Ministerial Code
The next item of business is a statement by Alex Salmond on the ministerial code. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his 15-minute statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.
I am delighted to be able to inform Parliament of the new and, I believe, stronger ministerial code that comes into force from today. Colleagues in the chamber will be well aware that I have spent considerable time—just over a year, in fact—working with the civil servants of the Scottish Government on a thorough review of the 2003 code. The aim of that work has been to improve and clarify the code wherever possible. The review is now complete and I am happy to be able to present to the chamber the new code and the improvements that it will bring in guiding ministerial accountability and conduct.
I assure all colleagues present that "blah"—the answer from Jim Mather to a recent parliamentary question from Annabel Goldie—was a genuine mistake. It was inadvertent and was not a pilot for our new approach to parliamentary accountability. [Interruption.] Mr Swinney is saying that I should not rule out such an approach at this stage.
I am confident that the new code will do justice to and further strengthen the high standards of conduct and accountability that the Scottish Government pursues and which the Scottish Parliament demands.
My ministers and I believe without reservation in the potential of Scotland's Government and Parliament to improve the lives of our people. We understand how important it is that the people of Scotland have full trust and confidence in their political institutions. We understand how important it is that they have confidence in not only the decisions that Scottish ministers take but the manner in which ministers take those decisions.
From day one of this Administration, we have sought to build trust and confidence in the Scottish Government with this Parliament and with the public. I do not expect members of the Opposition to use today's statement to praise the ministers for their hard work in building trust in the Government. However, we have some independent evidence that the public is responding favourably to those efforts. The Scottish social attitudes survey, which was published just last month, showed that 71 per cent of people trusted their Government to act in Scotland's interests. A year ago, that figure was only 51 per cent. Of course, that view might not be shared by everyone, but it should be at least of interest to everyone in the chamber.
The Government understands that public trust is not simply won for all time and that trust must continually be earned and sustained. That is why we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of ministerial conduct and parliamentary accountability.
This is the 59th ministerial statement since May—far more than in any year since 1999. In the first half of this year alone, we have answered more than 7,000 parliamentary questions—already close to the same number answered in the record full year of 2002. Although the same members of the Parliament account for a huge percentage of those parliamentary questions, I still think that the figure is of substantial significance and is one in which we can perhaps take collective satisfaction. That is why the Scottish Government has just launched Scotland performs, the first national performance framework of public accountability in Scotland.
Let me recall for colleagues the purpose of ministerial codes and their place in the broader framework of public accountability. All ministerial codes, including this one, are strict codes of conduct, which members of the Government must observe. However, their scope and purpose are, of necessity, clearly defined. The ministerial code is not, as some have tried to portray it, an all-purpose complaints mechanism that should be used for each and every accusation that is levelled against Scottish ministers. Presiding Officer, I know that you—perhaps above all others in the chamber—are well aware of that fact. However, it is a point about which some other colleagues need the occasional reminder.
It is of course entirely legitimate for complaints about ministerial behaviour to be brought to my attention where such complaints bear close scrutiny. However, members of this Parliament also hold Scottish ministers to account—and indeed appoint them—under the Parliament's powers under the Scotland Act 1998. Through its committees and question times, this Parliament exercises the vital role of parliamentary scrutiny.
Parliamentary accountability is a vital aspect of the ministerial code, but it is only one responsibility among several sets of Scottish ministers' responsibilities under the code. It is of course appropriate for each First Minister to review and revise the code to ensure that it remains a strong and clear guide to the conduct of Scottish ministers. However, much of the new code draws heavily on my predecessors' codes, which reflects the fact that, at a fundamental level, the standards of behaviour that ministers must observe are enduring and must always remain high.
I have said that much of the substance of the ministerial code remains unchanged. However, let me be clear that there are significant changes to the code that reflect our desire for new and better governance in Scotland. The changes that I have made all help to ensure that the expectations on Scottish ministers are clear and objective and that the code is easily accessible to members of the public and members of this chamber.
