Register of Interests (Members' Staff)
The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-654, in the name of Mr Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on a register of interests of staff of members of the Scottish Parliament. I invite those who wish to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I am pleased, on behalf of colleagues on the Standards Committee, to present our second report of this year, which proposes a register of interests of staff of members of the Scottish Parliament. The committee believes that the report further emphasises its commitment to ensuring, as far as possible, openness and transparency in the business of Parliament. The committee has agreed, and invites the Parliament to endorse, the proposed arrangements for registration that are set out in the annexe to the report. If agreed by the Parliament, it is intended that the arrangements should form an annexe to the "Register of Members' Interests", and be published as such.
It became apparent to the committee in drafting the code of conduct that it was necessary also to examine the impact of MSPs' staff on the conduct of parliamentary business. That is reflected in paragraph 7.3.10 of the code:
"Staff employed by MSPs are in a position to exert influence. It is right that the public have access to information about any interest which might reasonably be thought to influence such staff. It is, therefore, intended to establish a Register of Interests of MSPs' staff. Members will be held responsible for ensuring that, to the best of their knowledge, any staff working for them fulfil the requirements when introduced."
I emphasise that the additional obligations that are recommended in the report would be obligations on MSPs. The report is not designed to regulate the conduct of MSPs' staff. The Standards Committee has no remit to impose obligations on MSPs' staff. That is a matter between a member of staff and the MSP who is responsible for them, as laid out in paragraph 9.2.5 of the code of conduct:
"Members will be held responsible for the behaviour of their staff within the Parliamentary complex and in their dealings with other members, other members' staff, and Parliamentary staff."
In the context of the report, the behaviour of our staff is relevant only in so far as their outside interests might impact on our conduct as MSPs. To the extent that it might do so, the committee considers that it is appropriate that relevant information about the interests of members' staff is registered and made publicly available. The committee was also influenced in taking that view by the fact that a similar register is maintained at Westminster in respect of the interests of MPs' staff. Accordingly, members are invited today to offer their support for the motion, which seeks to establish such a register.
The register covers
"any person who works or who provides services, whether paid or unpaid, as a member of staff of one or more MSPs to assist with the carrying out of Parliamentary duties, including constituency duties."
It also includes
"persons employed by a political party to work, or to provide services, as a member of staff to one or more MSPs."
That is a wider group than is covered by the equivalent register at Westminster. The committee decided that it was right to provide information publicly about the interests of unpaid, as well as paid, members of MSPs' staff, and about those employed by MSPs in constituency or regional offices, as well as within the Parliament. The register does not cover persons who assist an MSP exclusively in relation to electoral canvassing or electoral administration. The interests that are to be registered include receipt of gifts, benefits and hospitality. The committee considered that the disclosure of such interests would offer significant transparency in regard to the potential influences on members of staff and, indirectly, on ourselves.
The proposed arrangements place requirements on all of us to ensure compliance by our staff with the registration provisions. Where a member of staff works, or provides services, for more than one MSP, the MSPs involved should agree who is to be identified as the responsible MSP. All of us are required to ensure that any member of staff for whom we are the responsible MSP is aware of and understands the rules on registration of interests of members' staff.
The committee has acknowledged that it could be considered unreasonable employment practice for an MSP to impose registration obligations on a member of staff who is already engaged on agreed terms and conditions. In respect of those members of staff, the requirement on MSPs is to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure compliance with the registration provisions.
However, in respect of members of staff engaged after the Parliament agrees to the proposed provisions, MSPs are required to make compliance with the provisions a condition of engagement and to deal with failure to comply with them as a matter of misconduct.
The requirements on all members in relation to the registration of the interests of staff, if agreed by the Parliament, will be regarded as part of the code of conduct. A breach of any of the requirements on MSPs should be regarded as a breach of the code of conduct and could lead to sanctions being imposed.
I have read the document with some interest, but nowhere in it can I find a definition of members' staff. Mr Rumbles has mentioned them throughout his speech. Without a definition of members' staff, anyone associated with an MSP in their office—any volunteer—is included in this draft.
More than 50 activists work in my community for me, in various guises—I am very lucky. Will I have to register all those people and classify them as members of staff? They certainly would not want to be classified as members of my staff; nevertheless they are associated with me. That point is not clear in the document.
