vastly different from the proposals of the session 1 committee. All of us will ask why that should be, and my view is that our attitudes had changed and that we also had experience of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which contributed significantly to members' changed views.
It is also true to say that the decisions that we have taken at stage 3 further demonstrate that changed view. Many of the issues that are now included in the bill will make it much easier for MSPs to operate and will also give members of the public a clearer understanding of what is involved. I find it significant that the bill also relieves the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner of the burden of interpretation, as happens under the current legislation.
It is also the case that a more confident approach has been taken to the provisions of the members' interests order. The most important decision of the Parliament, in my view, relates to the non-requirement on a member's spouse, civil partner or cohabitant to provide details of their financial interests. That is a bold decision and it represents how relationships are now viewed in today's world. The changes to the members' interests order that have been brought about will stand the test of time and will provide an appropriate basis for those members who are returned next year, even if it took us seven years to achieve.
Some might continue to argue for other changes. The absent Mr Sheridan has tried on a number of occasions to include a reference to allowances in the register of members' interests. That is clearly a separate issue, and I have every confidence in the current Standards and Public Appointments Committee, which will consider the matter when it reviews the code of conduct. I am also confident that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will examine aspects of the allowances system.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the work undertaken by the committee that was established to consider the bill at stage 2. All those involved were somewhat thrown into a process that they had never before been involved in. It was new to us and we did not know how the process would work, but we soon found out. We were able to examine the provisions and we also went as far as proposing a number of amendments. I thank my colleagues on that committee—Jamie McGrigor, Mike Rumbles, Susan Deacon and the late Margaret Ewing—for all their work at stage 2. I also thank Stewart Stevenson, who acted as Margaret Ewing's substitute on the committee.
We now have a replacement for the members' interests order that reflects the society in which we live. It is clear and open and, above all, it is workable. I commend the bill to Parliament.
As other members have said, the theme that has come across repeatedly in this debate is that the bill has been a long time coming, and I have to say that it must be the bill on whose consideration we have spent longest.
It took a year for the Standards Committee even to consider the matter in the first session, after which there were three years of work before a draft bill was produced. It has taken the subsequent committee another three years in this session to reach where we are now. Therefore, the issues in the bill have been examined for six years.
I was responsible for the draft bill in the first session, and it was interesting for me to take a place on the ad hoc committee in the second session to examine Brian Adam's work on the bill as introduced. As Margaret Jamieson mentioned, a good amount of time was spent scrutinising the bill. A few changes were made, but the two main changes resulted from Susan Deacon's amendments, which related to non-financial interests and the need for a modern examination of the relationship between members of the Scottish Parliament and their spouses in the 21st century. I was initially a great supporter of including non-financial interests in the draft bill, but as a result of experience over the six years, I took the view that if we could not identify the non-financial interests that we should declare, we should not declare non-financial interests at all. I feared that if we left things as they were, there would be confusion and a lack of clarity.
I understand why, in the stage 3 debate in April, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee brought back items for discussion that the ad hoc committee had rejected. Members wanted to ensure that all 129 members had an input into the decisions that were made. However, I think that that approach helped to sow confusion in the debate, during which members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee stood up to oppose amendments that the convener had lodged on behalf of that committee.
I agreed to the committee lodging certain amendments at stage 3. As I tried to point out in the debate on 26 April, we lodged those amendments to ensure that the whole Parliament and not only members of the committee could determine the outcomes. I hope that Mike Rumbles understands that. That was the right approach.
I have worries about that process. A little bit of confusion was caused by the attempt by the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee to bring back on behalf of the committee amendments that members of that committee opposed. That is why the Parliament decided to invoke—for the first time, I think—the procedure that has been followed, which has brought us to today's debate.
I hope that Mike Rumbles will reflect on the fact that the opportunities for discussions to which he has referred were nothing to do with why we had to continue the matter and complete it today. I do not think that the fact that we allowed all members of the Parliament an opportunity to debate issues relating to non-financial interests, to which he has referred, and spouses, civil partners and co-habitees caused any confusion at all. In fact, an exciting and interesting debate took place and we resolved in a determined way how to proceed in the future. We had a little difficulty with a technical matter, which has now been clarified.
My perspective on the matter is different from that of Brian Adam. The Parliament had rejected what the committee wanted to do several times and we were left with suggestions that the committee wanted to do this and that, which upset many members who did not see what it was trying to do. The Parliament had rejected what the Standards and Public Appointments Committee had wanted to do, so the committee asked the Parliament to do something else, which caused confusion. As I have said, I understand why the committee did what it did—it was to allow everybody to have an input.
