The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14375, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament (Amendment) Bill. I call Stewart Stevenson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
14:16
Back in April, the Parliament agreed to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s proposal for a committee bill to amend the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. The bill and its accompanying documents were introduced on 27 May. I am very pleased to come to the chamber to invite the Parliament to agree to the bill’s general principles.
The bill’s overall aim is to amend the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 to ensure that information about MSPs’ financial interests is transparent and accessible. The bill combines two existing reporting processes to assist MSPs in complying with requirements to report donations. The proposals in the bill will also strengthen the sanctions available to the Parliament to deal with any breaches of the rules set out in the legislation, widen the scope of the offence of paid advocacy and extend the length of time that the Parliament may retain members’ registers of interests. I will speak about that aspect of the bill in my closing remarks.
First, I turn to the proposals to eliminate dual reporting. MSPs currently have to report financial interests to two places: to the Electoral Commission, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, otherwise known as PPERA; and to the Parliament. There is an overlap between the two regimes, which results in the dual reporting of certain financial interests. The bill makes the necessary changes to the Parliament’s register so that dual reporting can be ended, bringing the reporting requirements for MSPs into a single place. That will make information about MSPs’ financial interests more easily available to the public. It will also be beneficial for a number of reasons: information on MSPs’ financial interests will be found in one place, on the Parliament’s website, which is where one would expect to find it; MSPs will have to register in only one place, and will be able to receive advice on all their interests from parliamentary officials; and all complaints about an MSP not meeting the reporting requirements will be dealt with in a single way, by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. That will make the process easier to navigate, for the public, for MSPs and for anyone with an interest in the process. There will be a single process for all MSPs, for complaints and for compliance.
The approach in the bill has been to leave the Parliament’s existing regime as undisturbed as possible while incorporating the donations and transactions that are currently reportable under PPERA. However, the changes in the bill that will bring the two regimes together in one place make the legislation much more complex.
The bill will adjust the definitions of “gift” and “overseas visit”, and a new category will be added for loans and certain other transactions. The bill also provides for an additional layer of rules on the aggregation of interests with a combined value of more than £1,500. The overall approach has been to limit the proposed changes, wherever possible, to interests with a single or combined value in excess of the £1,500 threshold, which comes from PPERA.
The current framework for ending dual reporting in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 does not extend to independent MSPs. As that act stands, dual reporting can be ended only for members of registered political parties, and not for independent members. The bill will amend the Electoral Administration Act 2006 to allow dual reporting to be ended for all MSPs. The committee included such a provision so that all MSPs would be treated in the same way—I know that you feel strongly about that, Presiding Officer.
As convener of the SPPA Committee, I have talked to all members in the current parliamentary session who are affected. Indeed, my last meeting with the late Margo MacDonald MSP, when I visited her at home a month before she died, was precisely to discuss the effect of what we are proposing. I have to say that Margo was in remarkably good spirits and my three minutes on the proposal extended to a full hour of discussions of current political topics—no surprise there. It would be unfair to require independent members to continue with dual reporting when the system has been streamlined for MSPs who are members of political parties.
I move on to the bill’s provisions on sanctions. The Scotland Act 2012 amended section 39 of the Scotland Act 1998 to give the Parliament greater flexibility in determining what sanctions are appropriate for breaches of the members’ interests regime and the paid advocacy prohibition. The bill largely restates the existing criminal offence. The provisions on parliamentary sanctions in the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 are currently limited to excluding a member from proceedings in the Parliament or restricting participation in proceedings on matters in relation to which there has been a breach.
The bill makes it clear that a full range of parliamentary sanctions will be available if an MSP fails to register or declare an interest or undertakes paid advocacy. It makes provision for a range of parliamentary sanctions that are broadly equivalent to some of the measures that are available to the Parliament when it withdraws a member’s rights and privileges, for example in respect of a breach of the Code of Conduct. The approach ensures consistency with section 39, which envisages further provision on sanctions being made in or under an act of the Scottish Parliament.
