Plenary, 24 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2005

Official Report 804KB pdf

---

Members' Interests

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2417, in the name of Brian Adam, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on a proposal for a committee bill.

I am pleased to present the Standards Committee's proposal for a committee bill to replace the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. I take the opportunity to thank the committee clerking staff, our advisers and the staff in the non-Executive bills unit for their invaluable advice in preparing our report and I thank committee colleagues for their commitment to unravelling the sometimes complex issues that we had to face.

As Parliament agreed in 2002, a committee bill is the most appropriate vehicle through which to replace the existing subordinate legislation. The unfortunate lack of parliamentary time for the introduction of such a bill at the end of session 1 was a matter of great regret to our predecessor committee.

The Scotland Act 1998 requires that

"Provision shall be made for a register of interests of members of the Parliament"

and such a register is mentioned in the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament". As well as specifying certain requirements for the register of members' interests, the Scotland Act 1998 prescribes that a breach of the provisions is a criminal offence. The Minister for Parliamentary Business may wish to reflect on that issue in her discussions with her Westminster counterparts.

Members should know that, as early as 2000, the Standards Committee and others identified areas of the order that would need to be addressed in any replacement legislation.

Paragraph 4.1.1 of the code of conduct sets out the main purpose of the register of members' interests, which is

"to provide information about certain financial interests of members which might reasonably be thought by others to influence members' actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament, or other actions taken in their capacity as members."

The previous Standards Committee took the view that registration and declaration should be perceived not simply as a means of policing the probity of elected members but as setting members' contributions to political debates in context. Those principles have helped to guide the current committee in its thinking.

Without repeating everything in the committee's first report of 2005, I want to highlight some of the proposed key changes. Our report recommends that a revised, more objective influence test should be applied to certain categories of interest. That test formed part of the proposal that was accepted by Parliament in 2002. The influence test forms the backdrop to the whole of the register, looking directly to the purpose of the register and to setting a member's contribution in Parliament in context. The committee wishes to make the test clear and is recommending that the test should be an objective one, meaning that it should be applied by asking whether the fair-minded, reasonable and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that the impartiality of the member might be prejudiced by the interest in question. The judgment of the member would have to be exercised on an objective basis, as opposed to a subjective basis.

The committee took as a starting point the recommendations that were made by the previous Standards Committee. We agreed to adopt many of the recommendations on the existing categories and considered further the categories of gifts, heritable property and shares in particular. We also issued a public consultation paper seeking the views of interested parties. That consultation exercise resulted in only 32 responses from 28 individuals and organisations, two of which even indicated that they did not wish to respond.

Most of the comments that were received related to the issue of non-pecuniary interests. That gives some indication of the level of interest in these matters from the public, especially when one contrasts the number of responses to this consultation with the 54,000 or so responses—including 52,000 individual representations—to the Executive's consultation on smoking. It is also significant, in my view, that none of the members individually submitted their views, in spite of several opportunities that they were given.

I turn to the three categories that I mentioned previously, the first of which is gifts.

Will Brian Adam clarify paragraph 37, which indicates that a list of gifts will be published

"at the beginning of the year"?

Is that the financial year, the parliamentary year or the calendar year?

I thank Margaret Jamieson for that helpful intervention. The intention is primarily that it should be the financial year, but that will be clarified in the drafting of the bill. I am sure that those who have that onerous task will pick up on that as a result of the debate.

The committee agreed that we should express the threshold figure for registration of gifts at 0.5 per cent of an MSP's salary—that is broadly the current monetary value—and that that amount should be uprated annually in line with members' salaries. That link with salaries is also to be made with heritable property and shareholdings. The purpose and effect of having a specific influence-related test for registering gifts is to exclude such things as intra-family gifts. To require registration of such gifts was considered by the committee to be an unreasonable interference with private and family life. In the absence of such a test, it would be necessary to register all such gifts or to list the relationships that would be exempt from the registration requirements. A list approach is possible but problematic, given that no two family structures are identical.

In relation to heritable property, the committee recommends that members are required to register their partners' interests in heritable property. That also brings that category into line with those of gifts and shares, where a member is required to register those that are held by a partner. The committee agreed that it makes more sense to register shareholdings in terms of their market value than in terms of their value at the time of issue. The market value would be set at the beginning of each financial year. I reiterate for Margaret Jamieson's benefit that that is also the committee's intention with regard to other matters.

I also want to draw members' attention to the new category that the committee is proposing should be included in the new legislation—that of non-pecuniary interests. The category will include unremunerated directorships and memberships of voluntary and charitable organisations, professional bodies, societies and sporting or cultural organisations. Many members have already chosen to register such interests voluntarily. Having taken written evidence on that specific matter, we have decided to recommend the mandatory registration of non-pecuniary interests for three reasons.

