Plenary, 27 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, June 27, 2002

Official Report 734KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill

Motion S1M-3112, in the name of Mike Rumbles, seeks agreement that the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill be passed. I call Mike Rumbles to speak to and move the motion.

One of the key strengths of the Scottish Parliament is our committee system and one of the key strengths of the committees is the ability to follow up thorough and searching inquiries with proposals for primary legislation. In September 2000, the Standards Committee recommended that the Scottish Parliament introduce a standards commissioner and a four-stage investigative process to handle complaints against MSPs.

That decision followed a nine-month inquiry that took evidence from a wide range of witnesses. After some two and a half years of work, I pay tribute to my committee colleagues, past and present, for their hard work, commitment and diligence in making the proposal a reality. I also thank the non-Executive bills unit and the legal office for their essential support throughout the legislative process, and ministers for giving the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill a fair wind.

A month ago, I gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life in connection with its inquiry into standards of conduct in the House of Commons. The bulk of that evidence session focused on the provisions of the bill and, specifically, on the proposal to give our commissioner statutory powers in the conduct of his or her investigations. The meeting, which took place in Edinburgh, is the only evidence session that the Wicks committee will hold outside London. The committee's interest in arrangements in Scotland, particularly those contained in the bill, may suggest that the Scottish Parliament's approach to standards of conduct reverberates in corridors elsewhere.

I do not know whether the Committee on Standards in Public Life will ultimately recommend that the House of Commons should place its standards commissioner on a similar statutory footing, nor is it my place to suggest that it should do so, but I believe that the Wicks committee's close attention to developments in Scotland represents a recognition that the Scottish Parliament is developing rigorous arrangements that will promote the utmost probity of its members.

I briefly remind colleagues of the bill's key provisions. I have touched on the commissioner's statutory powers to compel evidence. That not only enhances the independence and credibility of the post but ensures that investigations can be carried out thoroughly and transparently. I hope that the commissioner will never have to rely on those powers, but they will be there and will augment public confidence in the handling of complaints against MSPs.

The appointment and removal procedures that are set out in the bill not only provide security of tenure for the commissioner but buttress his or her independence. Although not a matter for the bill, the recruitment process for the post will be open, transparent and consistent with the principles that are laid down by the commissioner for public appointments. The bill also sets out a clear procedure for the submission of complaints and provides that the standards commissioner's investigations will be carried out in private and will be independent of the committee.

Members will be aware from the stage 1 debate that the bill deals only with the first two stages of the four-stage investigative process. Stage 3 is the Standards Committee's consideration of the commissioner's findings. While I expect the committee's initial consideration of such reports to take place in private, all subsequent elements of stage 3 will take place in public. Stage 4 is the Parliament's consideration of any recommendation by the Standards Committee on sanctions, and any such debates in the chamber will be on a motion from the Standards Committee.

Before I conclude, I express my thanks for the work undertaken by the ad hoc committee at stage 2, under the convenership of Bruce Crawford. I particularly commend the constructive manner in which members of that committee approached their task. As I indicated earlier, two of the stage 3 amendments, as well as an earlier stage 2 amendment, were lodged by the Standards Committee as a direct result of the ad hoc committee's meticulous and thoughtful examination of the bill.

The Parliament already has an exacting regime for the registration and declaration of members' interests. The Standards Committee is building on that framework and, later in the year, we hope to introduce new legislation on members' interests to replace the transitional arrangements. Tough, substantive rules are only part of the picture; the public will have confidence in the probity of their elected representatives only if there is a robust means of enforcing those rules. If we appoint a commissioner with statutory powers to conduct thorough investigations into complaints against MSPs, we will do much to secure that public confidence.

Allegations of corruption or sleaze are corrosive. Ultimately, the conduct of individual members impacts on the integrity of the Parliament as a whole. The bill, and the four-stage complaints process that the Standards Committee has developed, will ensure that the Parliament is able to react speedily and appropriately to such allegations. I urge members to pass the bill at stage 3.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill be passed.

First, on behalf of the Executive, I congratulate the members of the Standards Committee and its staff on their important work on the bill. I believe that the result will be to reinforce Parliament's reputation and public standing. I also pay tribute to the work of the ad hoc committee. I will consult Donald Gorrie and Bruce Crawford to find out precisely what they did to give Mike Rumbles a hard time during the proceedings.