The committee thought it vital that a wide range of sanctions should be available to the Parliament when dealing with breaches of the interests legislation and the code of conduct for MSPs. The available sanctions must be sufficiently stringent to enable the Parliament to respond effectively to breaches of the rules—and to discourage such breaches in the first place.
The bill will ensure that a broad range of sanctions is available to the Parliament, including the potential removal of all allowances or salary. That change will demonstrate that the Parliament has the tools to deal effectively with breaches of the legislation.
Paid advocacy is where an individual uses their position as an MSP to advocate for a particular matter in return for payment, including a benefit in kind, or urges any other MSP to do so. It is a criminal offence and a breach of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 for an MSP to undertake paid advocacy, although no MSP has ever been found to have breached those rules.
The committee is very clear, given the gravity with which paid advocacy should be treated, that the criminal offence for paid advocacy is appropriate. Our consultation paper proposed that the definition of paid advocacy should be amended for greater consistency with the Bribery Act 2010. Of particular note to the committee was the incorporation of the act of agreeing to receive inducements within the offence of being bribed under section 2 of the Bribery Act 2010. The paid advocacy offence currently requires actual receipt; it does not incorporate payments or benefits in kind that a member agrees to receive. Our bill amends the definition of paid advocacy so that agreeing to receive inducements, as well as actually receiving them, will be an offence and a breach of the interests legislation.
The bill introduces a new sanction—that the Parliament should be able to agree a motion of censure. I will say more about that in my closing remarks.
I believe that the provisions of the bill will increase transparency for the public, make it easier for members to ensure that they comply with the rules and create a more robust standards regime.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament (Amendment) Bill.
14:26
When Parliament debated the committee report back in April, we talked about how implementation of the Scotland Act 2012 had paved the way for the committee to update the members’ interests statute in full. I will not miss the opportunity that today’s debate offers me to stress once again the importance and benefits of this Parliament being responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operations. It is not just a matter of ownership. It is a realisation that the Scottish public would quite reasonably expect the Parliament to be responsible for its own internal affairs.
The bill will also help to reinforce the accountability of the Parliament to the people of Scotland. It is only right that the rules under which we, as members, operate are conceived wholly in this Parliament, and that Parliament can be judged wholly on the robustness of the framework that it chooses to put in place. I therefore welcome the bill that is being promoted by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to amend the existing members’ interests statute.
More generally, I want to reflect on the fact that the measures are being implemented by a committee bill. In total, there have been six committee bills since devolution—three in session 1, one in session 2, and two in session 3. As this one is, most have been parliamentary in nature. Such issues do not come around every week, so I want to take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s support for committees being able to bring forward legislative proposals. That arrangement helps to characterise us as a modern, healthy and proactive legislature. The Government therefore encourages committees to consider proposals that might be suitable for promotion via the committee bill process.
I want once again to put on the record the Government’s recognition that the bill’s subject is clearly parliamentary in nature. The Government does, however, wish to offer its views on the proposals in their current form.
I commend the committee on the suite of reform proposals in the bill, which delivers on three fronts. First, it seeks to establish measures to enhance members’ accountability to the public, reflecting the latest views on what constitute appropriate probity standards. Secondly, it looks to standardise arrangements for reporting interests and to streamline the activity that is required of members, and it offers the public a single point of reference. Thirdly, it offers Parliament flexibility in the event that circumstances arise that necessitate enforcement activity.
I consider each of those elements to be significant in themselves. To seek to deliver them in a joined-up approach via the bill demonstrates the committee’s level of ambition on and commitment to reform; the committee’s members should be commended for taking that approach.
I turn to the specific reforms that the bill seeks to implement. The reduction of the financial threshold for registering gifts from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent of a member’s salary will clearly enhance transparency. I welcome the committee’s consideration of the report that was published by the group of states against corruption—GRECO—which promoted a reduction in the registration threshold. I note the moves across legislatures and assemblies in the United Kingdom to reduce the gifts threshold, and think that it is appropriate for our Parliament to have the opportunity to keep in step with such changes.