First, we see non-pecuniary interests as potentially wielding the same influence over members in the conduct of their parliamentary duties as pecuniary interests. Secondly, we see mandatory registration as a positive step that fulfils the broader purpose of the register, which is to provide information about MSPs' expertise and experience. Thirdly, we are conscious that a similar requirement is imposed on councillors and others by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. We do not want MSPs to be accused of double standards.

If the Parliament agrees to the committee's proposal, there will be further opportunities to debate the provisions in the bill at stages 2 and 3. In reviewing the members' interests order and in formulating our proposals, we have tried to ensure that we have applied the principles of openness and transparency while striking a balance, where appropriate, with the right to privacy for members and their families. It was not an easy task, but I think that there is proportionality in our proposals.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill under Rule 9.15 contained in the 1st Report 2005 (Session 2) of the Standards Committee, Replacing the Members' Interests Order (SP Paper 266).

I call Alex Fergusson.

The rapturous applause meant that I was taken by surprise when the Presiding Officer called me to speak. Thank you for doing so.

The convener of the Standards Committee has laid out the background to the motion and I hope that the requirement for the bill is clear to all members. There is a legislative requirement to introduce a bill on the register of members' interests. Frankly, I believe that anyone who sees fit to vote against the motion should not come under the auspices of the order because they should not be a member of the Parliament.

I will consider one or two aspects of the committee's deliberations and consultation that preceded the debate. The consultation document was widely distributed, as is the manner with the plethora of consultation documents that we have these days. The fact that, as the convener mentioned, only 32 responses were received, is more than worthy of note. I do not like to contradict the convener, but the number of responses from private individuals was 22—I think that he said that the figure was 28.

Twenty-two of the 32 responses were from individuals who, it has to be said, came largely from one fixed viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with having that fixed viewpoint and I commend those individuals for the time and effort that they took to table their submissions. However, when 22 or fewer individual submissions are received on potentially contentious issues such as gifts, paid advocacy, intra-family gifts and non-pecuniary interests, I have to believe that the several million residents of Scotland who did not table submissions are in effect content with the current arrangements that cover members' interests.

As on all matters, there is a responsible balance to be achieved on these issues. In my opinion, the majority of the 22 submissions from individuals failed to strike that responsible balance. Rather, they tended to come from one particular position: they would like to see every MSP declare every single thing from what time they get up to what time they go to bed and the number of breaths that they take in between. Although it will, rightly, be for the whole Parliament to decide on the issues, I believe that a requirement to declare every single tiny facet of our existence would constitute a gross intrusion of members' privacy, to the extent that it could even put people off any ambition to be a member of the Parliament. That would be a retrograde step. There is a limit to the amount of intrusion that any register should involve and we must be careful that we do not step over that limit.

Further debate on the matter will undoubtedly follow as the bill progresses, but I believe that the committee was entirely responsible in its desire to ensure that the register of members' interests contains all the relevant information, while stopping short of requiring the grossly intrusive information that a few people seek to have included. In my limited experience, such information is used only by those who seek to make mischief out of it. Some current requests under the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002 tend to support that position.

We should act responsibly to ensure that members register matters of genuine interest, which might, as the report says, prejudice their actions or the work that they do as MSPs. That is what the bill is about and I believe that the committee is united in that view.

That is why I believe that the objective test is absolutely correct for the Parliament. I will quote from the report. The test will require

"each Member to ask themselves, not whether they would or might be influenced by the interest but, whether a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that their impartiality would be or appear to be prejudiced by the interest."

Any other course of action would suggest that MSPs were irresponsible individuals who could not determine such issues for themselves. We are legislating and scrutinising legislation for the betterment of our country, but at the same time we might be about to suggest that we are not even capable of determining questions to do with interests. That would be a diabolical position to be in.

I accept that some—or even much—of the press corps and a few individuals believe that we are irresponsible, but it is simply not the case. Members are, on the whole, fair-minded and informed on these matters, which is exactly what we ask members of the public to be when concluding whether members' impartiality would be, or would appear to be, prejudiced by their interests. The position that we have taken is clear and mature. It allows grown-ups to make those decisions.

We have to be careful about the potential to indulge in witch hunts through the medium of this bill—especially in relation to matters under the heading of non-financial or non-pecuniary interests. As the committee's report states, that issue engendered by far the most numerous responses—and, I would add, the most heated responses. That was particularly true in relation to membership of the freemasons. At one point, my colleague and friend Bill Butler and I were accused of all sorts of chicanery and filibustering to cloud the issue. I think that Bill would deny those accusations as vigorously as I do. At one point, I was challenged to declare my interest in that particular organisation. I am happy to state categorically in the chamber, and therefore on the record, that I have never been, am not, and in all probability never will be, a member of that organisation. However, if I was, I would seriously consider not whether I would or might be influenced by that membership but whether a fair-minded and informed person would conclude that my impartiality would be, or would appear to be, prejudiced by the membership. I would do the same with membership of my local football club, my local rugby club, or indeed my local snakes-and-ladders society, if one existed. That is exactly as it should be.