I turn to an issue to which I have given considerable thought. Many in this chamber have argued for the need for independent advice, particularly following the United Kingdom Prime Minister's initiative in that direction. However, it should be noted that that particular innovation has recently been criticised by one of Westminster's parliamentary select committees. We—that is, the Prime Minister and I—are wrestling with the notion that the guardians of public accountability must always be the Prime Minister, in the case of Westminster, or the First Minister, in the case of this Parliament. The issue of how advice can be truly independent, especially when the adviser has been appointed by a Prime Minister or a First Minister, has proved to be a ticklish problem to solve—indeed, for some time, I thought that it was an impossible problem to solve.
However, I think that I have a solution that will provide some satisfaction. For the first time, there will be a panel of past Presiding Officers to guide the First Minister on the application of the code. I am delighted to announce that Lord Steel and George Reid have agreed to serve as members of that panel of independent advisers. Their integrity is beyond reproach, and their knowledge of ministerial and parliamentary procedures is unrivalled. Further, they are undoubtedly independent. I ask members to show their appreciation to Lord Steel and George Reid for continuing their outstanding service to Scotland by taking on this new role and for doing so for no payment whatsoever. [Applause.]
I now turn to the other main reforms contained in the new ministerial code. First, the code tightens the rules on the handling of ministers' private interests. I have agreed with the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, Sir John Elvidge, that he will play a more authoritative role in determining the course of action that ministers should follow.
Secondly, the code provides clearer guidance to ministers on representing the interests of their constituents and on handling sensitive matters such as planning applications and the granting of energy consents.
Thirdly, the code sets out how Scottish ministers will work more openly and constructively with the Parliament, with the support of parliamentary liaison officers.
Finally, the new ministerial code introduces clearer guidance on the handling of ministerial gifts. Crucially, the Scottish Government will henceforth publish a quarterly and timeous list of gifts received over the threshold of £140. Further, for the first time, such provisions on registration will now also apply to hospitality as well as gifts.
Those are the key new provisions of my ministerial code. The changes are, in my view, all changes for the better and ensure that the ministerial code is clear and effective and promotes good governance. With the support of Lord Steel and George Reid—for the first time, providing independent expert advice to the First Minister—the code will mark a real advance in terms of impartiality and the quality of scrutiny.
I said at the outset that this Government embraces the challenge of building and maintaining public trust in the Scottish Government. That is the job that we are doing and which we are committed to continuing to do.
The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. We have a little over 30 minutes for questions.
It was too much to expect that the Scottish National Party would uphold its previous calls for a bill on ministerial accountability but, in that context, I welcome the fact that the ministerial code has finally arrived. I also welcome the progress that has been made in certain areas and, in particular, the role for your distinguished predecessors, Presiding Officer.
However, the devil is in the detail. The issue is not who the advisers are but how they come to investigate a matter. Although the credentials of the former Presiding Officers are beyond reproach, it seems that the only way in which they can advise on a matter is if the First Minister, and the First Minister alone, chooses to call on their services. Can the First Minister explain why he has stopped short of giving this Parliament the power to refer matters of concern about ministerial conduct to the independent advisers?
Secondly, I raise—with all delicacy—the issue of the conduct of the most important minister of all: the First Minister. The statement appears to leave unanswered the question of what happens when a complaint pertains to the First Minister himself. Such a situation is not entirely unknown. Does he intend, under the new code, to remain his own judge and jury, or does the code allow for a situation in which he could refer himself for investigation by the independent advisers?
Thirdly, I am aware that there are different approaches in different places. However, in this place a little over a year ago, the First Minister came to power suggesting that we should have a new politics and promising that he would persuade Parliament of the wisdom of his choices. Given those commitments, I invite him to reflect on the following. It is important that his plans command the confidence of the whole Parliament. If we are to have full confidence in the plans, is he willing to allow Parliament to consider them; to talk to the independent panel about its future role; to debate the matter; and perhaps to come back in the autumn when there has been an opportunity for Parliament to comment, or does he intend the statement to be his final word on the matter?
I welcome Wendy Alexander's welcome for the new ministerial code. I observe that in eight years of Labour-Liberal governance, she did not think of making any substantive improvements to the ministerial code whatsoever.