This is a very good bill—it would have to be after six years of examination, and there would be something wrong if it was not. It gives openness and transparency, but above all else it gives clarity. MSPs know exactly what they have to declare and what they have to register. There is no confusion. The bill is absolutely clear, and that is as it should be.
As many members have said, the bill has been a long time coming. It has taken seven years and the input of two committees to get where we are today.
The bill is hugely important. The process has been a little messy on one or two occasions, but it has brought out what I believe to be the very best in the Parliament. Individual members have been forthright in questioning the advisability of an ever more intrusive requirement to register not only our own interests—it is reasonable that we should do so—but the interests of spouses and partners.
I have often stressed the need for simplicity and clarity and, indeed, a level playing field. Previous contributions from Susan Deacon, Donald Gorrie, Ken Macintosh, John Home Robertson, Mike Rumbles—for whose Damascene change of heart on some issues I applaud him—and others have shown that a level playing field, vital in a members' interests regime, simply cannot be achieved.
I greatly applaud the stand that those MSPs and others took. Members had the courage to back the removal of some stage 2 amendments that would have required a level of transparency and intrusion—Alasdair Morgan used the word "intrude"—that would simply not have been fair to all members and would not have achieved the desired outcome. As I have said at every possible opportunity, every attempt that we have made in this Parliament to be open and transparent has simply given those who would do us down an increased amount of ammunition—and they have used it.
If passed this afternoon, as it surely will be, the bill will make it far less likely that people are put off becoming members of this Parliament. That is another issue that I have referred to in the past. Furthermore, the bill is considerably clearer, simpler and easier to understand than it might have been had members not taken, on 26 April, what Margaret Jamieson described today as "bold" decisions.
I have very much enjoyed being a member of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee while we have been considering the subject. In answer to Mike Rumbles, I say that I have no regrets that some amendments proposed by the Standards and Public Appointments Committee were rejected. However, as I said on 26 April, my agreement to amendments in committee did not always signal my approval of them. It was important that the committee supported amendments unanimously, even if some members voiced reservations, so that the Parliament as a whole would have the opportunity to come to a determination. This has been a completely unwhipped debate.
I want to draw a distinction. When the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, on behalf of the committee, lodges amendments at stage 3, that has a different level of importance than when an individual MSP lodges amendments. An individual MSP would have been perfectly able to lodge those amendments at stage 3, but because the convener was lodging them on behalf of the committee they had a certain status. I am not sure that that was helpful to the debate.
Had decisions been forced on the committee, amendments would have been backed only by a majority of the committee. I do not think that that would have been helpful. The fact that amendments were lodged by the convener on behalf of the committee—after notice had been given that, in the debate, individual members would voice their reservations—has not done either the procedure or the Parliament any harm. It was absolutely right that the whole Parliament should take those decisions. In doing so, it has in many ways shown a maturity and some sheer common sense of which many would previously have suggested we were incapable.
I whole-heartedly commend the bill to the chamber.
I start by thanking Margaret Jamieson for her courtesy in extending thanks to other members of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee, on which I served. Of course, my period of service on that committee was not a happy one, given that Margaret Ewing was then extremely frail. The last parliamentary action in relation to Margaret was her election as the convener of the committee, but alas she was unable to attend any of its meetings.
As much as Margaret Ewing was a politician, she was a parliamentarian above all else. What we debate today is a bill about parliamentary activity. It is a debate for which no party in the Parliament is whipped—apart, perhaps, from the party whose members are absent from the back benches—and in relation to which we will have to exercise our judgment individually when we come to decision time. However, it is clear that what our collective judgment will be has been established and that we will support the proposed changes.
We must consider both the bill and the whole system that is implicit in it in a particular way. The bill is a legal document that will lay down legal requirements on members of the Parliament. However, that is not enough—that is the minimum standard that we must achieve. The bill uses words that make it clear that we will continue to have to exercise judgment; it does not represent a simple tick list or formula that we can apply.
When we look at the prejudice test, it is clear that we must exercise judgment. The bill states:
"An interest meets the prejudice test if, after taking into account all the circumstances, that interest is reasonably considered to prejudice, or to give the appearance of prejudicing, the ability of the member to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of the Parliament."
That is a very high test, which we, as members, must apply for ourselves. At the point at which we have to exercise that judgment, the interest in question may be known only to us and to no one else. Although it may, of course, emerge at a later stage, that will be no justification for our failure to apply proper judgment at the point at which we should have put it on the register of interests.