If a member is found to be in breach of the members' interests legislation, that member will be in trouble. That is also as it should be. On that basis, I am happy to support the motion in Brian Adam's name.

We have to have a bill because the Scotland Act 1998 says that we have to have a bill. The committee has produced its report and the report reflects the general views of the committee. It forms a basis for the Parliament to consider a bill.

In this speech, I will be giving a personal view. This is not a party-political issue. My personal view is that the whole approach is seriously misguided. However, we may be driven in that direction anyway.

There is little point in bribing MSPs. We have no power. We are not like ministers or civil servants, councillors or council officials, or purchasing officials for health boards or all sorts of other organisations. Those people make decisions that can provide people with financial benefit and are therefore worth trying to bribe. We change legislation and we can try to influence ministers, but we have no direct control on the levers of power. People who rush about trying to bribe us are therefore wasting their time.

What influences a member of the Scottish Parliament, or a member of any other organisation? The idea that a present of £300 would influence them is just rubbish. What influences people is loyalty to organisations, to causes, to professions, to voluntary groups, to the old school tie, or to friends. People are more likely to be influenced by somebody whom they regularly meet in the pub for a drink, or with whom they play golf or go to bingo. They may be influenced by pillow talk from their spouse. That has influence. In fact, one of the most sensible political commentators was the Greek comic writer Aristophanes. He wrote a comedy about Greek women wanting to influence the men in order to stop a war. They did not give them a present of a few drachmas; they had a sex strike. That is serious influence. The concentration on cash is seriously mistaken.

The next issue that I will address is the concept of the

"fair minded and informed observer".

The concept is fine in theory, but the fact is that no such animal exists. People get their information purely from the press, in which we are denigrated day after day. Depending on the issue in question, stuff in the press is either 100 per cent lies or very distorted. It is not possible to find a

"fair minded and informed observer".

Although such a person might exist in theory, the concept is difficult to imagine in practice.

Some of the proposals that are contained in the report are a definite improvement on the status quo. The first of those is the removal of the need to declare gifts from family members, which is a great step forward. Just because a member's wife gives him a 50th birthday present, for example, a suggestion that she is somehow corrupting him is totally demeaning to both parties.

The second improvement is the change in the need to declare future interests. I have always thought that the concept of future interests is totally bizarre; in any event, it is impossible to account for. It is a good thing that we should get rid of the need to declare such interests. The report also makes it clear that the help that outside organisations give us in the drafting of bills or amendments is perfectly okay. In the past, such offers of help have been challenged by some people.

Although there are some definite improvements, we are still wrong in having a £250 limit on presents. If someone gives us a present, are we supposed to ask what the present cost? I discussed the matter with a minister who was put in that position on a trip abroad when a foreign dignitary gave him a token of esteem. The gift will spend the rest of its life in a drawer in the British embassy in that country. The idea that I will be corrupted by a gift that cost £300 but not by one that cost £200 is silly. It is possible to end up arguing about the value of a gift, especially if it is a gift in kind like a holiday, for example.

I turn to the question of the £25,000 shareholding. It is quite wrong to ask a partner or spouse to declare such a shareholding. Progress in recent years in the system of taxation has seen husbands and wives taxed separately—after all, they are separate people. Surely that sort of advancement is at the heart of the women's movement. Women are not chattels of their husbands; they are separate people. The idea that partners or spouses have to let other people know about their shareholdings is unacceptable.

I should make Donald Gorrie aware that that idea is not new. The spouses of people authorised under the financial services legislation are also covered by that legislation. At one stage, my wife and I were in the strange position by which we had to get the authorisation of each other's employers before we could even sell shares. There is nothing at all novel about the proposal. It would be a retrograde move if we were to retract from the very high standards that we have set ourselves and move to lower standards than prevail elsewhere.

Fortunately, whatever we pass in the bill will not affect me as I am not standing at the next election. In any case, my wife would not agree to tell me what shareholding she has and there is no way that I would compel her to do so. Stewart Stevenson and the committee may be correct in saying that we have to go down that road, but what I am trying to say is that it is a pretty daft road to take.

We should be proportionate. We have to balance the need for transparency with the possibility of intrusion. I agree entirely with what Alex Fergusson said. Much of the interest in the subject is motivated by intrusion and tittle-tattle; it has nothing at all to do with probity. Although we need a bill, we do not have to surrender entirely to the worst elements of the press.

