Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 (Determinations)
The next item of business is a debate on motions S2M-5431 to S2M-5434 inclusive, in the name of Brian Adam, on behalf of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, on its fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth reports of 2006, on determinations required under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006.
The Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 received royal assent on 13 July last year. Certain sections of the act came into force the day after that, to enable Parliament to make determinations. Those determinations will replace existing determinations under the current members' interests order, which were made by the Presiding Officer.
In giving powers to Parliament in relation to those matters rather than to the Presiding Officer, the act gives all members a greater say in the content of determinations. Determinations can be replaced as required to suit future arrangements, which will enable us to keep the requirements of the act current, relevant and pertinent in the future. Without that method, the only way in which we could amend the requirements imposed on us by the act would be by way of a further bill.
A procedure for making determinations under the act was agreed recently by the Parliament and is set out in rule 1.8 of our standing orders. The purpose of today's debate is to discuss four determinations. The Standards and Public Appointments Committee agreed to make separate determinations under separate parts of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. The four reports that members have before them are deliberately designed to stand alone. The committee could have produced an omnibus report and an omnibus determination covering all the determinative powers under the act, but for the following reasons, we decided not to adopt that approach.
First, it is important that each determination is capable of being reviewed and revised on its own merits. As a consequence, only one determination will require to be reprinted and debated. Secondly, further to increase transparency, the approach will enable any interested observer to consider a determination and follow a single audit trail of revisions, reports and debates.
Members will have read the reports, but it might be useful if I were to comment briefly on them. The reports span four determinations: one relating to the form and content of a written statement; one relating to the publication of the register of interests; one relating to a declaration of interests; and one relating to gross income from heritable property.
Under section 4 of the 2006 act, the Parliament may determine the form and content of a written statement of interests. I hope that members will recognise the form of the statement that is presented in annex A of the relevant report. We have tried to keep the statement as close as possible in format and content to the current statement. Some additional information, as set out in the consultation document, has been included. For example, more use has been made of bandings for financial values in the proposed statement than in previous statements.
Under paragraph 8 of the schedule to the 2006 act, the Parliament may determine the amount of gross annual income that triggers a requirement to register heritable property. That amount is replicated in the relevant section of the written statement relating to heritable property. Again, there is a stand-alone report in case the Parliament decides at some point in the future to revise the thresholds for income from property.
The committee has taken the starting point that all income from property should be registered. The approach taken is that all remuneration is registrable, and the same approach has been adopted for property. That is a change from the previous arrangements.
Under the 2006 act, the income threshold must be expressed as an amount, so the amount in the determination has been set at zero. The registration of any income from heritable property is required under the determination. However, the committee appreciated that just registering a figure for income may provide a distorted picture to an observer. Members should bear it in mind that there is provision in the statement to include the income from heritable property in bands. They should also note that, to provide a fuller picture, additional information may be included in a statement. If a member considers it relevant, information such as any profit or loss connected with a property may be included.
Overall, we are all agreed that there should be a register of members' interests—that was agreed by the Parliament—and we hope that the register will also cover other possible or perceived external influences. For the register to be meaningful, we need to disclose a reasonable amount of information, and I hope that our proposals in the determination on the written statement are reasonable.
I do not intend to speak for much longer because I am aware that, although the determinations are important, they may be rather less than riveting as a topic for debate. I hope that the determinations proposed under sections 11 and 13 of the 2006 act are relatively straightforward, as they replicate the practices of sessions 1 and 2 of the Parliament, with which members should be familiar. However, in relation to the determination proposed under section 13 of the 2006 act, members should note the requirement to have relevant interests registered prior to voting. Members should also note that the requirement to cover declaration of interests for voting purposes as well as other actions stems from mandatory requirements in section 39 of the Scotland Act 1998.
We have set out to fine tune the system that has worked in sessions 1 and 2. The Parliament is quite young, and I hope that we have provided a good basis for coming sessions, with practical arrangements for encompassing change if required.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's 5th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Determinations required under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 - Determination required under Section 4 (SP Paper 706), and agrees that the determination set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 4 April 2007.
That the Parliament notes the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's 6th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Determinations required under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 - Determination required under Section 11 (SP Paper 707), and agrees that the determination set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 4 April 2007.
That the Parliament notes the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's 7th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Determinations required under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 - Determination required under Section 13 (SP Paper 708) and agrees that the determination set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 4 April 2007.
That the Parliament notes the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's 8th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Determinations required under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 - Determination required under the schedule, paragraph 8 (SP Paper 709), and agrees that the determination set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 4 April 2007.
Remaining speakers will have four minutes each.
I hope that the time allocated is enough to cover the many important issues that arise from the four reports.