However, there is an extent to which we will have to have psychic powers. Although the Parliament is constrained with regard to what it may legislate on, we are not constrained with regard to what we may debate. If I had a nephew who lived in Australia in a town where the Commonwealth games were to be held and who intended to lease his house during the games, I would have a familial interest in the profit that would be made from that. If the Parliament was then to debate the Commonwealth games, would that interest meet the test? Only I would be able to make that judgment. We can all come up with examples. The bottom line is that the bill will not relieve us of individual responsibility.
There are other difficulties that we must consider. From the outset, I concluded that the way in which the members' interests order dealt with shares was inadequate, because its test relates only to the nominal value of shares, which often bears little relation to their actual market value. Voluntarily, I have registered most but not all of my shareholdings. The shareholdings that I have not registered are quite small—they have a value of a few hundred pounds. For example, I am in the process of acquiring shares in a co-operative that operates a wind farm in my constituency. I expect to invest £500. As drafted, the bill will catch that because what it says about shares makes it clear—to me, at least—that it is the aggregate total of my shareholdings that matters, not the individual value of an individual shareholding in an individual company. I agree with that provision.
I will now be mischievous by attempting to wind up anyone who wants to be wound up. We may not have excluded the requirement to register the interests of our partners. I use that word very carefully, because in the schedule the bill makes it clear that we must register gifts
"Where … a partnership of which the member is a partner"—
it does not say a legal partnership—
"receives, or has received, a gift of heritable or moveable property or a gift of a benefit in kind"
and the value of the gift on that date exceeds the amount specified.
Will the member take an intervention?
It is easy to wind him up.
Stewart Stevenson missed out part of the quotation. The bill states that gifts that are received by
"a member or a company in which the member has a controlling interest or a partnership of which the member is a partner"
are to be registered. It is quite clear.
I view my relationship with my dearly beloved as a partnership of equals. That is my point. My comments are intended merely to illustrate that we must read the bill and ensure that we understand exactly what it says.
It gets even more complicated, because there may be some shares that pay no dividends. I have held shares in a number of companies that do not pay dividends. Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world, does not pay dividends. Capital appreciation may be postponed to a far-distant point, but there are still issues. The prejudice test is the key. It is good that that is spelled out in the bill.
It is somewhat ironic that we are concluding the parliamentary process on the bill on the very day that the Parliament has probably—I do not make the claim absolutely—become the first Parliament to publish all the receipts for members' expenses, albeit that we have more to publish. That bespeaks our openness and preparedness to be accountable, as does the bill. I notice that the public gallery is rather sparsely populated and that the press gallery is entirely empty. I am sure that the press are fair cumsnuggered as they look through the 15,000 receipts that have been published. It will keep them out of mischief for at least three hours.
It was a privilege and a pleasure to participate in the work of the committee. There is no hiding place in a five-person committee. We had genuinely engaged and serious discussions about some of the issues. I did not agree with all the conclusions, but that is all right. The bill that is before us reflects the sweat, work and intellectual endeavours of two generations of parliamentarians. Like almost all other members—certainly all members of good common sense—I will support the bill at decision time.
It says in my notes that I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and indeed I do, although I do not want to get caught in the crossfire that is going on. As I said during the stage 1 debate, my role is merely to emphasise the Executive's shared interest in ensuring that the Parliament passes robust and effective legislation. In essence, the bill is a matter for the Parliament and the Executive has no further interest in it per se.
Previously I highlighted the importance of seeking to produce a framework that takes account of what people outside the Parliament might deem to be relevant. We must have that at the forefront of our minds. Of course, as members have said, we must also develop a framework that respects members' privacy and wider responsibilities.
The framework must be clear—ambiguity does not assist us in any way. Members must not be unfairly compromised or penalised. That point was well rehearsed at stage 2 and during stage 3 consideration of amendments. We must be transparently accountable. We now have a system that will allow us to do that, to build on the respect that the Parliament has already gained and to agree to legislation that supports the principles that I have outlined.
The legislation is key in underpinning our accountability to the electorate and the propriety of decisions that we are in the privileged position of making on its behalf. Now and, hopefully, in the future, it protects members who seek to focus on the interests of Scotland, while ensuring that we have a proper and effective system of accountability. Equally, it minimises the opportunities for those who set out to undermine the Parliament's work.
The Executive has monitored the progress of the bill during its amending stages. Members of the ad hoc committee had a difficult task in seeking to refine the details of the bill and I am sure that the chamber will join me in expressing gratitude to the committee for its thorough consideration of the policy issues. I pay tribute to Margaret Jamieson for all the work that she did in relation to that committee. Further, I pay particular tribute to Margaret Ewing and associate the Executive with Stewart Stevenson's words in that regard. She was a committed parliamentarian and knew her responsibilities clearly. I want to take this public opportunity to emphasise the loss to us all that was caused by Margaret's death.