The Executive has been pleased to support the bill throughout its passage. Accordingly, I do not wish to take up much time in the debate. The bill's provisions set out a clear framework for the independent consideration of complaints against members of the Parliament. I believe that that framework will be a worthy successor to the non-statutory arrangements that we currently use, as provided for in the code of conduct.

A statutory footing for our parliamentary complaints system reinforces the Parliament's wish to ensure that its members act with propriety when carrying out their parliamentary duties. The bill also sends out a strong and important message to the Scottish public that Parliament will take action to investigate any claims made against one of its members. The bill will establish a standards commissioner, who will investigate complaints independently and, if necessary, report his or her findings to the Standards Committee. It will rightly be for the committee, and the Parliament as a whole, to decide what action to take on individual cases.

The Standards Committee introduced to the Parliament a bill that provided for a credible parliamentary complaints system, but the bill that is before us for agreement today has developed during its parliamentary passage. I was grateful for the opportunity to attend the ad hoc committee's stage 2 consideration of the bill. The amendments that were made at stage 2 made significant improvements that will ensure the overall effectiveness of the system.

Earlier, I touched on members' concerns about the fact that the bill as introduced did not fully address the issue of complaints being withdrawn, so that, in effect, the original accusations were left in some way hanging in the air. I think that the amendments that have been agreed deal with that.

The primary purpose of the bill is, of course, to provide a statutory forum for the public to complain about members' actions. However, it is also right to ensure that the framework that is established to that end cannot be hijacked by those who wish purely to sour a member's credibility by promulgating claims that cannot be thoroughly investigated.

Earlier, Parliament agreed that the bill should provide for those involved in the complaints process to enjoy qualified privilege when making statements. That reflected the need to increase the accessibility of the system to a degree that ensures that complainers have the freedom to inform the commissioner of all the facts surrounding their complaint, without fear of legal reprisals.

Parliamentary scrutiny has shaped the bill and increased the effectiveness of the new system for the complainer and for members of the Parliament. The Executive is confident that the bill will provide the commissioner with a strong and robust statutory framework that will provide the necessary powers and independence to discharge his or her investigatory duties.

However, the effectiveness of a new system cannot be fully assessed or proofed before it comes into effect. Strengths and weaknesses are ultimately discovered through practical experience. The Standards Committee will, on behalf of Parliament, be best placed to monitor the work of the standards commissioner and to ensure that the measures contained in the bill continue to deliver the aims of the parliamentary complaints system.

The Executive welcomes this important bill, which further cements the accountability of our parliamentary framework.

This is only the second committee bill to be introduced to Parliament. As Mike Rumbles said, the task of scrutinising the bill at stage 2 fell to an ad hoc committee. It was the first time that such a committee had been established in Parliament. I suspect that I now hold the record for serving the shortest time as a committee convener.

I express my thanks to colleagues on the committee. I think that we all enjoyed the experience of working in the way that we did, which was rewarding, and everyone contributed successfully. I also thank the clerks. We may have been a short-lived committee, but I believe that other, less transient committees might want to consider adopting elements of our approach and practices at stage 2.

We were mindful that the bill is, in places, complex. Indeed, it could be described as a piece of legislative Kerplunk: if one element is taken away, the entire framework could come crashing down. Consequently, before we began to consider amendments, we had, as Donald Gorrie said, informal briefings, which Mike Rumbles and officials from the non-Executive bills unit attended.

The Deputy Minister for Parliamentary Business asked how Donald Gorrie and I had given Mike Rumbles a hard time. Like old cops, we knew where to put the blankets so the bruises do not show.

Mike Rumbles and the non-Executive bills unit were able to throw some light on the policy intentions behind the bill, which enabled committee members to explore the intricacies of the bill's provisions and set those in the wider context of the four-stage investigative process. The briefings were highly constructive. Committee colleagues found them valuable in framing our scrutiny of the bill. Indeed, one of the stage 2 amendments on the admissibility of complaints—to which Mike Rumbles referred—stemmed from those informal discussions.

