Plenary, 26 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, June 26, 2008

Official Report 557KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I said that I was closing the meeting, but I am prepared to take a point of order, seeing as it is you, Ms MacDonald.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The point of order is under rule 1.6 of the standing orders, which refers to the code of conduct. Proceedings in the Parliament that are on-going may have raised a serious difficulty for us, because there appears to be an argument about a point of law. On whether something is a registrable interest under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, the Parliament's lawyers say no and the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner's lawyer says yes. We are advised under our code of conduct to seek the advice of parliamentary clerks, who take legal advice. If the standards commissioner then produces legal advice offering the opposite solution, in what position does that leave members? Where should they go for redress? I ask most respectfully that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body consider the whole matter, as the recent example may have illustrated a gap in our procedures.

I point out to the member as gently as I can that the Parliament has not yet seen the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's report. I equally respectfully suggest that we wait until the report is published before we deliberate on any of its findings.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, I accept entirely your desire to deliberate on the report, but I also point you to the statement from the convener of that committee, which is a matter of public record.

I raise three further issues that arise from Margo MacDonald's point of order. First, what is the standing of advice that is tendered by the parliamentary legal service and what advice is tendered to a committee where there is a conflict of legal advice? Secondly, where there is such a conflict, is it expected that individual members should personally fund further legal advice and, if so, what standing would that advice have when an unresolved conflict of legal advice already exists? Thirdly, through your good offices and under rule 1.6 of the standing orders, will you invite the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to review the code of conduct to put beyond any doubt those items that must be registered as a gift, given that there are gaps in the code? I appreciate that those are substantive matters and I would be pleased if you could reflect on them and bring something back to the Parliament following the recess.

The issue of the code of conduct, and a possible review of it, is not a matter for me, but any member may take it up with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. If Jackie Baillie wishes to do so, she is more than welcome—it is her right.

I agree that the other issues are substantive. I hope that, on this occasion, members will forgive me if I do not say something about them right now. However, I will deliberate on them and I will come back to members at a later date, either in writing or in the chamber.

I take this opportunity to wish everybody a very happy recess.

Meeting closed at 15:00.