Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill: Stage 1
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2702, in the name of Mr Mike Rumbles, on the general principles of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Mike Rumbles to speak to and move the motion.
I am pleased to be able to introduce this committee bill, which seeks to establish a Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner. Not only is this a milestone in that it is only the second committee bill to be introduced into Parliament, but it is an important step in ensuring that the Parliament maintains the highest possible standards of conduct.
The bill represents the culmination of a nine-month inquiry. I pay particular tribute to past and present Standards Committee members, including the Minister for Parliamentary Business—who will respond for the Executive today—and to the clerking team for their commitment and hard work, which helped to make the bill reality.
The ability of Scottish parliamentary committees to initiate legislation sets us apart from the Westminster parliament; it also differentiates us from many other legislative institutions. The bill has the unanimous support of Standards Committee members and is an excellent example of the effectiveness of the committee system in delivering legislation.
Recent debate at Westminster has underlined the bill's importance. The bill will enable a standards commissioner to investigate complaints against MSPs in a thorough, fair and impartial fashion. Unlike Westminster's, our commissioner will have statutory powers to summon witnesses and to compel production of evidence. We view that as being essential to guaranteeing the independence and authority of the post.
Before I discuss in detail the provisions of the bill, it might be helpful to take members through the reasons for the Standards Committee's decision to introduce the bill. During the committee's inquiry, we considered four possible models for investigating complaints against members: first, retaining the then status quo of the Standards Committee's carrying out investigations, as we did in the so-called lobbygate affair; secondly, investigation by the standards commission, which was then being proposed under the Ethical Standards in Public Life (Scotland) Bill; thirdly, investigation by a standards adviser or officer; and finally, investigation by a standards commissioner.
We took evidence from a wide range of witnesses including academics, lawyers, and the parliamentary commissioner for standards at Westminster. The committee concluded that the injection of an independent element into the investigative process was vital if the public were to have confidence in the handling of misconduct complaints against members. It was clear that the Standards Committee's retention of responsibility for carrying out initial investigations would not provide that confidence. We also rejected any role for the standards commission, because we were convinced that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for individuals who were appointed by the Executive to have responsibility for the conduct of MSPs.
There would have been advantages in pursuing the standards officer route, not least because there would have been no need for enabling legislation; the appointment could therefore have been made speedily. However, the committee felt that the lack of statutory powers for a standards officer, who would have to rely on the committee's powers under the Scotland Act 1998 to summon witnesses, would impact adversely on the independence of the post.
The key proposal in the bill, therefore, is to provide the standards commissioner with adequate powers to carry out rigorous investigations into misconduct allegations against members, in relation to their parliamentary duties. Members might find it helpful if I clear up an area of confusion that has crept into media reports about the ministerial code and the parliamentary code of conduct. All MSPs, including ministers, are covered by the Parliament's code of conduct when acting in their parliamentary capacity. Ministers, when acting in their ministerial capacity, are subject to the ministerial code, which is the responsibility of the First Minister.
In relation to the Standards Committee's work on lobbying, for example, the Executive indicated that it would consider changes to the ministerial code in the light of the committee inquiry's recommendations. I will express briefly a personal view, which is that the First Minister might want to consider the bill's approach as a possible blueprint for similar future arrangements for the ministerial code. However, I stress that that is a matter for the First Minister.
The Standards Committee is convinced that a standards commissioner who is appointed under an act of the Scottish Parliament and given specific statutory powers to compel the production of evidence is crucial to securing the independence and credibility of the parliamentary commissioner for standards. We hope that the commissioner will not need to draw on those powers, but they will exist and will help cement public confidence in the Parliament's ability to deal with complaints against members.
Adequate powers are only part of the story, where public confidence is concerned. The bill's procedures for appointing and removing the commissioner will be a bulwark that will ensure the post's independence. The bill proposes clear appointment procedures that are consistent with the core values of openness and transparency that underpin the Parliament. The commissioner may be appointed for up to five years, with the possibility of re-appointment for a similar period. The appointment will be made as a result of an open recruitment process. The best candidate will be recommended to the chamber on a Standards Committee motion and the appointment will be agreed by Parliament.
The Standards Committee is determined that the successful candidate will be appointed on merit, in accordance with the principles that are laid down by the committee on standards in public life and the current guidance that has been issued by the commissioner for public appointments.