The backbone of the bill is the aim to end dual reporting of members’ financial interests to Parliament and to the Electoral Commission—a move that is supported by the Electoral Commission. The Government notes that the bill tackles the complex interaction of the current members’ interests regime with the regime on reporting donations and loans under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Government supports the principle that dual reporting should end. The creation of a single reporting regime will be beneficial in terms of transparency and, more generally, in terms of improved governance in Scotland.
It is right to ensure that elected members have a clear and unambiguous system for registering their interests, and it is right that such improvements can equally benefit the public through review of those interests and the seeking of assurances over the integrity of the registration scheme. I commend the committee, its clerking team and the Electoral Commission for tackling the topic and for delivering a clear reform proposal for Parliament’s consideration.
The last policy strand in the bill that I will offer comment on is the proposal that Parliament be given full flexibility over the imposition of sanctions in respect of the members’ interests regime. The Government sees merit in such a move. It would allow Parliament to consider any breach on its merits and to apply whatever sanction it deems appropriate in respect of that breach. In the current situation, the only sanction that is available to Parliament is exclusion of a member, which could be viewed as being disproportionate in some cases. The ability to apply a proportionate sanction could ultimately encourage more enforcement action. The proposal to add a new sanction—Parliament agreeing to a motion of censure—also seems to be sensible in that regard.
The Government welcomes the commitment that has been shown by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to reviewing and updating the current members’ interests legislation. The benefits of conducting that review in the context of wider competence have, I believe, shone through in the significant and helpful reforms that are proposed in the bill. It should not surprise Parliament that the Government welcomes and supports this committee bill.
14:32
I am pleased to open the debate for Labour, having been a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee while it consulted on the changes to the way in which members register outside interests, gifts and political donations, which are proposed in the bill. It is a technical bill that comes from Parliament having been given greater flexibility, through the provisions of the Scotland Act 2012, over the scheme for registering members’ interests.
Members of the public want assurances that elected representatives are working in their interests. The register of members’ interests is an important tool in holding members to account on that. Our system must hold the public’s confidence that MSPs’ activities are not being influenced by outside financial interests and that they are transparent and open. The bill contains significant amendments to the current system; they will strengthen it and lead to greater confidence in it. Although the threshold for registering a financial interest will remain the same, we welcome the important change to how we, as members, will report any financial interests and how members of the public will be able access the register.
The current system of reporting financial interests to both the Electoral Commission and Parliament means not only more administrative duties for members, but that financial interests are recorded in two places. We welcome for two reasons the bill’s proposal to end that dual reporting. Although members will still be required to register financial interests that come within the existing financial thresholds, the move to a system whereby one report is to be made to Parliament, within the current limit of 30 days that has been set by the Electoral Commission, will streamline the registration scheme for members and make it easier for us to comply with the requirements that have been set. It will also give members of the public one platform from which to seek information about members’ interests that they wish to access, which will produce a more efficient system.
We also welcome the proposal to create a more robust enforcement and sanctions regime, which will increase the public’s confidence in our register of interests system. It is absolutely correct that a full range of sanctions for registration breaches will be available. The current system of Parliament having the right to withdraw a member’s rights and privileges over a registration breach is too limited in scope and cannot be an appropriate response in all cases. I believe that a range of options must be open to Parliament—a range that covers minor breaches and more serious cases.
As members, we should also welcome the move to have the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland investigate all breaches. Currently, some breaches are investigated by both the commissioner and the Electoral Commission; the bill’s proposal will simplify matters. The change will also allow the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to investigate all breaches: some minor breaches can currently be pursued on a civil rather than criminal basis.
That takes me to the committee’s decision to retain the criminal offence part of the existing system. That is absolutely the right decision for a system that must hold the confidence of the public. It would be wrong for us in Parliament to be seen to be taking breaches of the rules on the registration of interests less seriously, so I fully support the retention of the relevant provision in the committee’s bill.