Tempting though it may be, I will resist the temptation of going into the committee's evidence about freemasonry. I want to raise a rather more fundamental point about the register of members' interests. It is one that echoes some of the comments that Donald Gorrie and Alex Fergusson made. Like everybody else here, I have always strongly supported the application of high standards to the Parliament. Apart from the fact that it is the right thing to do, it should also be the best way to establish a high reputation for this Scottish Parliament. However, my concern is that the terms for the register are not confined to actual interests.

The stated purpose of the register—as quoted by Donald Gorrie—and of the parallel ministerial code is to deal with

"financial interests … which might reasonably be thought by others to influence Members' actions, speeches or votes".

Some of us have learned the hard way that that sort of perception can be stretched to create illusions of sleaze where none exists. As we know, that can be a rich vein for creative campaigns by rival politicians. I do not mind that; I am a politician myself. It can also be a rich vein for destructive journalists and anybody else who wants to pitch in. That is not just standard knockabout political debate, as it can destroy decent people's careers and damage the reputation of the whole Parliament.

I cite my own experience when I was not allowed to take any responsibility for agriculture at the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department when I was a minister. The fact that neither I nor my wife had for years had any remuneration whatever from a farm counted for nothing. I might have been perceived to have an interest, so I was debarred.

John Home Robertson is referring to the ministerial code, which has nothing to do with this debate.

Yes, but it is a linked theme and I make no apologies for referring to it again. I put the point on the record on 1 November 2000, when I expressed my concern that a fresh interpretation of the code could prevent anybody with professional or business experience from bringing that experience into Government. That point still needs to be addressed.

More topically, it is absurd to pillory the First Minister's family for a Christmas holiday and a Christmas present, which is a point to which Donald Gorrie referred. I gently advise David McLetchie that attacks on colleagues on spurious and opportunistic grounds have not been his finest hours. As I have mentioned David McLetchie, may I say that I do not believe that he has said or done anything in the Parliament as any form of paid advocacy? I defend him on that count. I find the allegations to be quite preposterous.

The underlying problem is that the current rules are wide open to fanciful constructions of conflicting interests and those contrived perceptions are damaging the reputation of the Parliament. I suggest that the reference to imaginary conflicts of interest should be removed from the rules and that the clerks, the standards commissioner and the committee should concentrate on objective facts and the serious issue of real conflicts of interest. That is what matters. I realise that that might be difficult territory for the Standards Committee to move into, but successive press feeding frenzies have damaged the standing of the Parliament. It would be wise to give that matter some attention sooner rather than later.

Finally, I agree with Alex Fergusson's point that ridiculously intrusive disclosure requirements could deter people whom we should be attracting to stand for public office and the Parliament.

The issues are important and we should all give them further consideration. Obviously, colleagues on the Standards Committee should give them serious consideration. Meanwhile, I am grateful to Brian Adam and I am content to support the motion.

I welcome today's debate on the Standards Committee report on replacing the members' interests order. In the last session, the previous Standards Committee did a great deal of work, and we managed to get as far as producing a draft bill. We left the bill, as Brian Adam mentioned, for the incoming committee to take forward, and I am pleased that, on the whole, the new committee is content with the bill. Nonetheless, the Standards Committee rightly decided to re-examine the issues. I am also pleased that it has come to the same conclusions as we did in the previous session.

On issues such as the abolition of the ridiculous and intrusive rule about declaring gifts between spouses, and the registration of non-financial interests and interests in shares, the new committee is in firm agreement with the previous committee. That gives added strength to the arguments for reform.

I will go into more detail about the proposed reforms. Reforming the test to be applied is an interesting step forward. As the committee says:

"It will be for each Member to ask themselves, not whether they would or might be influenced by the interest but, whether a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that their impartiality would be or appear to be prejudiced by the interest."

That could be considered a real improvement on the current position. However, I am not convinced that everyone will think so, because I do not believe that any MSP would consider themselves not to be a fair-minded and informed observer. Will anything change practically? I am not so sure.

The move to include non-financial interests as well as financial interests is a major step and tightens up the regulations further. Members must be under no illusions; the move extends the rules of the members' interests order but, at the same time, gives real weight to the founding principles of the Parliament of transparency and openness, as outlined by Brian Adam.

Although I welcome almost everything in the report, I sound a note of caution. Paragraph 28 of the report states:

"The Committee considers it to be good practice for Members to declare interests in dealings outwith Parliament".

We must be careful to explain exactly what we mean by that. Do "dealings" simply mean parliamentary duties? If so, we must say so clearly; otherwise we open up the definition of members' interests extremely widely, which I do not believe is the committee's intention.