Although the bill was not subjected to extensive amendment at stage 2, that should not be taken to suggest that the committee did not subject it to thorough examination and scrutiny. In our formal meetings and the informal briefings, the role not only of the standards commissioner but of the Standards Committee in handling complaints against MSPs was thrashed out, picked over and analysed in a frank yet consensual atmosphere.

The bill strikes the correct balance between the right of the complainer to ensure that his or her concerns are investigated thoroughly, and the right of the member not to be exposed to malicious or unsubstantiated allegations. The Standards Committee is right to identify the need for an independent element in the complaints process. By giving the commissioner statutory powers to compel evidence, we send a clear message that the Parliament is serious about accountability. In adopting transparent procedures for appointing the commissioner and in providing security of tenure, the Parliament is saying that it is committed to the highest possible standards of integrity.

Over the past three years, the Parliament has seen much criticism, some of which has been justified, but some of which has been ill-informed and misplaced. Much good work has also been done, a lot of which has gone unnoticed. The bill represents such a piece of work. I am sure that it will be a model of good practice, which other places may want to follow, as Mike Rumbles suggested. It is a pity that more coverage has not been given to this positive aspect of parliamentary life. More focus on the positive and much less focus on the negative would be good for democracy.

I congratulate the Standards Committee on introducing the bill, and I commend it to political commentators for their summer reading.

I have had the good fortune to serve on the Standards Committee and the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee. I pay tribute to Mike Rumbles and Bruce Crawford for convening those committees. It is fair to say that we had a meeting of minds on the issues.

Public appointments have been a matter of considerable debate. The bill sets out transparent appointment procedures. The recruitment process will be seen to be open and fair. The procedure that the bill sets out for removing the commissioner, which we hope will not happen, would be used only if two thirds of MSPs voted for it. That will help to secure the independence of the post and ensure that it is free from unnecessary party-political interference.

The commissioner's independence will also be enhanced by the statutory powers to compel evidence that the bills sets out. Those are significant powers, and their existence will ensure that the commissioner is able to carry out the role effectively and thoroughly.

The bill also proposes arrangements for an acting commissioner, which will ensure that Parliament is able to deal with complaints if the commissioner is unable to do so through illness or conflict of interest.

We anticipate that the commissioner will be appointed on a part-time basis, but the successful candidate would be required to demonstrate the necessary flexibility to be able to deal with a substantial or complex investigation, which might require him or her to work full time. We think that it is likely that the commissioner will be required for between five and 10 days a month.

The Parliament already has in place a rigorous code of conduct and a tough members' interests regime. Indeed, contravention by members of the paid advocacy rules is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000. That may be regarded as a modern equivalent of the stocks—or perhaps even something more serious. We very much hope that the offence in question will never be committed.

The bill will complement the rules by providing an effective and fair means of investigating complaints against members. It will command the confidence of the public, and I commend it to the Parliament.

I want to speak not about the content of the bill, but about the reason for its introduction. We are here not because we are mired in allegations of sleaze, dishonesty or corruption, but because we are introducing a new way of working for a new Parliament. We are not trying to tackle a perceived problem in the Scottish Parliament, but establishing a transparent, robust procedure that will help to maintain the highest standards in public life in Scotland.

It is important to make that clear, because we all remember the unsavoury headlines that accompanied the end of the previous Tory Government. Those headlines were bad for all of us. They were bad not for us as individuals, but for Parliament and democracy. The cynical attitude that many people take to politics and politicians corrodes our institutions. Most worrying is the fact that it is becoming cool among young people to be disengaged from politics. I hope that measures such as the bill will help to reverse that process.

As we all know, trust is difficult to establish and all too easy to lose. The bill is about putting in place a framework that protects the public and the reputation of the Parliament. It will help to restore faith and trust in public life.

The bill establishes an independent commissioner with statutory powers. The scope of those powers can be daunting. I do not think that anyone who has been investigated by the standards adviser or who has appeared before the Standards Committee has found it a pleasant experience. However, the process reflects the high value that MSPs place on their integrity. The cases that have been investigated so far have related not to major transgressions or questions of honesty and probity, but rather to overly political—as opposed to parliamentary—behaviour.

We still need rules and guidelines within which to operate and standards to which to live up. We take our duties, responsibilities and office seriously. People unfailingly treat MSPs with respect. The bill will help to ensure that we do not disappoint them.