The proposed removal procedures will also provide security of tenure, thus augmenting the commissioner's independence. The bill requires that the commissioner can be dismissed only if a motion to dismiss is put to the Parliament and receives a two-thirds majority of those voting.
The bill sets out a clear procedure for the submission of complaints against members and it lays down the process by which complaints will be investigated by the commissioner. The bill provides that investigations will be carried out in private and independently of the Standards Committee; it also proposes that the committee cannot direct how an investigation is carried out. The committee can direct the commissioner to consider complaints that do not meet the bill's procedural requirements; for example, if the complaints are not in writing. However, it is for the commissioner to consider whether a complaint warrants full investigation.
The bill provides only a snapshot of part of the complaints process, so colleagues might find it helpful if I briefly revisit the four-stage investigative procedure that was endorsed by the Parliament in November 2000.
The first two stages of investigation are contained within the bill and will be the commissioner's responsibility. Stage 1 is an initial sift to determine whether a complaint is admissible. The commissioner will make an initial consideration of a complaint, usually by seeking clarification of the complaint from the complainer and a response from the MSP.
Stage 2 is a full investigation, which is carried out in private and independently of the Standards Committee. The bill gives the committee powers to make directions to the commissioner; for example, the committee will be able to issue guidance on investigative fundamentals that should apply to all stage 1 and 2 investigations that the commissioner undertakes. Those fundamentals could include, for example, a requirement on the commissioner to inform witnesses that they have the right to have a third party present at interview.
Stages 3 and 4 of the investigative process are outwith the remit of the bill. Stage 3 is the Standards Committee's consideration of the commissioner's report, which will be made at the conclusion of his or her investigation. I expect that the Standards Committee will decide in each case to undertake initial consideration of such reports in private. That will be necessary because the committee might decide to refer the report back to the commissioner for additional inquiries. Publicity could prejudice that. However, I emphasise that all subsequent elements of stage 3 will normally take place in public. For example, oral evidence and—most important—the committee's decision on whether a member has breached the code, will be in public. The committee's report, the commissioner's report and any relevant evidence will also be published.
The final stage of the process is stage 4, which is Parliament's consideration of the Standards Committee's recommendations for sanctions. That debate would be on a motion on behalf of the committee.
When the Standards Committee's proposals to introduce the bill were debated last May, they received full cross-party support. By supporting the introduction of a standards commissioner through the bill, we send a message that the Parliament is committed to ensuring the highest standards of probity. I commend the bill to members and call on them to support its general principles.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill.
On behalf of the Executive, I congratulate the Standards Committee on the thoughtful and careful work that has gone into the preparation of the bill. I say that having been party to some of that work. I was not present for the latter deliberations, but I have watched keenly as they have moved on. We welcome the committee's proposals and will give the bill our full support.
The present arrangements for the investigation of complaints against members of the Parliament are set out in the code of conduct, which is non-statutory. Following a detailed inquiry and an extensive consultation process, the Standards Committee concluded that those arrangements should be replaced by legislation. That is the purpose of the bill.
The key ingredients of the bill can be summarised briefly. The bill provides for the appointment of an independent standards commissioner who will have statutory security of tenure. The appointment process will be open and transparent and the commissioner may be re-appointed for another term of up to five years. The commissioner will investigate complaints independently and will have the same statutory powers to summon witnesses and compel production of evidence as the Parliament enjoys under section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998. The commissioner will, having carried out an investigation, report his or her findings to the Standards Committee in the first instance. It will then be for the committee and the Parliament to decide whether there has been a breach of the code and, if so, what action to take. Both the committee's report and the commissioner's findings will be published in full.
The proposals have been carefully formulated to establish an independent and credible commissioner who will have wide powers of investigation, while properly leaving the final decision on what action to take in the hands of the Parliament. Although there is scope for debate about the precise detail of the proposals—I look forward to engaging in that debate at stage 2—it seems to me that the committee's approach strikes the right balance.
I hope and believe that the bill will command support across the political spectrum. The establishment of an independent commissioner who will have clear and transparent powers of investigation will enhance the Parliament's reputation and public standing. The Standards Committee has in my view—although some might say that I am a little biased—carried out an exemplary inquiry that has resulted in a well thought through and workable bill. Once again, I offer the Executive's warm support for the proposals in the bill and I wish it safe and speedy passage.
Members will agree that, in terms of public opinion, we politicians rank somewhere below even lawyers and journalists.
Steady on.