My first point is one that the committee convener alluded to, perhaps because I have discussed it with him. We have four reports, three of 28 pages and one of 48 pages. All were published on the same day, and when we look at them, we realise that 24 pages in each report are identical. They cover the committee minutes, the act that governs the determinations, the membership list of the committee, blank pages and so on. Looking at the 10 or 12 paragraphs of each report, we see that the first eight paragraphs are identical as well.
I understand the argument for having separate determinations so that the Parliament can revise them individually. However, I fail to see how it is beyond the wit of man or woman to provide for that without having all these reports that contain the same information. I do not swallow the committee convener's argument that separate reports give the interested observer—of which there will clearly be a large number—an audit trail to follow the discussions. The committee has not applied that logic to its reports, as they contain many footnotes that refer to the Official Report, for example, which is of course not included in the reports.
Is the member seriously suggesting that, instead of using footnotes rather than adding in information, the committee reports before the Parliament should have been even longer? Others suggested to the committee that the consultation document and the lack of response to it ought to have been included. Mr Morgan cannot have it both ways.
I am not suggesting that. I am saying that if footnotes are good for some matters, they are equally good for minutes, the act and the committee's membership list.
I will get on and address the reports. The sixth report of 2006 contains an interesting comment on how the register is kept. It says that the clerk keeps the register in hard copy
"as this has proved the most reliable format".
That is the only format that has been used to keep the register, so it must be the most reliable. The report also says that
"no ‘electronic glitches' can occur in hard copy."
I am not arguing that the register should not be kept in hard copy, but that approach to keeping records is slightly luddite, especially in a Parliament that has dealt with electronic records to a large extent. Glitches can affect hard-copy records; they are not electronic glitches, but hard-copy reports can be lost or mislaid, so the comment is a bit spurious.
It is interesting that the seventh report of 2006 says that when a member only votes, declarations of interest do not necessarily need to be made. We should make that clear. How many members are aware that if they have a registrable interest, even if they only intervene in a debate, they must declare that interest? That may make interventions somewhat longer, but it is the thrust of our rules.
It looks as if I will be unable to address the significant point that the level for declaring income from heritable property will be reduced, which is contrary to the thrust of the debate in Parliament on the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. That may need to wait for another time.
I am not sure whether I need to speak in the debate, because it is clear that an animated debate is taking place among Scottish National Party members. I am sorry that Mr Morgan did not have more faith in his party's two very capable members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee—I am sure that he does really.
I remember with slight horror the first time that determinations were mentioned when the committee met in committee room 2. The mention of determinations triggered a wave of indignation, which I partly egged on. All sorts of accusations were made—we heard that Parliament was to be bypassed and all sorts of other suggestions that turned out to be scare stories.
If nothing else, what has emerged from the process is clarification of the procedures that are encompassed in determinations and—I hope—the acceptance that they are a perfectly normal and respectable way forward.
Alasdair Morgan made several good points. I am deeply impressed that he has read the reports. I suspect that he is not unique in the Parliament in that regard, but it sets him apart from all ordinary mortals.
The convener answered well the question why four reports were issued—that is because it is easier to make changes later without following undue processes. If nothing else, that has doubled the number of reports that the committee has issued this session. Why each report replicates some information is a good question. That is hard to defend. Sometimes we just have to accept that laid-down procedures are hard to follow.
I will say a few words about the eighth report of 2006, which covers the determination on income from property. I argued strongly that banding rather than giving the exact figure that was received was imperative—I argued strongly about that to protect people such as farm tenants, house tenants and others from having exact financial details of their businesses and perhaps of their personal income and expenditure made public knowledge.
I have no doubt that some people will argue strongly that we have introduced the banding in order to protect members. I simply do not accept that that is the case, if for no other reason than the fact that, if a member declares income from property of between £15,000 and £20,000, every one of our friends in the press will determine that income to be £19,999 and not a penny less. There is no doubt about that.
Alasdair Morgan was correct to say that we have perhaps gone against the way in which the debate in the Parliament went in introducing a banding from zero to £5,000. I think that that is absolutely justified for simplicity and ease of understanding, as the same is required for the registration of remuneration and I would defend it on those grounds. We have tried hard, all the way through the tortuous debate on the issue, to bring simplicity and ease of understanding across the board. Those were our biggest priorities.
I accept the points that Alasdair Morgan made, and other members may feel the same. However, I hope that the Parliament will accept the reports. A lot of work has gone into them and they are a good outcome of a fairly tedious but nonetheless important process.
The procedure that is being adopted is correct, and the documents set out basically what the Parliament decided on previous occasions. There is perhaps the argument that Alex Fergusson raised about the figures for heritable property; however, on the method—as opposed to the substance—I am happy to endorse the documents.