The ministerial code is the ministerial code—it is not the code for members of Parliament. The final decision on a ministerial code lies with the Prime Minister in the Westminster Parliament and with the First Minister in this Parliament. That is the line of accountability. I am elected by the Scottish people and appointed by the Parliament. Ministers are accountable to the Parliament—and to me, for their positions.
I am surprised that Wendy Alexander does not appreciate that point, because I am following exactly the points that the Prime Minister made in introducing his revisions to the ministerial code in London. I am following not only the advice of the Prime Minister, but the advice of Jackie Baillie, who is sitting on Wendy Alexander's left.
Jackie Baillie said, in a parliamentary question to Bruce Crawford on 21 November, that she wanted an "independent adviser" to
"adopt the approach taken by Prime Minister, Gordon Brown MP".
On 3 December, just to reinforce the point, she asked whether we
"will adopt the approach taken by Prime Minister, Gordon Brown MP".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 3 December 2007; S3W-6786.]
Just in case we did not understand the point that she was making, on 20 December, just before Christmas, she asked whether we were going to adopt a new code
"similar to the approach taken by Prime Minister, Gordon Brown MP."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 20 December; S3W-7756.]
In the circumstances, Wendy Alexander should perhaps have consulted Jackie Baillie before criticising the line of accountability, about which the Prime Minister and I share the same view.
In relation to the Parliament's wish to interview past Presiding Officers, that is of course a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau and the committees of the Parliament. I understand the processes in this place, but I am certain that Sir David Steel and George Reid would be willing and able to provide the Parliament or its committees with any information or discussion that they wished for.
I have to say that, to me, the statement is not so much "Blah" as "Eh?" I note the First Minister's intention to appoint a panel of former Presiding Officers to advise him on the application of the ministerial code, but that is the first Achilles heel in his proposals. Although those distinguished gentlemen may bring with them the wisdom of Solomon, the judgment is that of Salmond. He is still the gamekeeper. The second Achilles heel is that the gamekeeper who enforces the code turns out to be the poacher who wrote it.
If the framework to regulate ministers is to have any credibility, not just in the chamber but throughout Scotland, both the code and the process to arbitrate on breaches of that code must be separated from the First Minister. That is all the more pressing in a Parliament of minorities.
Does the First Minister accept that there should be a truly independent commissioner who is appointed by the Parliament, that the ministerial code should be approved by the Parliament, and that the commissioner should report their findings not just to the First Minister but to the Parliament?
I am interested in a party leader who proclaims her wish to avoid more bureaucratic institutions in Scotland but who, in effect, calls for a ministerial tsar in addition to all our other tsars.
There are great advantages in asking our two former Presiding Officers. The advantages are obvious. They were not elected to their position with the role in mind, therefore they are beyond reproach in terms of their independence. We can contrast that with the situation south of the border, where Sir Philip Mawer, distinguished gentlemen though he is, was appointed by the Prime Minister and, I understand, is paid for the purpose.
Secondly, I do not think that Annabel Goldie fully appreciates the point of substance—my view on which I share with the Prime Minister—on the line of ministerial accountability. Ministers are appointed by the First Minister to hold the confidence of the First Minister. The First Minister is elected by the Parliament. Ministerial appointments go before the Parliament as well. Ministers—and the First Minister, for that matter—go before parliamentary committees and answer parliamentary questions. That is the line of accountability. It arrives in the ministerial code from the Prime Minister south of the border and the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament.
That position has been common ground between the parties in the Parliament. The Liberals and the Labour Party certainly showed no enthusiasm for changing it when they were the Administration. I am a bit puzzled about whether there is a new Conservative policy or whether the Conservatives accept the line of parliamentary accountability that has been widely accepted in just about every Parliament that I can think of.
I remind the First Minister that I have consistently raised the issue of independent oversight of the ministerial code with him and his predecessors since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. I also need to point out that on 28 February the Parliament decided on a vote of 81 to 47 that
"the best way of ensuring independent oversight is for the Parliament to appoint a person independent of government to investigate alleged breaches of the Scottish Ministerial Code."
The key words are "independent of government". The First Minister voted against that, but he lost the vote. In his statement, he is once again ignoring the will of Parliament.