Yes, there are two strikes against you, Gordon.
Although most people rate us somewhere below lawyers and journalists, some people probably rate us as being on a par with Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler. That might seem like an exaggeration but, as has been said, facts are chiels that winna ding and the fact is that politicians are no longer trusted or respected by the people whom we are elected to serve. However, there can be no doubt that the Scottish Parliament has been unfairly tarnished by events in another place.
Of course, we are a new Parliament, set up to provide a new way to govern our nation. We do not want to be forever comparing ourselves with Westminster—as far as Scotland is concerned, Westminster is the past and the Scottish Parliament is the future. However, under the current situation, I am afraid that we must make the comparison. If we are to be the open, accountable and transparent Parliament that we aspire to be, we must ensure that we do not inherit the bad practice that has become such a feature of that other place.
Where will the bill make a difference? As Mike Rumbles said, the standards commissioner will be appointed by an open recruitment process. It is essential that the successful candidate is seen to have been appointed on merit and that he or she is not seen as a product of either cronyism or patronage. It is also essential that the standards commissioner have powers that are independent of both the Standards Committee and the Parliament.
Perhaps the most important feature of the bill is the fact that it will give the commissioner statutory powers to summon witnesses and compel evidence. Those are crucial powers that are not available at Westminster. The lack of those powers allowed MPs and ministers virtually to thumb their noses at the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards's request for their co-operation in giving evidence. The bill will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has no truck with such behaviour.
We cannot repeat those words openness and accountability too often, so I applaud the decision that stages 3 and 4 of the complaints process will be held mainly in public. That will allow initial investigations to be held in private, which will protect the complainer and the member from what could be prejudicial publicity. At stage 3, when the commissioner's report is published, oral evidence and the committee's deliberations will be in public. In that way, the bill strikes the right balance between preventing trial by tabloid and ensuring that members of the Parliament are accountable to the electorate and that their integrity is seen to be above reproach.
I want to talk about something that could be perceived to be a weakness in the bill. The bill has been developed within the framework of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scottish Parliament's standing orders. Therefore, the onus remains on the Standards Committee to recommend to Parliament whether sanctions should be imposed. If that recommendation is made, it is up to the Parliament to decide whether to accept the committee's recommendation. Given current public opinion, we must admit that that could be perceived to be a very big weakness. After all, the Standards Committee and the members of the Parliament could be seen to be politically weighted. This is where we elected members face our biggest challenge. As my party's chief whip, I say here and now that there will be no whipping of Scottish National Party members on any report from the commissioner or on any recommendation that the Standards Committee might put before the Parliament. Our challenge is simple: we must put the integrity of Parliament before any party-political interest. We cannot allow the Parliament to be put in the obscene position of having a member who, having been found guilty, escapes because of party politics without even a slapped wrist. Saving our pals cannot be an option.
Make no mistake—this is our opportunity to put clear blue water between this Parliament and that other place. This is our opportunity to say, "Vive la différence." We must be ruthless in our dedication to achievement of the highest possible standards for this new Parliament. When yet more sleaze is reported from that other place, I want the people of Scotland to be able to say, "The Scottish Parliament just isn't like that".
I urge members to support the bill.
I am glad to support what has been said. The bill is the end product of a nine-month inquiry that the Standards Committee carried out. The committee reviewed four possible approaches to investigating complaints against members and took evidence from a considerable range of witnesses. I am convinced that the right policy decision was made. It is important that the bill will inject an independent element into the complaints process. During our inquiry, many witnesses emphasised the need for an independent commission. That became a central feature of our decision to propose a commissioner and we believe that it will increase public confidence in the Parliament and parliamentarians.
The statutory process and powers to compel the production of evidence are also key features that will enhance the commissioner's independence by ensuring that he or she need not rely on the Standards Committee's powers. They will also ensure that the commissioner is able to get to the heart of a complaint and provide a comprehensive report at the conclusion of his or her investigation.
In addition to the need for thoroughness, it is essential that investigations be carried out with all possible speed. It is important to complainers, members and the wider public that complaints are dealt with efficiently. It is envisaged that, in most cases, initial consideration of a complaint will take no more than two months and that any investigation that is required following that consideration will take no more than six months.
However, the Standards Committee acknowledged that some investigations might be complex. The time limits are therefore not absolute requirements under the bill. Instead, the bill requires the commissioner to report on the progress of an investigation if the initial investigation is not completed within two months and if the full investigation is not completed within six months. The Parliament can then be alerted to the reasons for the delay. The commissioner has the power to report at any time on the progress of an investigation and the Parliament can at any time require the commissioner to provide a progress report.