I restate my thanks to Brian Adam in relation to the work that we have done over the years in terms of expressing the Executive's interests, where appropriate. Brian Adam has conducted himself in a non-partisan and collegiate way in his post. All members of Parliament appreciate that. Further, I think that he has come to appreciate the life of a minister and the fact that irritating members can annoy us because they simply will not be told how clear things are. Much as I appreciate Brian Adam's many talents, however, I think that his party loyalties will prevent him from holding ministerial office—I say that to reciprocate Alasdair Morgan's points. I am glad that Brian Adam acknowledges the pressure that we are under.
The process has been a useful one for the Parliament to undertake. I appreciate that we have done this work as a group of members rather than as party representatives. I think that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and others have discharged their responsibilities effectively. It is to be hoped that, at last, we are at the end of the process.
At the end of the passage of any bill, thanks must be given. I associate myself with the remarks of other members who thanked members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and the previous Standards Committee, which did the initial work in the previous session, and the members of the ad hoc committee. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks that others have made about the involvement of Margaret Ewing. Although she did not attend any of the formal sessions, she attended some of the informal briefings that helped us to develop the appropriate debate that took place in public—we had to gather information and ensure that we were well informed before we could properly scrutinise the proposals.
I thank the members who have engaged with the bill and the members of staff who have helped to deliver it. We can express our views but there are a lot of technicalities involved in the legislation and the clerking staff and the staff of the non-Executive bills unit helped to deliver the bill.
As others have said, legislation that relates to members' interests should be about openness and transparency but it should be measured. We had a debate about how that should happen in a measured way.
Mike Rumbles said that, in his view, some of the difficulties that we had in the previous stage 3 debate on the bill might have been caused by the fact that amendments that were lodged on behalf of the committee did not carry the support of the committee. To that, I would say that those amendments were in my name and that that position mirrors the approach to Executive bills, which involves the minister being in charge. In that regard, I say to Margaret Curran that she should reflect on the fact that I might just be getting in a little practice for next year. The committee might have discussed the amendments, but they were not committee amendments as such. I had the agreement of members of the committee, but the purpose of the amendments was purely to enable all members to have their say. I, along with the convener or the deputy convener of the ad hoc committee, tried to create a climate in which debate could happen and in which we could engage not only the seven members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and the five members of the ad hoc committee, but all 129 members. In that sense, we achieved our objective.
I think that Brian Adam misunderstood my point. I did not say, nor did I wish to imply, that his amendments did not have the support of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. What I said was that some members of the committee opposed the amendments. It was evident that the amendments that were lodged on behalf of the committee by the convener did not have the support of the Parliament, and that led to confusion and delay. The point that I was making is that amendments that are lodged on behalf of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee by the convener have a different status from amendments that are lodged by individual members.
I understand the point that Mike Rumbles is trying to make, but I do not accept that that is the case. There is a difference between an Executive bill and a committee bill, particularly one that affects all members. My duty was to ensure that there was a full debate and I made sure that that happened by lodging the amendments.
One reason why a little confusion may have arisen is that members were allowed to debate the matter and had to accept responsibility for their decisions without the guidance of whips. It is unusual for that to occur throughout a debate. We have free votes in some circumstances, but they do not usually apply to a whole bill and a whole debate. I think that that enhanced the debate. It might have contributed to the confusion, but we were doing something new and we had the opportunity to exercise a little-known part of our standing orders. The guidance that we received on that from the Presiding Officer team was greatly appreciated, certainly on my part. The fact that we stretched the Parliament as part of the process is a positive thing. However, I do not want to labour the point.
I turn to the remarks that were made by my colleague Alasdair Morgan, who was perhaps single-handedly responsible for our having to come back to the debate today because he said that he did not understand what "determination" meant, what its consequences would be and how the procedures for dealing with it would be arrived at. I am glad that he graciously recognised that we are now a little further forward. It is clear that he is determined to achieve change and the Parliament has determined that resolution is the better part of determination. We could spend ages dancing on the head of a pin; I am not sure that the word "resolution" is very different from the word "determination", but members understand the former a little better.
The key difference today is the one that means that there will be an opportunity to publish the intention to change, which will also put it into the public domain in a more formal way than might otherwise have been the case.
Mike Rumbles was correct to say that the change in attitude has been driven by experience, particularly over the past 18 months. That is perfectly understandable.
Margaret Jamieson said that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 had influenced her thinking on the matter. She was correct to say that we now have a more confident approach to asserting what we think is a proper balance. In the past there was an attitude that we needed to be as open as possible, but we have to get the right balance. The Parliament has had the opportunity to debate the matter and it has clearly decided in which direction it wants to go.