In the February debate on Government accountability, I pointed out that not one of the complaints to the First Minister about breaches of the code had been actioned. With the new code, the First Minister will not be under any obligation to refer complaints on. He will still be the gatekeeper, and I doubt that David Steel or George Reid will have anything to do.
Question.
Everyone—apart from the SNP, apparently—recognises that the situation cannot be allowed to continue. As with complaints against MSPs, all complaints must be referred to an independent person who will adjudicate on them.
Is there a question?
Then and only then should the results of any independent investigation be published and reported back to the First Minister for his decision.
Question.
Presiding Officer, it is up to the First Minister to take action on that. Could I ask him—
Hooray!
That is interesting, because I am sure that the First Minister will not answer the question properly.
Does the First Minister recognise that the will of the Parliament and the people of Scotland is to have an independent gatekeeper to adjudicate on complaints under the code? Does he recognise that the Parliament will not put up with anything less than that?
I have no doubt that, from the back benches, Mr Rumbles constantly stimulated his front-bench colleagues to adopt a measure of independence in relation to the ministerial code. Is it not remarkable that he had a total lack of success with his colleagues but has had at least a measure of success with the new ministerial code that has been introduced by the SNP?
It was not the nature of Mr Rumbles's question that caused some disquiet in the chamber. I gently suggest to him that what caused disquiet was concern about whether he was ever going to get to the question at all.
We come to questions from back-bench members. An enormous number of members would like to ask questions and I would like to call as many as possible. I therefore ask that both questions and answers be kept brief and to the point.
Does the First Minister see any scope for a further layer of bureaucracy to deal with these matters? Indeed, who would make any such independent tsar accountable? Is it not true that, ultimately, any First Minister has to have the confidence of the Parliament and that, if people are not satisfied with his or her actions, that can be dealt with by the Parliament on a motion of no confidence?
That is exactly the line of accountability that any First Minister and any ministerial team would have.
I say to Labour members that the issue is not so much that their new attitude contrasts with Jackie Baillie's attitude before Christmas or with the party's attitude through eight years of Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament, but that it contrasts dramatically with the current attitude of the Prime Minister in London. I should perhaps congratulate Labour Party MSPs on finally rebelling against Prime Minister Brown, but the rest of the folk in Scotland will want to examine the inconsistencies between past and present and between what Labour says in Scotland and what it does in London.
I am delighted that the First Minister listens to everything that I say. Let me capture his attention a little longer and enlighten him: when ministers breached the code in the previous Administrations, they came before the Parliament to apologise for their actions.
We waited 14 months for the new code, and there is much to be welcomed. I am pleased that the First Minister has followed Gordon Brown's example, but it is true that he has not done so willingly. While he dithered, the Parliament moved on, and unlike the First Minister, I have respect for what Parliament believes. The Parliament resolved that it, rather than the First Minister, should appoint someone to oversee the ministerial code. There is a question of trust and, frankly, the Scottish National Party Government does not have a blemish-free record: let us consider Trump, Aviemore, Beauly to Denny, class sizes and lots more beside.
Question, please.
Section 1.4 of the new ministerial code states that an investigation will be carried out when the First Minister deems it appropriate. What circumstances are appropriate? Would any issue on the list that I just gave be deemed appropriate, and if so, which one?
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on finding a contorted explanation for why her three parliamentary questions no longer represent the attitude to which she subscribes. She says that that is because she believes in the decisions of the Parliament. What a pity, therefore, that she did not put that into practice in her career as a minister, and that the conversion to the line of ministerial accountability has occurred only in the past few weeks.
Jackie Baillie acknowledged that she was prepared to welcome the improvements that are undoubtedly in the code. I hope that she acknowledges the distinction between what I have done in asking the past Presiding Officers to be independent advisers and what has been done in London. I thought that the key difficulty was the nature of the appointment. Unlike Jackie Baillie, I think that there is a ministerial line of accountability in a ministerial code—it is absolute. However, it has proven possible—I hope to everybody's satisfaction—to appoint people who are genuinely independent.
On the subject matters of the complaints that have come before me under the ministerial code, I can point out two things to Jackie Baillie. First, she should be congratulated on making the only complaint about my conduct that has come to me out of the eight that have been made—it was indeed about the Trump issue. Secondly, however, the Trump issue was then investigated by a parliamentary committee and came to a debate in this Parliament. Members may have a range of opinions about the issue, but that was certainly a line of parliamentary accountability.