I lost the argument about the substance on previous occasions. I think that the whole thing is a grossly over-the-top hair-shirt exercise. It is Calvinism at its worst. However, I lost the argument before and I have to accept that.
The documents reasonably translate into document-type language what the Parliament decided. We are at least in control of our own affairs, passing our own house rules, which is a step forward. I hope that all members—who are obviously riveted by the issues—will vote to accept the reports.
I congratulate the Standards and Public Appointments Committee on the completion of a useful exercise. I have a question that I hope will be answered in the summing-up of the debate.
On page 13 of annex A of the fifth report, on section 4, it is stated, under the heading "Sponsorship", that
"the provision of the services of a research assistant or secretary whose salary, in whole or in part, is met by an external organisation"
will be covered. I wonder whether the committee has considered whether a member's political party is to be considered an external organisation. My view is that it should be considered such, and I would be interested in having on record the committee's advice to members who find themselves in that situation.
I thank all the members who have spoken for their contributions to the debate. Although we did not manage to attract any responses to our consultation exercise, it has been interesting. As Mr Fergusson said, it is obvious that Alasdair Morgan has taken the time and trouble to read the reports. His contribution might have been more useful had it come at the consultation stage, as we might have arrived at a different conclusion; however, I suspect that we would not.
Does the member accept that it would perhaps have been easier if the consultation document had more explicitly flagged up the fact that the limit on income from heritable property was being reduced from £4,000 to zero? One had to look quite hard to discover that in the consultation document.
Again, I am grateful to Mr Morgan for that suggestion, but he is wide of the mark. Only the slothful servant needs to be commanded in all things. I do not know how much detail he wanted, but page 26 of the consultation document spells out exactly what the proposed bandings are and page 27 explains what the consultation is about. I totally refute his suggestion that our proposal was unclear.
Mr Morgan is also rather wide of the mark in suggesting that the register will be available only in hard copy. Those who wish to do so will be able to consult a hard copy, but the register will also be put up on the web. If he is concerned about that and wants to offer an alternative, he might have an opportunity to do so when the Parliament revisits the issue at some point in future.
We do not suggest any change to the requirement on members to make a declaration of interests during interventions. Our suggestion is that the current practice should continue. Whether that is honoured or not is up to individual members.
In response to Donald Gorrie's reference to Calvinism, I accept that we may well have adopted a hair-shirt approach. However, the Parliament made a number of significant changes to the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill that made it less of a hair shirt. Although Mr Morgan has advanced the argument that reducing the declarable amount for income from heritable property to zero will add to that hair-shirt approach, our aim has been to make matters open and transparent. We also want the requirements to reflect the provisions for remuneration.
I remind members of the overall aim of our work on replacing the members' interests order with a new act and with the determinations that are set out in the committee's reports. The main purpose of the register is to provide information on any financial interest or other material benefit that a member receives that might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament or other actions that might be taken in his or her capacity as a member of the Parliament.
The appearance of an entry in the register implies no element of judgment on the substance of the interest. The purpose of registration is to ensure openness by giving other members and the public the opportunity to know about interests that may be thought to influence a member's actions in his or her parliamentary capacity. Observers can make their own assessment of the significance of an entry. The rules on declaration of interests also place members under a more general obligation to keep the overall purpose of the register in mind.
Work on replacing the members' interest order has taken place over two parliamentary sessions. That work has been carried out in committee and in meetings of the full Parliament and is a matter of public record. I believe that the Scottish Parliament has set high ethical standards. That is what is needed. We need practical arrangements to ensure that those standards are reflected, and are seen to be reflected, in public life.
Will I get an answer to my question?
Let me deal with Mr Ballance's point about sponsorship. With regard to individuals who are employed by both a member and a political party, the member should seek advice from the clerks to the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. That is precisely the clerks' role. Given that the details of such arrangements may vary from case to case, the individual circumstances of the case would need to be discussed with those whose role it is to give such advice. It is not the role of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee or the convener of that committee to give such advice. The answer will depend very much on who is paying for what. My advice to Mr Ballance is that he should consult the standards clerks as the issue relates to the act rather than to the determinations that we are considering today.
Expectations of standards in public life are constantly changing. For example, paid advocacy—cash for questions—was regarded as a matter of some concern in the early 1990s. I hope that we have moved beyond that issue today, but the example illustrates how the sands shift and why we need a system that places a range of information in the public domain. That system must be practical and capable of adaptation to meet future standards and expectations.
One reason why we have put four reports before members today is to make the process easier in the future; a bit of expenditure on energy and trees at the beginning may mean that subsequently we do not need to produce so many reports. The four reports propose a fair, practical system. I urge members to support the motions that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee has lodged.