It is not the intention, as I made clear, that Dr Simpson would have to register the 50 people who work for him in that way. There is no legal definition of employment and it is not for me to lay one out.
Mr Rumbles referred to "paid" and "unpaid". That does not only mean employed.
I have no problem with the register in relation to people I employ; the Standards Committee is right on that, but unpaid members of staff—
We cannot have three members on their feet at once.
I will continue, because I hope that my next comment will take Dr Simpson's view into consideration.
It has been brought to my attention that some concerns have been expressed about the introduction of the register of staff interests. I appeal to colleagues here today who have such concerns to make them known during the debate—Dr Simpson has already done so and I have noted his concern. The Standards Committee is a listening committee, and we are always willing to take on board colleagues' views.
In recommending the code of conduct to Parliament on 24 February, I stated that the committee believed that the code represented another key stage in developing a Parliament that the public can both trust and have confidence in. The publication of the report can be viewed as a further stage in that process—it further signifies our commitment to open and transparent procedures. As with the code of conduct, we view the arrangements as being evolutionary. We are committed to review and, where necessary, to propose amendments to those arrangements.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the establishment of a Register of Interests of Staff of MSPs as set out in the annex to the Standards Committee 2nd Report 2000; that the provisions contained in that annex shall apply to all MSPs with immediate effect; that the provisions shall form an annex to the Code of Conduct for members, and that the annex shall be published for sale in hard copy and made available on the Parliament's website.
I should have said at the beginning of the debate that I will make a ruling at the end of this morning's business on the point of order that was raised by Fergus Ewing last week on accusations of telling lies in the chamber.
In previous debates, I have mentioned the need for this Parliament to lead on these matters. Our Parliament, the world's newest Parliament, must be at the forefront in setting high standards for our members.
The evidence so far suggests that we are strongly committed to that. Much of that evidence emanates from the work that has been done by the Standards Committee. It is undoubtedly working well and it is worth registering our commendation of the members for the way in which they have applied themselves to the task—perhaps not the sexiest task of all the committees—which is very important. The committee deserves our thanks for the work that it has done so far.
I make it perfectly clear that the principle of a members' staff register is fine and is totally supported by the Executive and by the vast majority of the members of the Parliament. However, there is perhaps concern that balance and good intention will lead to over-prescription. The concern centres around four areas. First, the report says that once a member has been requested to supply details of a member of staff, they have seven days in which to do so. In some circles, that might seem reasonable, but in the hurly-burly of parliamentary life, there might be a variety of circumstances that make that a difficult time scale for a member to meet. Perhaps, with some reflection, we could revisit the tightness of that time scale.
Secondly, the report mentions that the receipt of any hospitality must exceed £50 before a member of staff is required to declare it. That figure differs from that which we had agreed for MSPs and from the one that is established in the House of Commons. In this chamber, it is almost obligatory to say that we do not need to do everything that the House of Commons does. However, that figure in London was surely set in the light of experience; we set a different figure here. Perhaps it would be no bad thing if we took some time to reflect on the difference between the two figures and to expand further on the rationale behind making a distinction between a member of staff and a member.
To be helpful, the £250 that applies to MSPs covers every source, under all circumstances, whereas the £50 is for anything that relates to the work that an employee does. There is a significant difference between those two purposes.
I am grateful for that clarification. However, perhaps the committee should reflect upon some of those concerns.
The third area of concern was raised by Richard Simpson, who referred to the requirement to register unpaid staff. There are concerns about how we define those staff, how wide that goes and where we cross the line between someone having a genuine interest in assisting the process locally and their being considered a member of staff. Perhaps greater definition and clarity would be no bad thing.
Fourthly, the convener of the Standards Committee alluded to the fact that the burden of responsibility for any transgressions made by a member of staff is placed firmly upon the MSP—that is a fairly onerous burden. Before MSPs accept the report, they need to clarify better exactly what they are signing up to. There is not a great deal of clarity about the burden that is placed on the MSP; again, more clarity would be no bad thing.
We should consider the question of consultation with staff, and indeed with MSPs themselves. Today's debate is, in many ways, a form of consultation with MSPs. I am sure that the members of the Standards Committee will be informed by the contributions that are made. Essentially, we are debating requirements that are placed on members of staff. I would hope that at the very least we would take a little longer to explain to those members of staff the rationale behind our belief that there is a requirement to register their interests. That would help them to understand that it is being done for the right reasons and that we do not operate in something approaching a blame culture.