Lastly, let me say gently to Labour members that if we have past Presiding Officers—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I make it clear that our inquiry's remit did not cover the ministerial code. The First Minister should not say what is untrue.
That was not a point of order, but the point has been made.
That was not a point of order, or even accurate. I said that the committee investigated not the ministerial code but the Trump issue. If the committee's convener is saying that he did not investigate that, he should explain himself to his committee and to the people of Scotland.
Jackie Baillie needs to explain why what she did in government is different from what she says now and why what she said in parliamentary questions before Christmas is dramatically different from what she says now. Far be it from me to suggest that party politics has crept into her attitude.
I welcome the First Minister's commitment to strengthening and improving the ministerial code. Does he recall that, in 1999, Donald Dewar—the then First Minister—asserted that the Parliament had no right to investigate lobbygate and the conduct of his Labour ministers because he had personally investigated the issue under the ministerial code? Does the First Minister agree that it is hypocritical of Ms Alexander and Ms Baillie to demand improvements now when, in power, they blocked any independent involvement whatever in the ministerial code and even tried to block the Parliament from fulfilling its responsibilities?
Like any self-respecting Parliament, the Parliament is well able to undertake its responsibilities. I am unfamiliar with the comments to which Tricia Marwick referred but, knowing Donald Dewar's attitude to parliamentary accountability, I am certain that he knew exactly from where the First Minister's responsibility and parliamentary accountability flowed. However, in that context, it is possible to introduce in the code an element of independent oversight and advice, as the Prime Minister suggested south of the border. We have done that in a way that will satisfy many, by asking to be involved people whose ability and integrity are beyond reproach and whose independence even Labour front benchers would not seriously dispute.
The First Minister may think that his ministers have answered 7,000 questions in six months, but I ask him to answer at least one question this afternoon. I agree with the comment in his statement that
"Parliamentary accountability is a vital aspect of the ministerial code"
and I welcome his commitment that the independent panel should respond to or even appear before parliamentary committees. However, does he seriously believe that Parliament can have any confidence if it has no responsibility whatever for deciding who should form the independent panel?
I would have hoped that ex-Presiding Officers who were elected by the Parliament would command cross-party confidence in their impartiality and be held in respect.
I said that we had given 7,000 parliamentary answers in six months but, for total accuracy under the ministerial code, I am told that the Government has provided 7,157 parliamentary answers, which is substantially ahead of anything in the past.
Michael McMahon implies that, in the eight years before this Government took office, the ministerial code—without the enhancements that I announced today—was somehow satisfactory and that Parliament had confidence in it. All of a sudden, he disputes that confidence. Most people might conclude that he does that because, in the previous eight years, he was sitting in the Government seats, whereas now he sits in the Opposition seats.
I put it to the First Minister that, in relation to his conduct vis-à-vis the Menie estate planning application, the new, enhanced, improved and so-called stronger code is not new, enhanced or stronger but an ex post facto vindication of totally inappropriate conduct—the facilitating of meetings between developers and senior planning officials at a crucial stage of the application process.
Will he confirm that, under the new code, arranging meetings involving relevant persons is now—amazingly—explicitly approved, and that that was not explicitly stated in the old code? Will he also confirm that the prohibition on ministers
"meeting the developer or objectors to discuss the proposal, but not meeting all parties with an interest in the decision",
which was applied to all ministers under the old code, now applies—mysteriously—only to the minister with responsibility for planning?
David McLetchie should re-examine the code. If he does so, he will find that his second question displays the misunderstanding that there has been among a number of MSPs. He quoted from a section of the old code that was headed "Planning Cases: The Planning Minister". That section should be taken to apply to the minister with responsibility for planning—I know that Robert Brown at least appreciates that, because I remember him nodding when I made the same point in a committee meeting; indeed, one of the few times when he nodded was when I made that point.
On constituency interests and considering planning and other matters, the new, improved code nominates three types of minister for the sake of clarity and to put the matter beyond dispute. One type is the planning minister or any other minister who acts in a planning capacity and is involved in planning decisions. There are strict prohibitions on what they can and cannot do.