We also welcome other proposals in the bill, including enactment of the recommendation of the Council of Europe group of states against corruption to lower the threshold for registering gifts to 0.5 per cent of a member’s salary. We also whole-heartedly support the proposed ban on paid advocacy. Members are here to represent constituents in our constituencies and regions and should not be paid to advocate for causes on behalf of outside organisations. The bill makes important changes in that regard.
Members are often lobbied by groups, but the current system is not transparent. While we wait for the Government to introduce the lobbying bill, which will hopefully meet the aims of my colleague Neil Findlay’s proposed member’s bill, the bill proposes a significant amendment to the definition of paid advocacy and will make it an offence for members of the Scottish Parliament to agree to receive financial inducement for advocacy work. That is a significant change from the current definition, whereby only receiving money for advocacy work is an offence. We are sending a clear message that accepting paid advocacy work is not acceptable conduct for any member of the Parliament. We welcome the strengthened definition of paid advocacy.
Labour members are pleased to support the proposals in the committee’s bill.
14:37
I, too, am pleased to speak in support of the bill. I pay tribute to Stewart Stevenson in his role as convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. As well as introducing the bill on behalf of the committee, he has co-ordinated a considerable amount of the preparatory work that has been required to bring the bill to this stage.
I would also like to offer my appreciation to some of the others who laid the ground for the bill’s introduction. In this instance, it is appropriate to consider the extensive co-operation that took place between our Parliament’s officials and the Electoral Commission to create compatibility between their respective registers of interests. We thank them for their efforts in handling what the committee has recognised are complex areas of law and administration. That work will enable the ending of dual reporting and its replacement with a single register, as envisaged by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which we hope will provide clarity—not just in reporting terms, but in making information convenient and straightforward for the public to access.
Conservative members also take note of the GRECO recommendations on gifts, which we believe have been well accommodated in the bill. That follows the taking of similar action in the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the light of GRECO’s 2013 report on the UK. The committee examined the guidance to members on gifts to ensure that it is clear and compliant. It was the committee’s conclusion that that area is already well covered by the information that is provided. The UK has been an active member of GRECO since 1999, so it is right that that body will continue to be an effective forum for evaluating our efforts to prevent corruption and to ensure public sector transparency.
We also support ensuring that the legislative framework that underpins the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 is sufficiently robust. Although it is a positive thing that no member has been convicted of offences in this area—that is a record that we undoubtedly hope to maintain—it is important that we have rigorous measures in place to accommodate all circumstances and to enable us to deal with them appropriately.
It is sensible to extend the prohibition of paid advocacy to better mirror the offence of bribery, as has been put in place across the UK by the Bribery Act 2010, which is itself the consequence of examination of our anti-corruption work at home and internationally. In both circumstances, it is justifiable that the requirements of the offence should relate to agreement to receive an inducement, rather than actual receipt of an inducement being necessary. In December last year, the UK Government published its wide-ranging “UK Anti-Corruption Plan”. Although the UK has always been seen as being among the least corrupt nations in the world, the plan made it clear that there is more to do. We have seen our international anti-corruption rankings improve as a consequence of our willingness to make sensible changes to our laws and practices.
Parliament should be mindful of its responsibilities and the direction of travel under that plan. The provisions of the bill will form a substantial part of our response. The bill has undergone detailed consideration before the committee and it is clear from those deliberations and from responses to the consultation that the bill’s contents are sensible and reasonable proposals to ensure that Parliament remains transparent, while providing us with the tools to address situations in which we fall short of the standards that may be expected.
14:41
I want to make two or three points on the bill, the first of which is to acknowledge the role of the committee and the convener in its introduction.
As the convener and one or two other members mentioned, it is important to acknowledge what has not happened since 1999, which is that there have been no breaches. The tightening up of measures should be seen in that context: we are tightening up a measure that has, in large part, worked. As far as I am aware, apart from one or two issues of timescale, the reporting responsibilities of members of all political parties in this chamber have been complied with at all times.