It is true that some changes that we have introduced reflect changes in relationships that the Parliament has acknowledged as important by amending family law to recognise civil partnerships and cohabiting couples. Having done that, the Parliament has decided to alter declarations of interest that involve members' partners.
Margaret Jamieson was right to say that issues that relate to allowances are not matters for the bill. They are primarily for the Parliament as a whole, but the Parliament has given the corporate body the authority to deal with those matters, where they properly reside.
Alex Fergusson was right to say that the whole Parliament has now had the opportunity to have a debate. That was what was wanted by the ad hoc committee and the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, which was charged with producing the bill. The Parliament has had that debate, primarily at a previous meeting.
Stewart Stevenson highlighted two principal changes that will take place as a result of the bill and which were agreed without significant debate beyond the debate in the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. The objective prejudice test, which is widely recognised as a significant advance, places much responsibility on members to make a judgment. The individual member's judgment will be considered by the electorate eventually and in some circumstances by our independent Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner. Some members had concerns about that and we debated how much should be left to the commissioner to interpret. If the Parliament passes the bill, it will have decided that the objective prejudice test is the direction in which it wants to go.
Perhaps the position on shares will be a little clearer, because the requirement to register will relate to the actual value of shares rather than a notional value. I am not sure that Stewart Stevenson was quite right on a couple of points. An interest in shares could include that of a marriage partner, but only if they were subject to the member's control or direction. Given that Parliament has already interpreted that, that is not really a runner. In relation to gifts, the word "partnership" takes its ordinary legal meaning. We will pass a law today, so that will be the meaning that applies. That meaning does not include marriage partners.
It is important that any person who observes their elected member going about their parliamentary duties should have a sense of what drives that member. The subject that perhaps provoked most discussion was registering non-financial interests. The intended policy of the Standards Committee at the end of session 1 and of the current Standards and Public Appointments Committee was that registering non-financial interests should be mandatory rather than voluntary as it is at present.
There is no doubt and no one disputed that non-financial interests can shape a member's views. However, the questions with which we have all grappled are the extent to which non-financial interests should be required by law to be registered and, if registration were required, how that would impact on private and family life. Parliament has agreed not to force registrations, for the reasons that a wide variety of members have given, which I understand perfectly. Parliament has agreed to leave the onus on members to decide whether a non-financial interest is relevant to their Parliament work, with the option to register such an interest voluntarily, which is exactly the present situation.
Another interesting deliberation was about the interests of non-MSPs—the people who are closest to us, such as spouses, civil partners or cohabitants. Members picked over that issue in the stage 1 debate and in the bill committee at stage 2, which resulted in food for thought before stage 3. As members we put ourselves up for election and for public scrutiny, but Parliament has agreed that our family members do not necessarily do so. Members are responsible for whether a family interest should be voluntarily registered. We can choose to make that registration, but it will not be compulsory.
It is worth restating that the register is about influence and what may make a member act in a certain way. When a member has to register something, chooses to register something or declares something it does not preclude them from participating in full in parliamentary life. It does not preclude a member from contributing to debates or from voting on an issue. The purpose of the register is to show what may influence a member or make them act in a certain way. It is important that the public are aware of that and the onus is on members to let the public know about it. Some registration will be compulsory, but I hope that some of it will continue to be done voluntarily. The register will inform anybody who is interested in what is going on that a member has an interest in, or even knowledge of, the subject under debate.
Subject to the bill being passed this afternoon—I hope that we will not have to revisit the matter again—the provisions of the act will affect members who are returned to Parliament following the election in May 2007. We will then see the legislation at work and we will be able to keep an eye on it to check that it meets the public's need to have information about what might be considered to be a possible influence on the conduct of a member, whether that strikes the appropriate balance with the rights of members and whether adjustments will need to be made over time.
The bill does not sit in isolation. The code of conduct is currently under review. At the risk of causing confusion, Mr Rumbles, I encourage members to take an active and early interest in the current review of the code of conduct rather than to engage in the debate at a later stage. It is wonderful that members have engaged in this debate, but it might have been helpful and would perhaps have caused less confusion if we had had a wider debate at an earlier stage. I invite members to engage now in the review of the code of conduct.
The committee's intention is to change the arrangement of the code of conduct by dividing it into three parts. The first part will set out the aspirations; the second part will set out the rules and regulations in the code; and the third part will offer guidance on how those might be applied. That should help members to understand where they are in relation to the code. It should also help the public to understand what members are doing and it should help the commissioner to interpret the rules.
Once again, I extend my thanks to members for their input and I trust that they will agree that the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill be passed.