Transparency and openness characterise much of what we seek to achieve in the Parliament. Those principles underpin the approach not only of the bill but of the complaints process that has been developed. The bill proposes transparent appointment procedures and sets out clear rules on the submission of complaints.
Although the commissioner's investigations will be carried out in private and independently of the committee, much of stage 3 and all of stage 4 of the complaints process would, as Mike Rumbles rightly said, take place in public. The commissioner's and the committee's reports will become public documents. Justice will therefore not only be done, but be seen to be done.
As has been said, the bill has the unanimous backing of the Standards Committee's members. When the committee's proposals for a commissioner came before the Parliament previously, they received all-party support. I hope that members will support the bill.
In view of Kay Ullrich's comments about the standing of politicians, perhaps I might say a brief word about politicians and the nature of their work. Churchill summed up their role:
"Politicians rise by toils and struggles; they expect to fall: they hope to rise again. Nearly always in or out of office, they are surrounded and sustained by great parties. They have many companions in misfortune. Their work with all its interest and variety continues. Politicians know they are but the creatures of the day. They hold no golden casket enshrining the treasure of centuries to be shattered irretrievably in their hands. They are ready to take the rough with the smooth along the path of life they have chosen for themselves. Yet even politicians suffer some pangs."
It is my contention that, if there are high standards, there will be many fewer pangs.
The historian F S Oliver said of the profession of politics:
"With all the temptations, dangers and degradations that beset it, politics is still, I think, the noblest career that any man"—
or woman—"can choose." I believe that we are taking one small step towards making that a reality.
I fear that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's philosophy and insights are a hard act to follow. Nonetheless, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and to open for the Labour party.
I am the newest arrival on the Standards Committee, but I have been pleased to be involved in the latter stages of development of the bill. I pay tribute to my Labour colleagues who have been involved for considerably longer and have played a central role in developing the bill. The Labour party is fully committed to the principles of the bill and to the maintenance of high standards in public life. We give our absolute and unqualified support to the principles of the bill.
It is important that, as well as considering the detail, we remind ourselves of the context of the bill. A great deal of debate and history has led us to the point at which we find ourselves. The bill is a significant milestone in the development of the Parliament, but is also part of a much bigger tapestry. That tapestry runs back to the debate before devolution, in which we heard people's high aspirations for the Parliament and what its politicians would do for them, and to the work of the cross-party consultative steering group, which shaped and developed many of the principles that we have translated into practice in the Parliament. Since the Parliament was established, much more has been done to ensure that the aspirations of openness, accessibility, transparency and high standards of conduct have been translated into practice. It is important that we regard the bill as part of that bigger tapestry.
It is important—particularly in the context of the cynicism about politics and about politicians that we hear—to remind ourselves that a great deal has been done to ensure that, in our fledgling Scottish Parliament, the highest possible standards of conduct are maintained. The bill sets out a robust package that is right for Scotland. It is designed to meet the needs of the Scottish Parliament—a modern Parliament, a Parliament for a 21st century Scotland. As other members have said, it is important to acknowledge how much consideration and work have gone into developing the detailed provisions of the bill.
As the bill has been developed, examples from many other places have been considered, including a place a little south of here. It is right and proper that, where appropriate, practices from there and elsewhere have been replicated. Equally, the decision has been taken to differ where that has been felt to be right and appropriate. That is as it should be; the Scottish Parliament should draw on the very best practice.
Mike Rumbles eloquently and fully set out the details of the bill. However, like others, I will emphasise some of the key elements of which we can be particularly proud. We can be proud that the bill will give statutory powers to summon witnesses and to compel them to give evidence. We can also be proud that the bill will ensure the commissioner's independence. Not least among the provisions are those that will provide security of tenure. The commissioner can be removed only by the agreement of two thirds of members voting on a motion to dismiss the commissioner that comes before Parliament. Those are not small matters; they will make a difference.
I was struck at the press conference at which we launched the bill by a question that several journalists asked, which was whether the standards commissioner will be a full-time job. We chorused quickly that we hoped that it would not be. I do not say that flippantly. Although it is important that we put in place the most robust provisions possible for a standards commissioner and for high standards of conduct in the Parliament, it is for all of us to ensure that those high standards are maintained. We all hope that the commissioner will not be inundated with complaints. Equally, it is vital that the public knows that when complaints come forth, an independent person will uphold their interests and, where necessary, hold us responsible for our actions.