I turn to an issue that John Home Robertson raised, which is not in the report: the registration of overseas visits. That is not in the report because the current and the previous Standards Committee both examined the issue and decided against altering the provision for good reasons. It is absolutely clear that if an overseas visit is undertaken for any reason and is not paid for wholly by the member, his family, the Executive or the Parliament, it must be declared. The reason for that is straightforward and obvious. Our code of conduct also states that where such registration is required, the member should provide details of the dates, destination and purpose of the visit and specify the individual who met any of the costs—end of story.

I believe that the Standards Committee has got it right. Bearing in mind the one point of clarification that I have sought about declaring interests in dealings outwith Parliament, the Parliament should agree the motion.

I am happy to clarify the point for the member. "Dealings outwith Parliament" means dealings in connection with parliamentary duties. That will be made clear in the bill.

I thank the convener of the Standards Committee for that; that point was important. We have to be absolutely clear. Clarity in the bill is fundamental, so the point is appropriate. Parliament should agree the motion without division and press on with the bill as soon as possible, because it is long overdue.

This debate is all about balance and what is right. The other evening I was showing a party round the chamber when I noted that the words on the mace encapsulate what we should be thinking about today: compassion, justice, integrity and wisdom. I have been known to question the wisdom of a great many of my parliamentary colleagues and I will continue to do so, but I have never had occasion to question their integrity. Given that we now live with Caesar's wife syndrome, I suppose that we have to demonstrate that we are whiter than white, as a matter of self-preservation apart from anything else.

In this afternoon's debate, several members outlined the way in which life is becoming rather more difficult than it used to be and there is a real sense of intrusion. I endorse totally the views that were expressed by John Home Robertson and Donald Gorrie in that respect. We are entitled to some privacy and most of us and most of the population of Scotland would be consumed with indifference as to what Christmas presents members of the Scottish Parliament and Executive ministers got from their spouses. The next thing that people will want to know is the colour of the socks that I get for Christmas. We must have an element of realism and balance.

I take issue with Donald Gorrie in one respect, however. I think that MSPs should have to declare interests, especially financial interests. Sometimes—not often—MSPs have the opportunity to influence the placing of contracts. Yesterday, in a riveting debate, we discussed the placing of Edinburgh tramline number 2 and I moved a motion that the Parliament agreed. If I had had a serious financial interest in an Edinburgh company of civil engineers that might have benefited from the work that we were discussing, the public would have expected me to declare that interest.

Alex Fergusson, in a typically measured and reasonable speech, highlighted how the committee will move forward with particular inquiries and legislation if today's motion is agreed—of course, I anticipate that the chamber will be unanimous in that regard. We must recognise, however, that sometimes we are attempting to be a little bit too prescriptive. Again, John Home Robertson highlighted a difficulty that arises quite frequently nowadays, which is that people who in a previous existence have gathered a degree of expertise and knowledge are precluded from participating in parliamentary discussions on those matters, even though they might be able to let the rest of us know what is going on in that field. We must further consider that.

The issues in this debate are matters of common sense in terms of what is reasonable and what the public perception should be. We should go ahead with the proposed replacement of the members' interests order but we should not be inhibited about saying that MSPs are entitled to a degree of privacy and that the press and the public should not be too intrusive because, at the end of the day, that will have a negative effect on the quality of people who are prepared to take part in public life.

We are about six minutes light at the present time, so members can take more time if they so wish.

First, I apologise on behalf of my colleague, Linda Fabiani, who was supposed to be taking part in this debate but who is, unfortunately, ill at the moment. However, she assures me that she will be back in time for the members' business debate on the motion in her name, so people should not panic.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. The current transitional arrangements were imposed on the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998 and it was always expected that the Scottish Parliament would put in place its own members' interests legislation. That is why we are debating this issue today.

Of course, this is not the first debate on the subject; a debate was held in October 2002, when the previous Standards Committee proposed a bill to replace the members' interests order. It is a matter of great regret that the necessary legislative time was not found to get that bill on to the statute book before 2003. The Parliament might have saved itself some grief if that parliamentary time had been found.

The new Standards Committee has, quite rightly, reviewed the initial work that was done by the previous Standards Committee and has produced its own report, which we are debating today. I will deal with some of the issues that it raises.

The requirement to register gifts over the cost of £250 from spouses is an unnecessary and unwelcome infringement of personal life. The proposal to remove that requirement is welcome and long overdue. I remember discussing the subject with Karen Gillon way back in 2001. I cannot think why the requirement was included in the transitional order in the first place.