Secondly, there are other ministers who were allowed to do a range of things under the previous code, including going to public inquiries and representing their constituents. To answer David McLetchie's first question, if they are not prohibited from making public statements or engaging in activities, it does not seem unreasonable that such engagement should include arranging meetings—that is part of the normal parliamentary process.
The new code introduces for the first time a special prohibition on the third category of minister—the First Minister. One of the lessons that I learned from the process—those who think that I do not learn lessons had better listen carefully—is that the First Minister should come into a special category, because any public statement that the First Minister makes could be interpreted as being the view of the whole Government. Therefore, the new code requires the First Minister to exercise particular care in making public utterances on constituency planning cases that might be seen by people who are less fair minded than David McLetchie to indicate some instruction to other ministers.
Perhaps what has been said indicates the need for a debate on the code, which Wendy Alexander called for earlier.
I return to the process in which the First Minister is prosecutor, judge and jury, or sometimes the accused person. I genuinely welcome the establishment of the independent panel and the strengthened emphasis on the code of conduct for MSPs in section 1.3 of the revised ministerial code, but is that intended to give Parliament more standing than it currently has in policing the ministerial code?
Given that the challenges that have been made to ministerial conduct in the current session in particular have often been to do with the accuracy of vital information, usually in controversial circumstances, I offer a suggestion about the gatekeeper. A screening cross-party group of senior MSPs could weed out cases of substance for referral to the independent panel, which would enhance the vital independence of the process and give the First Minister protection against allegations of partiality in his decisions. Will the First Minister consider such a mechanism to deal with the gatekeeper aspect of this important matter?
I am touched by Robert Brown's concern for my welfare, which he has shown throughout his parliamentary career.
I understand that, south of the border, the Prime Minister said that Sir Philip Mawer would not investigate cases involving the Prime Minister, because of the line of accountability. I may be wrong about that, because there is a lack of clarity about the matter. Let me put things this way: I see no reason why I could not ask the independent advisers, whom I believe and Robert Brown acknowledges are genuinely independent and above reproach, to investigate the circumstances of any alleged breach of the ministerial code, regardless of the minister involved.
The First Minister will be aware that, in the past eight years, not only has there been no independent element to the ministerial code, but no statement has been made on it in the chamber, although given the questions that the Opposition has asked today, people may be forgiven for thinking otherwise. That has denied Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise the content and operation of the code.
I ask the First Minister to ensure that any future revisions or reviews of and changes to the ministerial code result in a full statement to the Parliament, so that we can continue the good practice that has been established today—that Parliament should be given an opportunity to scrutinise such issues.
Yes, I can do that. I note what the member says about there not having been any statement in the chamber for the past eight years. I heard Robert Brown, from a sedentary position, say that there had been nothing to investigate. Unfortunately, that was not the view of the people of Scotland, who came to the conclusion that there was a great deal to investigate and judge on. A whole range of issues required investigation—some of which are now being suggested by other members behind Robert Brown, again from a sedentary position.
However, occasionally we must allow for the possibility that some alleged breaches of the ministerial code are based less on substance than on press releases. I will give an example of that, although it might be invidious, as Mr McAveety is in the chamber. Mr McAveety made a complaint about the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, under the ministerial code, but it was about something on which the minister had already made a statement and issued an apology to Parliament the previous day. That is what the ministerial code prescribes ministers should do if they inadvertently give Parliament the wrong information or incomplete information. If we have reached the stage at which, even when a minister follows the ministerial code and makes a statement to Parliament—which is generally acknowledged in both Parliaments of which I have been a member as an acceptable end to any matter—someone is prepared to lodge a complaint under the ministerial code, that lends evidence to those of us who suggest that not every complaint has the gravity and import that some members suggest.
The key question is whether it should simply be the First Minister who makes that judgment.
Does the First Minister accept that, under the previous Administration, complaints against ministers were taken very seriously and that the incident to which he has just referred is not the routine experience in the Parliament? Will he clarify what he deems to be the appropriate criteria according to which he would refer complaints to the proposed new panel?
Matters of substance and import.