I hope that in the months to come members will become absorbed in the detailed technicalities of the bill; as with any bill, they are many. It is right and proper that we concentrate on that detail. However, I hope that in doing so we will not lose sight of the big picture. I am pleased that other members have touched on that big picture. The picture is the need to maintain—indeed, to rebuild—trust in politicians, parties and institutions and the need for us to ensure that the public can hold us to account and that independent mechanisms exist whereby they can do so.
High standards of probity and general good conduct will not of themselves restore politics to the standing that it once had and that we all aspire to its having again. However, such standards are an important step toward ensuring that that standing is restored. I hope that, just as we worked together to develop the bill and get it to this stage, we will continue to work within and across parties to make progress with the bill and get it on the statute book. More important, I hope that we will continue to work together to maintain, develop and enhance the Parliament's standards in order to demonstrate that we politicians have at heart the interests of the people whom we represent. I hope that, at all times and in all the ways that are within our powers, we will maintain the highest possible standards.
I am pleased to support the bill. I know that we on the Labour benches will give it our full support throughout its passage through the Parliament.
I welcome the committee bill as the first step in the establishment of the post of an independent standards commissioner, who will have comprehensive powers to investigate complaints made against members of the Parliament. The independence of the commissioner is a necessary guarantee of impartiality and objectivity.
The upholding of proper standards in public life is important to all those who have the privilege of serving at any level of government. The vast majority of people in elected office, of all parties and none, meet the standards demanded by the public, and their probity is not in question. It has to be admitted, however, that a tiny proportion of members have, over the years, let down their parties and, more important, their constituents. That has had an adverse effect on the important business of politics. The behaviour of that minority has led to an increase in the level of scrutiny over the past decade or more, and to a growing, legitimate demand that standards in public life not only be high, but be seen to be high.
The consultative steering group built on the Nolan committee's recommendations, and the Parliament and its Standards Committee have taken an appropriately robust approach. That is all to the good. The establishment of the post of Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner will lend itself to the attempts that are being made to restore public confidence in the serious business of politics. I hope that the cynicism with which a number of our fellow citizens regard politicians and the political process can be addressed successfully if we all—every one of us—pledge ourselves to a greater transparency and show our willingness to open up the process to disinterested scrutiny.
I welcome the open appointment process as detailed in the bill. It is indicative of the Parliament's desire to ensure that the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner has security of tenure and that their independence is assured. Unlike his or her Westminster counterpart, the commissioner will have statutory powers both to summon witnesses and to compile evidence. That is positive; it is all to the good. I contend that the bill represents a more robust package than that available to our colleagues down south. We can show the way.
I register my appreciation for the work undertaken by the Standards Committee in its nine-month inquiry into the handling of complaints against MSPs. The Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill is the product of the committee's labour. I believe that the bill is a clear sign of the Parliament's willingness to invite independent, transparent scrutiny. The people of Scotland demand and deserve no less. I commend the general principles of the bill to the Parliament.
We now move to closing speeches, and I make the observation in passing that we are 35 minutes ahead of schedule.
Like Patricia Ferguson, I was a member of the Standards Committee during the first year of the Parliament and I was involved in the discussions that gave rise to the four-stage process that Mike Rumbles described, and which we have now adopted as our proposal for dealing with complaints.
We were concerned to formulate a clear process that could be understood by the complainer, by the person complained about and by the wider public, and that could be applied in all circumstances. We were also particularly concerned to establish that, at each stage, the principles of natural justice should be properly observed in the interests of MSPs, of the Parliament more generally and of the wider public. That is an important dimension, which has already been touched on in the debate.
It is not sufficient that justice is done; it is important in our context that the processes by which justice is done are clear and transparent and are open to appropriate scrutiny. After a long process of deliberation, we decided that we wanted to have an independent standards commissioner. I warmly endorse that decision and the fact that it has been carried forward into the bill. There is a broad measure of cross-party support for that role and for its being filled by an independent person.