The present provisions on paid advocacy are too wide and could prevent support being given to a member's bill. There is a fatal flaw in the present transitional arrangements: there is no connection between the amount of support that is given and any personal benefit to an MSP. That must and will be addressed by the proposed bill. I welcome the committee's view that paid advocacy only takes place where there is a connection between the receipt of a benefit that represents a personal gain to the member and that member undertaking action as an MSP. That clarity is welcome and will be much needed when we come to debate the bill.

I have long argued that non-pecuniary interests can be at least as important as pecuniary interests and welcome the tests that will apply. Members should be required to register a non-pecuniary interest that a member of the public could reasonably think might influence their actions as an MSP. I remember the avalanche of mail that I got and the many press criticisms to the effect that I was trying unreasonably to vilify freemasons. The issue was never about freemasons; it was about recognising that membership of outside organisations, particularly in village Scotland, is at least as important as pecuniary interests.

I accept what Tricia Marwick has just said, but does she accept, in the context of what I said during my contribution, that that particular organisation engenders a reaction peculiar to itself, and that there is a great danger for a potential witch hunt that should be resisted at all costs?

I agree, but we need as much transparency as possible, and it is in everyone's interests to declare their non-pecuniary interests—voluntarily or under legislation such as that which we are proposing—whether that be membership of clubs, the freemasons, a football club or whatever. A clear message should go out that this is not about picking out the freemasons; it is about acknowledging that non-pecuniary interests are as important in the Parliament as pecuniary interests.

I strongly believe that the members' interests order should have been replaced before the 2003 election to allow the new rules to be in place for the new intake of members. I regret that the parliamentary time was not available. I urge the Parliament to approve the proposal and impress on all business managers—there are at least four sitting in the chamber today—the need to ensure that this committee bill gets to Parliament as quickly as possible and gets through the system as a matter of urgency. Notwithstanding the need for proper scrutiny, we must not delay any longer because there is confusion about the issue and it is in the interests of all members that we have an order that will guide and protect MSPs and will also ensure that the people of Scotland have faith in the institution that is our Scottish Parliament.

I am of course pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate. The Executive acknowledges that the Standards Committee report is a matter for the whole Parliament. Consideration by the Parliament, as required by the Scotland Act 1998, of an appropriate legislative framework to govern members' interests is a very important issue for the Parliament but also for the Executive. As members, we need to ensure that we provide for proper standards.

Today we are considering measures that seek to ensure that Scotland can be confident that its MSPs are meeting the highest standards of propriety and integrity as they undertake their parliamentary duties. The measures seek to ensure above all that the electorate is left in no doubt that its elected representatives act on its behalf and in its interests. That is an essential aspect of underpinning Scottish public confidence in devolution and embedding confidence in all the policies that devolution can promote for Scotland, which are delivered by the Parliament.

The Executive has followed the work of the Standards Committee in its development of the recommendations that are set out in its report on members' interests. On behalf of the Executive, I would like to offer our thanks and gratitude to committee members for their careful and thorough consideration of a significant issue. I want to pay tribute to the work of Brian Adam, who I think has won the respect of members in progressing the committee's proposals. That will be significant as he takes through the bill. I am sure that all members of the Parliamentary Bureau would wish to offer Brian Adam their full co-operation as he steers through what is a challenging set of proposals.

As Brian Adam said, the Scotland Act 1998 requires that provision be made for the registration of members' interests. Although that is the primary driver behind the committee's work, the Executive recognises that the committee thinks that there is a practical need to improve on the statutory registration framework that is set out in the members' interests order.

When the Standards Committee's predecessor committee began its work, it had the aim of striking a balance between the need to respect individual privacy and the need to ensure transparency and high standards of probity. It was right and proper that it had regard to the core consultative steering group principles of openness and accountability. It is important that we marry the strong commitment to openness and accountability that came to fruition in the setting up of the Parliament to the proposals that we produce.

When the committee's predecessor committee published its proposals for reforming the registration framework in 2002, the Executive indicated its support. The current committee has had the opportunity to give further consideration to those proposals. In that work, it has been informed by the draft bill that was, as has been said, a legacy of the work of its predecessor committee. The committee is focusing on practical and procedural aspects and, in so doing, is seeking to maximise the effectiveness of any new arrangements for all concerned. That is a key test. Any new procedures should be effective and should work in all our interests.

The Executive welcomes and appreciates the Standards Committee's work. We acknowledge the proposals' many strengths and the value of the committee's efforts. The objective influence test is perhaps one of the most significant reforms that the committee has proposed. The attachment of that test to the registration of gifts, non-pecuniary interests—I am glad that I am not alone in finding that difficult to say—and ceased interests represents an obvious improvement on the present statutory framework. It is accepted that the fact that there is no qualification to the requirement that all gifts that have a value of more than £250 be registered means that gifts that are completely outwith the public interest must be registered. [Interruption.] Members will be glad to know that I have not been shot. The report recognises that that represents unreasonable interference with a member's family and private life.