I hope that, having been informed by this morning's debate, the Standards Committee will take account of the comments that have been made and reflect further on the report, before the Parliament takes a final decision.
Other pressing business means that I have to leave the chamber for at least part of this morning's debate. I apologise in advance for that.
I echo what Mr McCabe said: this is a Parliament that has, quite rightly, set itself the task of being in the forefront of regulating members' actions, so that it is open, transparent and accessible.
It is quite acceptable that members in this chamber should set themselves the highest standards. We all welcomed—and are living by, I hope—the code of conduct that the Standards Committee introduced in February. However, the register of members' staff interests is slightly different. We all accept that staff must be regulated. There is clearly a need for openness, transparency and accountability from the staff of MSPs. However, to some extent, those staff are the civil servants of members and therefore, not only should we regulate, but we must have the same concern for their protection as we do for that of civil servants. We can accept draconian measures to apply to ourselves, but we owe it to the people who work for us to ensure that there is full consultation before we accept such measures on their behalf. The debate should form part of a pre-legislative consultation—something on which Parliament prides itself—on the code.
I welcome the report of the Standards Committee. The committee is doing a tremendous job on behalf of the Parliament. However, this morning is not the right time to make a final decision on the document. I encourage the committee to listen to the debate and to consult members of staff, either through staff associations or by inviting individual members of staff to give evidence to the Standards Committee.
One or two points that arise from the report require further consultation. All of us are envious—not to say incredulous—that Richard Simpson's charisma has resulted in 50 people working for him. He makes a very good point. Nowhere in the document is it made clear who is a "member of staff". The issue of voluntary staff and those who wish to give their time to assist, not just members, but the democratic process in Scotland, has to be considered differently. Some people give their time simply to assist in the practicality of delivering the services of the Parliament; the definition of a member of staff has to be approached more carefully.
I thank the staff association of the Scottish National party for considering the report and raising some points on which it wants to consult. The publication of names and details of staff is quite acceptable, but there must be some safeguards. To some extent, those people did not invite publicity and contact—unlike us—but they took on a job. That must be considered within their terms and conditions of employment. If names and details are to be published on the internet, we must reassure members of staff that that is in their interests and in the interests of their families.
There is the question of voluntary staff. Many people want to get involved in the Parliament and we must ensure that they do not disadvantage themselves in doing so. We must consider how those people are treated. A real problem in the report is the approach to temporary staff. If I have read the report correctly, temps and agency workers who do more than 10 days in a year would have to register every other employer that they have had in that year. That raises issues of commercial confidentiality and more practical difficulties, because a temp might work for a whole range of people during the year. That will have an impact on members, because it will occasionally limit the services that we can get from temporary staff.
The gifts, benefits and hospitality threshold is set very low. I am reliably informed that it costs more than £50 to go to a club for a night—it is not something that I do often. I do not know whether that is true—Dr Simpson or Mr McCabe might be able to tell me, and Mr Swinney could certainly tell me. However, that is not an uncommon invitation for an evening. The level is set too low. We must also recognise that staff sometimes accept hospitality because their employer tells them to—attending a conference, for example. That is not a willing action, but one taken under instruction. We must differentiate between the two circumstances.
We keep returning to the definition of staff. Reading the report, I want to know much more clearly who staff are and why they are defined in such a way.
I encourage the Standards Committee to take heed of the debate and to realise that there is cross-party support for regulating staff and for the strongest code of conduct for everyone in the Parliament. However, the committee should take the report away without voting on it, to ensure that consultation takes place with staff and members. We need something that answers the questions of the people who work hard for members, who are an integral part of the Parliament's work and for whom we are making decisions without giving them the opportunity to speak for themselves.
This matter of a register of interests of MSPs' staff should be dealt with quickly and effectively, but in a way that commands the confidence of all. It recently came to our knowledge that concerns have been expressed by employees—especially on the ground that they have not been consulted.
Concern focused primarily on three items. The first was whether the names of staff should be registered on the internet. In that connection, I quote from the ninth report of the 1997-98 session, of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which states at paragraph 3:
"The Commissioner has proposed that the other registers . . . should now be made open to public inspection. We agree there is inevitably a conflict between the protection of the individuals' privacy and allowing public access to information which is of legitimate interest to the public. In our view the case for greater openness is the stronger."