As we all know, there has been much debate about the process of handling complaints down at Westminster. We should take some credit for the fact that we have not had a similar debate about the process of dealing with complaints here at Holyrood. That is partly because we have established clearer principles and a better procedure for dealing with complaints, whereby the person investigating the complaints will be clearly independent and the Parliament itself will transfer its statutory powers to allow that person to carry out their function. Those are good principles.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton gave us a long quote from Churchill, which I must say was read out in a very Churchillian way. It was an appropriate point about the significance of standards in relation to the whole stature and credence of politics. The job of politician is often a difficult one, and one is always subjected to measures of critical scrutiny, whatever one does and whichever party one belongs to.
To do our job properly, we need a set of clear procedures and a clearly understood framework within which to operate, which provides us with protection and the public and the Parliament with safeguards. It is important to get the balance right, and I think that we have, overall, achieved that in the bill.
I want to highlight some issues that I am not clear about, having not been involved in the discussions on the subject over the past 18 months. One issue that was discussed extensively when I served on the Standards Committee was that of how anonymous complaints should be tackled. My firm view is that we should not really tolerate anonymous complaints. If people have a complaint against a politician or political process, it is important that they be required to make it themselves. I am not sure that the mechanisms covered by sections 4 and 5—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
Perhaps I can set Des McNulty's mind at ease. Anonymous complaints fail the second admissibility test, which deals with procedural defects, at stage 1 of the investigative process. The bill requires that complaints be made by an individual person, be signed by that person and that they provide their name and address. The commissioner must refer any procedurally defective complaints to the Standards Committee, and the committee can then direct the commissioner either to dismiss the complaint or to disregard that defect.
The committee will also have the power to make a class direction for anonymous complaints, which will require the commissioner to refer those immediately to the committee without considering the first or third tests at stage 1. In other words, it will determine whether the complaint is relevant and warrants a full investigation.
It is therefore not anticipated that anonymous complaints will be dealt with by the commissioner or by the committee.
I am grateful for that clarification, although I am not entirely sure that the way in which the bill is framed necessarily makes that as clear as it ought to be.
Section 11 covers the withdrawal of complaints, and I draw members' attention to subsection (2) in particular. We need to be clear that, if a complaint is made and is then withdrawn, that carries the onus that the complaint is without foundation. I do not think that people should be in a position to submit complaints and then withdraw them part of the way through the process without the member concerned being explicitly exonerated as a result.
That protection is important for members, but it does not take anything away from the fact that we have achieved clarity and certainty through the way in which we have established the investigatory procedure. It is very positive that major problems have not arisen from the operation of the standards process. That means that we have got the process substantially right. I hope that, through the bill, we will put into legislation procedures that will consolidate the system completely. For that reason, I welcome the bill.
As someone who is not a member of the Standards Committee, I congratulate the committee on the excellent work that it has done on the bill. No doubt it has many more hours of work to do.
Kay Ullrich was right to say that lawyers and journalists have an even worse reputation than politicians have. I exempt my trade of economist from that kind of reputation. All of us recognise that there is an opinion abroad among the electorate that all politicians are the same. Many people automatically regard politicians as sleazebags who cannot be trusted. The onus is on politicians from all parties to prove that that is not the case.
I welcome the fact that the bill is a committee bill, which indicates that there is broad consensus on this matter in the committee. I also welcome the fact that in this debate there has been broad cross-party consensus. It is absolutely essential that every member of the Parliament signs up not only to the letter but to the spirit of what is intended under the bill.
Susan Deacon made a very valid point when she said that we should not automatically reject what Westminster or other Parliaments do, simply because they are other Parliaments. Similarly, we should learn from where they have made mistakes, so that we do not repeat those. The bill contains provisions that indicate that we have learned the lessons of what has happened at Westminster.
I welcome in particular the strenuous efforts that the bill makes to ensure that the commissioner is as independent as possible. However, I ask the Standards Committee at stage 2 to consider a couple of ways in which that independence could be reinforced.
First, it should be clear and unambiguous that the public appointments code that will be updated in the forthcoming public bodies bill should govern the appointment procedure for the new standards commissioner, from the interview process through to the appointment itself. That would reassure people that in relation to parliamentary appointments there was no cronyism of the sort that we have witnessed in relation to Executive or governmental appointments. Such a provision would be a useful addition to the bill.
My second point relates to the Standards Committee. I welcome the fact that statutory powers will be given to the commissioner, who will report to the Standards Committee. It will be up to the Standards Committee to decide whether to recommend to the full Parliament sanctions against a member or members. One problem that arose at Westminster was that the committee that decided whether to recommend sanctions was politically loaded one way. Allegedly, it took a political decision about whether to recommend sanctions.