I note the remarkable suggestion that all complaints were treated seriously by previous First Ministers. I am sure that they were, but they were treated in that way by First Ministers who had the line of accountability to the Parliament. I know that Richard Baker pursues parliamentary questions and other issues with great diligence. As he has not lodged a single complaint under the ministerial code, I must conclude that he is pretty happy with the way things are going in the Parliament.
I am sure that Parliament itself will decide, in the fullness of time, whether it is happy with the way things are going under the ministerial code and whether it needs to debate again whether the resolution that Parliament agreed to is being implemented or whether the Parliament needs to address the issue.
Although the advice that will be made available to the First Minister under his proposal might be less than what some of us had hoped for, will it be made public, so that people will not have to wait until after the fact to submit a freedom of information request for it? Furthermore, will it be open to third parties to trigger such advice?
The findings of the independent panel will be made public, so the answer to that question is yes. The ministerial code is quite a long document, but it says that those findings will be made public. If matters are referred to the independent panel, it would be impossible for it not to publish the findings. So the answer to Patrick Harvie's question is yes. I hope that that provides him with even more satisfaction that the proposal represents a substantive improvement on what has gone before.
We are starting to get very tight for time, so I ask for brief questions and answers.
Will the First Minister ask the independent advisers to reconsider decisions, such as that which has been taken regarding the development at Aviemore, where I—along with other members—was used to cover prior ministerial activity? When members are concerned that they may have been used in that way, will they be able to ask the independent advisers to investigate and report to the First Minister, in order that they can be confident that the matter will be investigated properly?
What puzzles me about Rhoda Grant's question is that the list of complaints that have been made under the ministerial code does not include one from her on the Aviemore issue. I presume that, if she felt that there had been a breach of the code, she would have complained.
What would have been the point of that?
A number of other members are assiduous complainers under the ministerial code—as they have every right to be—but it is a fair answer to the question for Rhoda Grant to explain that apparent absence of forethought.
The First Minister has referred to the fact that the code repeats the provision of the earlier code that ministers must
"give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
Does he agree that the proper inference to be drawn from that is that ministers' statements in the Parliament are to be distinguished from those that are made in a public place where, in the normal hurly-burly of political exchange, allegations of being economical with the truth might be tolerated, and that, accordingly, in the Parliament, truth is absolute? That being the case, will he point to a reference in his statement or a provision in the revised code that says that that high standard will be applied without exception?
There is a paragraph on parliamentary accountability that Mr Finnie can look at. It is effectively the same as the paragraphs that were in the previous codes and makes exactly the point that he makes. Ministers—and other members—have a duty of accuracy. That particular parliamentary duty is well understood, I think. Of course, debating points are also made in the Parliament, and the code provides that ministers should not intentionally mislead Parliament. I have already given an illustration of an instance in which a minister quickly came to the conclusion that he had perhaps done so and made an apology to the Parliament, which is as it should be.
I accept Ross Finnie's general proposition, with the proviso that it should not be confused with the hurly-burly of points made in debate. Ministers have a particular duty of accuracy to Parliament, and that is provided for in the code.
The First Minister will be aware that reservations were raised in the Parliament last September on the issue of Stewart Stevenson owning shares in Scottish Power while also having responsibility for energy matters. Will the First Minister outline how the provisions of section 11 of the revised code, which deals with ministers' private interests, will be applied to ensure that such conflicts of interest do not arise in the future?
I am glad that James Kelly has asked that question because, as I am sure he will understand as he reads it, he has put his finger on a substantial enhancement to the ministerial code. Under the previous codes, ministers were not obliged to write formally to the permanent secretary about their private affairs, nor was there a timetable in which they should do so; under the new code, they are obliged to do so within 30 days. Under the previous code, they were obliged only to consider the permanent secretary's advice on the matter; under the new code, they have to adhere to it. Therefore, on ministers' private affairs, there is a substantial enhancement to the code compared with anything that has gone before. That is exactly as it should be, and I am sure that, after James Kelly has had the opportunity to read it, he will welcome it as well.
I am afraid that we must move on to the next item of business. I am sorry to the two members whom I was unable to call, but the next debate is already oversubscribed.