Paragraph 5.2 of the proposed register states:
"The Register is available for inspection on the Parliament's website."
I do not know which concerns are likely to be expressed in that connection, or the reasons for them, but it seems fair that employees should have the opportunity to express their view before implementation.
The second concern was over whether it was appropriate—and Tom McCabe has raised this point—to set for staff a threshold of £50 for gifts and hospitality that have to be declared. It should be pointed out that the threshold for MSPs is fixed by statute and relates to all gifts and hospitality that they receive; it is therefore much more comprehensive. The requirement in the proposed register relates specifically to gifts and hospitality that employees receive directly in relation to their work. However, as members of a listening Parliament, we should be aware of the views of members of staff before any final decisions are made.
The third concern was over the time for the registering of staff. MSPs are asked to put forward the names of employees within a week. Thereafter, the employees have some 30 days to register the details. Therefore, from the date of implementation of the register, there will be some five weeks before details have to be registered—which is surely not an oppressive deadline. However, here again, there is no harm in listening to the views of employees.
There might be other matters which employees wish to raise, and the form and length of consultation should be a matter for the committee. Thereafter, I hope that the endorsement of the report will be possible, so that other pressing subjects can be considered efficiently and speedily.
When President Abraham Lincoln was asked why he had not implemented his wish and intention immediately, he replied:
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
If the members of the Standards Committee do not press their motion to a vote this morning, they are merely following the example of President Abraham Lincoln. I hope that, when the register is implemented, the certainties accompanying it will be based on a structure of well-resolved doubts. I share the convener's wish to maintain calm and steady progress within a reasonable time scale.
I had not intended to intervene in the debate. I welcome the work of the Standards Committee; having been a temporary recruit of that committee, I know how hard its members work.
Apart from the concern over the definition of a member of staff—which is crucial—there are other issues that I would like to raise. Before doing so, I would like to refer to paragraph 2.2 of the report, which repeatedly uses the phrase:
"as a member of staff".
The definition of a member of staff will be central to the way in which the document is treated.
I echo the point that Mike Russell made about temporary employment. What constitutes temporary employment? Does it, for example, involve working full time for 10 days, or part time, or an hour a day? We need to have clear definitions, so that we know what we are talking about.
I accept that the spirit of the report is to be open and transparent; perhaps we therefore need to be over-inclusive rather than under-inclusive. However, that has consequences for individuals who volunteer to fill in on a short-term basis.
I would like to ask about the third-party provision. There are circumstances in which many of us have discussions with organisations such as voluntary organisations, unions and others, when offers are made to investigate a particular area, to provide specialist information, to provide us with papers, or to search the web for literature reviews—as I had done the other day for me by an organisation. Such organisations employ staff to undertake that work, so I am asking a third party to do that work for me. However, I do not know who is doing it or the way in which it is being done. I do not know whether it is being done by an individual or by a team. Perhaps Mr Rumbles could address that point.
I would like to put Richard Simpson's mind at rest—the register will cover only members of staff. Third parties do not come into it. Paragraph 2.1 of the report shows clearly those who would be included in the register.
The report also refers to provision of services "whether paid or unpaid." Those two elements taken together—
The point that Richard Simpson makes has more to do with MSPs and relates to paid advocacy and sponsorship. He should consider that if he uses agencies to do his work, such as those to which he referred.
That is another issue which I was going to raise. I was not referring to paid advocacy.
If we include family members who are staff in the register, what do we define as family? I do not want to get into that today—it would be wonderful to have one day on which we do not try to define what constitutes a family. Do we include family members who are unpaid members of staff? My family has been supportive and helpful and has made many suggestions—not always favourable—about what I should do or say. How wide do we make the definition when work is being done on an unpaid or voluntary basis? Do we include wives, parents and children? Who do we include? We must have a clearer definition. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have significant extended families might overwhelm the register.
I welcome the report and the fact that the Standards Committee is—as it has proved in the past—a listening committee, but we must examine definitions more closely.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Standards Committee, I thank members for their welcome contributions to the debate. As Mike Rumbles said, we are a listening committee and we are always keen to hear the views of our colleagues.
I am sorry that Richard Simpson has just left. He is—
No, I have not.
I am sorry. It was Tom McCabe who left.