My point may relate not so much to the bill as to the standing orders and procedures of the Parliament, but as a matter of principle we should ensure that the Standards Committee always has an independently minded convener. There is no doubt that we have one at present—sometimes much to the chagrin of the party to which he belongs. Ideally, the convener of the Standards Committee should be a member of a non-Executive party—certainly, they should belong to a non-majority party.
It is also important that we consider the composition of the Standards Committee, to ensure that no one party can dominate the committee. In that way, I hope that we will be able to avoid a repetition of what has happened at Westminster.
I want to take a moment to reassure Alex Neil about the operations of the Standards Committee. I hope that he is aware that there has never been a vote in the committee. We do not operate on party-political lines. On the occasions when we have dealt with complaints against members, members have never shown any party-political bias—at least, no such bias has been detectable.
I recognise that as a fact and I welcome it as such. However, today we are discussing rules and procedures that will govern the issue of standards not just during this session of Parliament, but for a much longer period. I accept that the current Standards Committee has met the high standards to which members have referred. However, we want as far as possible to ensure that the rules make it very difficult—if not impossible—for us to repeat the mistakes of Westminster, where politicised decisions were taken by the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Another issue that I would like to raise is the issue of directions, in relation to which the Standards Committee has major powers. That fact underlines the need to reinforce the independence of the Standards Committee.
The main purpose of the bill is to catch those who have breached the code of conduct or who have brought Parliament into disrepute in some other way. However, we should not use the provisions of the bill to witch-hunt any member of the Parliament or to pursue petty complaints by one member against another. As the bill makes clear, its provisions should be restricted to serious allegations of misconduct. The bill should not be used to settle personal political scores, either within the Parliament or between individual citizens and members of the Parliament.
I hope that at stage 2 the Standards Committee will consider in detail some of the issues that I have raised. I reiterate my congratulations to the committee and repeat what Kay Ullrich has made clear—the SNP's whole-hearted support for the bill. I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me eight extra minutes.
I would hate Alex Neil to draw the wrong conclusion. In fact, he has spoken for six minutes and 39 seconds. There is an error on the clock, which has added the previous speaker's time to his.
When we entered the Parliament in May 1999, we were determined that it would not be sullied by sleaze or by a repeat of the scandals that took place at Westminster in the 1990s, which did great damage to the reputation of politics and politicians.
However, we were not driven just by the need to be different from Westminster. From the outset, members of this Parliament believed that it should be a model of probity. That belief has driven the members of the Standards Committee, past and present, not only to produce a bill that makes provision for the appointment of an independent standards commissioner, but in the other work that they have done, which is the cornerstone of the Parliament. I refer to the rigid code of conduct that has been drawn up, the possible registration of commercial lobby companies and the members' interests order. All those measures will be in place by 2003. By the end of the first session of the Scottish Parliament, structures will be in place that will enable the Scottish people to have confidence both in the procedures of the Parliament and in the politicians who are members of it.
In February 2000, the Standards Committee introduced a rigorous code of conduct, which was endorsed by the Parliament. Members will recall that at that time the Standards Committee made a commitment to put in place robust arrangements for enforcing the code. The Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill is the result of the committee's endeavours in that regard. We believe that the proposals contained in the bill, together with the exacting requirements of the code of conduct, will ensure the highest possible standards in the Parliament. They may also go some way towards dispelling public cynicism about politicians.
Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Standards Committee has the power to carry out investigations. It is to the credit of members of the Standards Committee that they wanted to ensure that there was some independence in that process. That is why we have come forward with the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill today. The appointment of a commissioner would bring that independent element into the complaints procedure. He or she will consider complaints and carry out investigations in private and independently of the Standards Committee. Secondly, the bill will give the commissioner statutory powers, which will enable him or her to carry out those investigations effectively. That is an important distinction from the arrangements at Westminster.
Refusal to co-operate with the Scottish Parliament's standards commissioner will not be tolerated, although we hope that the commissioner will not have to use their powers in that respect. The power to summon witnesses to give evidence will also enhance the independence of the post. The commissioner will not have to rely on the committee's powers under the Scotland Act 1998. When Elizabeth Filkin gave evidence to our inquiry, she was satisfied at that time that she had no powers independent of the Standards and Privileges Committee at Westminster. She felt that there was no need for her to have such powers, because she worked well with the committee at Westminster. I suspect that she does not think that now.