I thank my colleagues on the Standards Committee and on the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee for their work. I am pleased to be able to support the bill.

I am happy to endorse the tributes to Mike Rumbles and the Standards Committee and to Bruce Crawford. If he ever needs a reference when applying to be convener of another committee, I will be happy to supply one.

I draw members' attention to an area that particularly interested me, which is the balance between allowing genuine complaints to advance without obstruction and not deterring whistleblowers, and protecting members from whatever is the correct parliamentary word for nutters—people who have a vendetta against us.

I am that sure members have the same experience that I have of spending many hours trying to help someone who, in the end, because we have not made the earth flat or whatever it was that they wanted us to do, turns against us and tells everyone they know what complete rats we are. There are also the ordinary, rather unpleasant political opponents whom we have all met along with the pleasant political opponents.

We need protection from those people and the wording in the bill copes with the matter well. When the commissioner opens a letter of complaint against a member, he has three tests. First, he must ensure that the complaint is relevant—that it is about our activities as members of the Scottish Parliament. Secondly, the letter must fulfil the technical requirements—it must be signed, for example. Thirdly,

"a complaint warrants further investigation if it appears after an initial investigation that the evidence is sufficient to suggest that the conduct complained about may have taken place."

That is the first trawl.

The wording was discussed at great length and tries to hold the balance. If there is any sign of a realistic case against the member, the complaint goes to stage 2 and a proper inquiry. If it is clear that there is no evidence worth pursuing at that stage, the commissioner can throw the case out. We all know the argument that there is no smoke without fire and if rumours circulate that a member is being investigated, they are harmful. The wording in the bill can prevent that.

I am happy to support the bill and I hope that I never have to appear before the lady or gentleman.

It is customary to thank the clerks to a committee for all their work. On this occasion, on behalf of my colleagues on the Standards Committee and the ad hoc committee, I offer my sincere thanks to Sam Jones and her team and to David Cullum of the non-Executive bills unit. The bill is most complicated, as it deals with the relationship between the standards commissioner and the Standards Committee. I pay tribute to the clerks and the non-Executive bills unit for all the help and guidance that they gave us.

As Ken Macintosh said, we are considering the bill at a time of growing concern about people's disengagement from politics, which is reflected in low election turnouts and a general atmosphere of cynicism about the motives of politicians. In reality, that scepticism and cynicism about the ethical conduct of MSPs and the suspicion of endemic sleaze are misplaced. In this Parliament, we are governed by a tough code of conduct, which the members of the Parliament put in place. Breaches of the rules on the registration and declaration of members' interests are a criminal offence. To date, the Standards Committee has never had to recommend the imposition of sanctions on a member. The few breaches of the code that we have identified have related to matters of protocol, not of probity.

However, we cannot afford to be complacent and we must acknowledge that although public cynicism might not be well founded, it exists and has the potential to erode the democratic process. I am sure that I am not the only member to notice that not one member of the press is present for this debate. Perhaps the press simply does not want to report a debate about standards in the Parliament and the good news about the independence of our process.

By passing the bill, we will demonstrate the Parliament's commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity among members. The appointment of a commissioner will inject an independent element into the complaints procedure. He or she will consider complaints and conduct investigations in private, independently of the Standards Committee. The commissioner will also have the backing of statutory powers to compel evidence.

The four-stage complaints process that we have developed strikes the right balance between the need for investigations to be carried out in private and the demand for transparency. We make no apology for proposing that the commissioner's inquiries take place in private, because we simply cannot countenance trial by the media. Speculation in the press is not only unfair to the complainer and members, but will erode confidence in the complaints procedure.

I make a plea to colleagues from all parties to ensure that the complaints procedure is not used to settle political scores. The later stage of the investigative process, which is oral evidence to the Standards Committee, will of course take place in public. Both the commissioner's report and the committee's report will also be published, together with any relevant evidence. It is important that the member, the complainer and the wider public see the reasons for the findings of the commissioner and of the committee.

The bill marks the end of a long journey for the Standards Committee, which began in 2000 with the models of investigation inquiry. That concluded that an independent element was critical if the Parliament's handling of complaints about conduct was to have credibility. By enacting the bill, all members of the Parliament will make our commitment to accountability and integrity a reality. I support the bill.