We have been through an interesting period and have had stimulating debates about standards and the importance that they play in our public life.

Given the interest of the media in all matters to do with standards and MSPs, is the minister as surprised as I am that not a single member of the media is listening to the debate?

I do not think that I am as surprised as Tricia Marwick is that that is the case, although perhaps she is not surprised. That is a comment on some of the standards in public life. One could argue that the debate about standards should not be about just MSPs' standards and that we should also be talking about standards in relation to press activity. There will now be something unflattering about me in tomorrow's papers.

Tricia Marwick's timing was perfect, because I was just about to refer to the experiences that individual members have had recently. I do not intend to attack or defend any of the behaviour in question, but I think that there is a shared agenda in the Parliament about the importance of the need to introduce procedures that are clear and that allow us to strike a balance between the right of members to an element of privacy in their family lives and in the normal activities in which families take part, and their responsibility to work in the public interest in a fully open and transparent way. We must ensure that the new proposals work in a meaningful way. As Alex Fergusson said, we do not want them to be used to indulge those who wish to do mischief or to be used inappropriately. We must ensure that they are applied consistently. I do not think that it is too big an aspiration to have standards that are transparent, that lead to high levels of probity and that ensure that members are treated fairly and reasonably.

The committee's recommendations on the registration of gifts maintain transparency but ensure that gifts that can reasonably be deemed to prejudice a member's impartiality must continue to be registered.

Similarly, the Executive acknowledges the committee's thoughtful contribution on non-pecuniary interests. Again, the objective test will ensure that such interests are registered when appropriate, without the need to define and monitor complex or ambiguous rules or require members to make unreasonable judgments.

The Standards Committee's considerations and consultations ensure that we will address the additional issues that require consideration. Although members of all parties support the proposals as a clear improvement, there has been a sense during the debate that a degree of further thinking is required. Members of all parties have suggested that we need to think a bit more about some of the detail—I refer to the points that John Home Robertson made about some of the recent experiences of members—and I re-emphasise the need for appropriate balance.

I hope that the committee will consider those matters. I assure the committee's convener, Brian Adam, that he will have the Executive's full co-operation and that I will co-operate in my role as business manager.

The standards to which elected members in the Parliament must adhere are critical. It is a matter of great importance to ensure that members operate to the highest standard and that the Scottish public have confidence in members' probity, motives and practice. In carrying out our duties, we must work, and be seen to work, in the interests of our constituents and the Scottish public without undue influence. In establishing the proposed measures, we must strike a balance between ensuring robust standards and ensuring that members can live a normal life and maintain some degree of privacy. I argue strongly that we become better members of the Parliament and get better at our jobs by living normal lives, because thereby we understand life more effectively. Therefore, I welcome the committee's work in introducing the proposals and look forward to working to ensure proper progress for the committee bill. I recognise the improvement that the proposals will make, although some further thinking is required, and I have no doubt that they will benefit the Parliament as a whole.

I call Brian Adam. You have up to 12 minutes, Mr Adam. If you cannot manage that, I will suspend briefly.

That is a poisoned chalice, Presiding Officer: if I fill the 12 minutes, I am longwinded and boring.

I thank my colleagues for their contributions to the debate. Although the committee has developed a policy that would inform the drafting of a bill, such a bill has not yet been drafted, so, if members now wish to raise points that they did not raise over the past year in spite of being encouraged to do so, I encourage them to send them to me.

A point that several respondents to the committee appeared to raise was whether gifts were cumulative: whether a gift of £249 one day would come below the £250 threshold if it were followed by a further gift of £249 the next. Will Brian Adam confirm that the current situation is that gifts are cumulative and that any provisions on gifts in the bill will ensure that gifts remain cumulative?

I am grateful to Mark Ballard for raising that issue. The members' interests order is not the only thing that governs members' behaviour; it is also governed by the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament", which addresses the point he raises. The code of conduct specifically says that it is advisable—not mandatory—that cumulative gifts from individual donors be registered. It is possible that we could deal with that issue in drafting the bill. We would be happy to consider that and other issues. The earlier we get responses, the better.

I will intervene to help the convener fill his time—I am consensual as always. Further to the point that Mr Ballard made, at the end of the day an element of common sense will surely prevail with such matters. The simple rule is, "If in doubt, register it."

I absolutely concur with what the member says. Even our new objective test depends on the judgment of members. We have to rely on good judgment on such matters. If individual members exercise poor judgment, they may be reported to the standards commissioner and they may have to appear before their peers on the Standards Committee, where they will be subject to that committee's judgment initially and then to the judgment of the whole Parliament.