The next aspect of the bill that I highlight relates to the procedures for appointing and removing the commissioner. Those are transparent and will ensure that the appointment is made strictly on merit. We envisage an open recruitment process with the post being advertised. The commissioner can be removed only by a two-thirds majority of those voting, thus providing security of tenure. The appointment and removal provisions will also serve to underpin the independence of the post.
The committee has indicated that there will be an open and transparent recruitment process. The commissioner will be appointed by the Parliament on the recommendation of the Standards Committee. It is envisaged that that recommendation could be the subject of a debate in the chamber if need be.
Any evidence taken by the committee at stage 3 of the complaints process will be in public session, as will the committee's decision on the complaint. I emphasise that the commissioner and the committee's report into investigations will be published with relevant evidence.
Alex Neil's point about the make-up of the Standards Committee struck me. Mike Rumbles and the members of the Standards Committee have operated thus far in a strictly non-partisan manner. I pay tribute to all my colleagues on the committee, past and present, who have worked in that way. The Standards Committee is probably the one committee of the Parliament that has worked in such a way. I am struck by what Alex Neil said and I think that we could consider it in terms of the standing orders and procedures to ensure that an underpinning is there.
The Standards Committee is currently undertaking a review of the members' interests order, which has had a fair amount of publicity recently. The bill also covers breaches of the order, but makes it clear that the commissioner's power will apply to any legislation that replaces the order.
We will shortly publish our interim conclusions for consultation with a proposal for a further committee bill this year. I urge every member to get involved in that consultation process to ensure that we have legislation on members' interests that is transparent and proportionate.
I am happy to take interventions but, failing that, I will continue.
The reputation of the Parliament stands or falls on the integrity of its members. That is inextricably linked to confidence in the arrangements for handling complaints of misconduct. I believe that the bill will provide a strong foundation for such confidence in the probity of Parliament and its members.
I turn briefly to another point that Alex Neil made about petty complaints and the role of the commissioner. Some people have said that the bill is very complicated and perhaps it looks extremely complicated. The bill essentially defines relationships between the independent commissioner, the Standards Committee and the Parliament. It is inevitable that it has to be a fairly complicated-looking bill. I am sure that members of my party and other parties, who will consider the bill at stage 2, will find themselves working through that.
Alex Neil is right that the standards commissioner should not be used for petty fights between members.
I am sure that my intervention is a relief to everybody—I am talking about the timing.
I refer to the specific point that Des McNulty raised about not having anonymous complainants. The quid pro quo for not having anonymous complainants—and I agree with that—is that where someone puts their name to a complaint, their rights are protected as well. They cannot be scapegoated by the member whom they have named.
Alex Neil makes a good point. That is precisely why, at stages 1 and 2, the investigative process will be in private. That is to protect both the complainant and the person about whom a complaint has been made.
We are certainly not looking to appoint a witch-finder general as part of the bill. That would be entirely the wrong message for members. We do not anticipate having a Ken Starr who will consider one complaint, go on to another and another and try to unravel some sort of spaghetti. It is absolutely essential that the commissioner investigate specific complaints and not general complaints that would allow investigations to keep going and going. There has to be a beginning and end to that process. I believe that the bill will provide a strong foundation for confidence.
One of the issues that it is important to understand, both at this stage and at stage 2 of the bill, is that the courts in Scotland can review the processes adopted by the Parliament. Therefore we are subject to the procedures of administrative law in the way in which we conduct the process. That has informed the discussions of the Standards Committee and has informed the way in which matters are handled. We have to operate in line with legal best practice, not just what we think is best practice, but the operating procedures of Scottish law. That is an important underpinning for the bill.
I agree with Des McNulty's point. Any legislation that we pass can be subject to review by the courts. Indeed the Scottish Countryside Alliance took to judicial review a decision of the Standards Committee that cleared Mike Watson early on in our lifetime. That found that the Standards Committee's decisions had been entirely appropriate. We have already been subject to judicial review and I expect that any decisions of the Parliament would naturally be judicially reviewed.
In the absence of more interventions, I conclude that I believe that the bill will provide a strong foundation for confidence in the probity of the Parliament and its members. I call upon colleagues of all parties to endorse the general principles of the bill and to ensure that it has a safe passage. More important, we must give the independent commissioner our full support for the work that he may do, but I hope will not have to do.