Richard is fortunate that he has 50 helpers and his extended family. It is clear from the report that staff are those who help members carry out constituency or parliamentary duties. Any person who helps an MSP carry out the duties for which the MSP was elected is a member of staff. We could sit all day and talk about who helps and when, but at some point common sense must come into the debate. I hope that we can approach the debate in that spirit.
Good points have been raised in speeches, but the Standards Committee believes that the report is good. It continues the important work of seeking to achieve as open and transparent a system of government as possible, which the Scottish people can trust and have confidence in. It is important to remind MSPs and their staff at this juncture, that the register of staff interests is not to be taken in isolation. It is part of a package. That package started with the code of conduct for MSPs. We will also be looking at how lobby companies and others engage with Parliament.
The report is good and we have heard nothing to contradict that. In summarising the debate, I believe that it is fair to say that colleagues in all parties have no problems in principle with the introduction of a register of staff interests. At a meeting on 23 February, the Standards Committee took the view that the proposed register should be introduced as a priority—that was based on our experience of drawing up the code of conduct for MSPs and on our previous inquiries.
As Standards Committee colleagues have emphasised, MSPs' staff might be in a position to exert influence over members and—indirectly—over Parliament and its business. Given that potentially influential position, it is right and appropriate that information about staff interests is disclosed.
I would like to refer to some other comments that have been made today. There is concern about whether staff details should be made publicly available, and representations have been made to me on that issue. The committee needs to revisit the matter, because staff members are MSPs' civil servants and we must ensure that we safeguard them.
Members have mentioned the threshold of £50 for gifts, benefits or hospitality. Although, as Mike Rumbles pointed out, the same threshold for MSPs is £250, it covers all sources such as gifts from spouses, as Karen Gillon and I well know. We were both disappointed that we had nothing to declare after Christmas. The threshold for staff members is lower because it does not cover tokens of gratitude such as chocolates, flowers or modest hospitality. Furthermore, I have to say that I do not know how many people are invited to clubs; I have never been invited to one myself.
I will take you one day.
Everyone heard that offer.
Don't go.
John Swinney tells me not to go; I will wait for a better offer from him.
Members have raised concerns about the lack of consultation on the report. The proposals for a register of staff interests have been well documented, and the committee's intentions were clearly stated in section 7 of the code of conduct, which was agreed by Parliament on 24 February. However, we accept that it might have been better to have had a longer consultation period with members' staff, and that there has not been sufficient time between the report's publication and this debate to enable full consideration of the committee's proposals and an explanation of all the details. Perhaps there has not been enough opportunity for members of the Standards Committee and staff associations to explain some of the report's points.
Although that is very welcome, it is not just explanation that is required. We would be concerned if the process did not include taking into account the views of members' staff.
As usual, Mike Russell makes a fair point. We should consult staff, and I am hopeful that we can do so in the future. However, although there must be consultation, some explanation is also needed. A few of the concerns that were raised today could have been very easily dealt with if certain details had been explained.
Does the member accept that one of the main priorities in bringing out this addition to the code of conduct was our anxiety to protect members of staff and to ensure that situations did not arise where they could be accused of something that they had not done? We wanted to provide a framework so that members' staff understood the parameters within which they worked.
I agree with Patricia Ferguson.
As Mike Rumbles emphasised in his speech, the proposed arrangements are evolutionary and we are committed to reviewing all aspects of our work. Although we believe that the report is good and that the principle of a register of staff interests is sound, we will continue to listen closely to colleagues' concerns.
I have listened carefully to colleagues' views and arguments today, and it appears that, although there is no opposition in principle to the introduction of a register of staff interests, there are some concerns about the proposed arrangements for registration. As those concerns can be attributed to the speed with which the debate has happened, I accept that there is a need for a further period of consultation with members and their staff, to tackle members' concerns and to maximise the effectiveness of the register.
Presiding Officer, given the views that colleagues have expressed, I seek leave to withdraw the motion in my name, in accordance with rule 8.3.6 of the standing orders.
I am happy to put that to the chamber. Has Tricia Marwick finished?
I was concluding. I thank Mike Rumbles for his intervention. I concur with him and believe that that is the right way to go forward. I am sure that at the next committee meeting we will consider methods of consulting colleagues and members of staff.
The question is, that motion S1M-654 be withdrawn.
Motion, by agreement, withdrawn.