I wonder whether the member recalls the series, "Yes, Minister". One of the early things that Jim Hacker had to deal with was freedom of information. His advice was that we should always freely and frankly tell the press and public anything they can discover by any other means. Does the member agree that that is exactly what we want to avoid here: that we must create a culture of positive engagement with the issues and an understanding of the attitudes of the public and the media and that we must protect ourselves from their taking actions that subsequently show us in a poor light?

Part of today's helpful debate highlighted the polarised position that is exemplified by John Home Robertson and Donald Gorrie on one side and by many individual correspondents on the other, who might want us to declare every gift, with everything going into the public domain. The view of Donald Gorrie and John Home Robertson is that we have gone too far. As amusing as "Yes, Minister" was, Stewart Stevenson's point is extremely valid. We must strike an appropriate balance.

We must bear in mind the fact that the Standards Committee has spent the best part of a year on the matter and that the previous Standards Committee spent a similar amount of time on it. If the issue is larger than the one that has been dealt with in the report, or if there is a change in policy, we will not be able to deal with that in drafting the proposed committee bill. Like all bills, however, the proposed bill will be open to amendment at the various stages that it will go through.

I might not have given Mr Rumbles an absolutely accurate answer to the question he put to me, but I am now going to give it to him. The point about paragraph 28 is that the

"interests in dealings outwith Parliament"

are not something to be covered by the bill. I suppose that that was Mr Rumbles's point. That matter should instead be covered under the revised code of conduct, and I remind members that the code of conduct is just as important as the members' interests order.

I am now a little more confused about the issue. The point that I was making about the use of "dealings"—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry, but we cannot hear what Mr Rumbles is saying. [Applause.]

Thank you for that, Presiding Officer. In—

Rather than have Mr Rumbles fill up any more of the Parliament's time, perhaps I can tell him that that refers to parliamentary duties.

That is fine.

I was accurate about that. It was whether that was to be covered in the proposed bill that I did not quite get right earlier.

Oh, I do enjoy this knockabout.

On the point that Bill Aitken raised, there is nothing in the bill or the code of conduct that prevents members from participating in parliamentary debates, provided they declare their interests.

On the timetabling issue that Tricia Marwick was rightly concerned about and on the fact that there has not been much interest in the media, I emphasise that the process will not happen next week. It will take some time, and we expect it to be concluded in the early part of next year. It will take some time to draft the bill. Then, the bill will have to be introduced.

Initially, the bill will be dealt with by the Finance Committee. I hope that an ad hoc committee will then be set up to consider it at stage 2. It will then come back to a Committee of the Whole Parliament for stage 3. That process will happen in the latter part of this year and the early part of next year. A little time will also be required to address the details and how the Presiding Officer's office and so on will be involved. Therefore, we envisage implementation not taking place until after the next Scottish parliamentary elections.

It is disappointing that the media have not taken much interest in the debate. Their great interest in approaching the convener of the Standards Committee and possibly other members of the Standards Committee about individual issues has been quite interesting over the past few weeks, but perhaps they have a little less interest in general matters.

It is vital that members understand what is expected of them and that the system is not overly bureaucratic. It is also important that the requirements that we make of members are not designed to trip them up—that is not the point of having such legislation. We would like members to be as open as possible about their interests as far as they may influence their actions and behaviour in the Parliament, but we do not want to create situations in which members can be beaten with a stick because provisions can be exploited by others in some kind of point-scoring match. That was never the intention of the members' interests order, which is—and rightly should be—about safeguarding the interests of the electorate from the worst forms of corruption and abuse.

We have a code of conduct—to which I have referred—and an independent standards commissioner. The consequence of changes to the members' interests order is that we must revise the code of conduct. I give members—especially members who have started to express concerns about the work that has been done—fair warning now that they will have the opportunity in the next few weeks to raise their concerns about the wider issues relating to the code of conduct. I encourage members to engage in the debate. If members do not do so, we will not be informed.

Many changes that I hope will be implemented are the result of our experiences. Members will have had good and bad experiences with the process and they should take the opportunity to consider those experiences and let us know about them. In the next week or two, members will receive from the Standards Committee a letter about the code of conduct.

I do not think that we have a culture of sleaze in Scotland. There have been complaints about members and some of those complaints have received a lot of attention—particularly in the press—but complaints that have been considered to date by the committee have not been about the probity of members. That is worth bearing in mind when we consider what provisions should be in any new legislation.

In drafting any parliamentary code, the aim is to have clarity and proportionality. It is vital that members understand what is expected of them and that the system is not overly bureaucratic and does not become an administrative burden. The rules will command respect if they are clear and proportionate. I hope that our proposals have achieved that.