What has come to light is an issue that the convener pointed out in his opening remarks—dual reporting. The bill will tighten that up and deals with it—and not before time, because some of us have been caught by that. It is no one’s fault. As far as I can see, it was just one of those things that needed to shake out during alterations to perfectly sensible proposals. At least in resolving that matter the bill creates a one-stop shop, as it were, which is eminently sensible in respect of the Parliament’s procedures for upholding standards.
I say gently to the minister that it struck me that we should apply to ministers the same principles that we apply to members. I am sure that he will wish to point out that ministers have to comply with even higher standards in respect of financial transparency. It is very important indeed that that should be the case.
I will put two issues to the convener to deal with when he winds up. On the first issue, I may just not have seen the detail. It is, by definition, wrong and an offence for any member to be offered money for advocacy. However, similar should also apply were someone to be so stupid as to ask for money for advocacy. The convener may wish to clarify that. I am sure that no one but the lawyers has given any thought to it.
The second issue struck me when the convener was speaking about donations. He rightly set out the donation limit that all members will have to comply with and include in the register of interests. However, donations do not just come from individuals to individual politicians—they also come through political parties. The convener might want to address whether the register deals with the fact that much money that flows into politics flows into political parties and is then spent in regions and constituencies in Scotland. I genuinely do not know whether the bill does anything about transparency in that respect.
14:44
This has been a welcome debate. In a democracy, it is right that there is proper scrutiny when representatives are, in essence, deliberating on how best to regulate themselves and their conduct. Given the justifiable public interest in transparency, I am pleased to see that the proposals in the bill will serve to enhance how this Parliament operates.
As has been touched on, this has been a lengthy process. The end of dual reporting was envisaged in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and it was removed from the House of Commons in 2009. In spring 2013, the consultation for the bill that is before us now was opened. That consultation highlighted some of the benefits that members have mentioned in their speeches today. For example, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland pointed to the significance of the reporting changes not only in terms of simplifying the regulatory framework but for the purposes of public transparency, too.
In its evidence, the Electoral Reform Society used the opportunity to call for a full review of all procedures in this Parliament to take place. It envisaged such a review taking place before any legislation on the content of this bill was brought forward—a proposition that must have been seen as unlikely. However, such a review is perhaps worthy of consideration for the future. We sometimes forget that this Parliament is still a young institution, although perhaps no longer a fledgling one.
It would be no bad thing for us to examine how the Parliament has evolved from what was envisaged at the outset. The Electoral Reform Society proposes that we go back to our founding principles and the reports of the consultative steering group to consider holistically where we are and what the effects have been of our reforms. That is important as this Parliament is evolving. Earlier this year, we saw Scotland’s first tax levied since 1707. Income tax will follow next year, with the extensive powers of the Scotland Bill on the near horizon.
In any case, at the risk of labouring the points that I made in my opening speech about the process of bringing forward this bill, I would like to make a further observation. It is extremely positive that this Parliament is moving forward to make changes to its standards and privileges in a way that is as consensual as possible.
The bill contains a number of sensible measures that will improve how we operate and, I hope, ensure that this Parliament is seen as an open, transparent and responsible institution in the future. I hope that the proposals that are brought forward today will go some way towards satisfying those principles.
I state again my appreciation for the work of Stewart Stevenson, his fellow committee members and the officials in laying the extensive groundwork that the bill required. I am pleased to say that the bill will gain the support of this side of the chamber.
14:47
I thank Stewart Stevenson and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and the clerks for the work that they have done to progress this important piece of legislation.
I am pleased that across the chamber we all agree that we need robust, accountable and transparent mechanisms for reporting members’ interests. This Parliament rightly prides itself on its openness and accountability, and the bill gives Parliament the opportunity to revisit the legislation surrounding members’ interests.
The committee considers the regime to be robust, but we must maintain standards to ensure that sufficient checks and balances exist. The bill will help to increase transparency and the accessibility of information about members’ financial interests, and will ensure that the Parliament has a robust set of sanctions to deal with any breaches to its rules.
Stewart Stevenson spoke of the provision that will create a new sanction, allowing the Parliament to agree a motion of censure. A motion of censure will serve as a useful middle ground if a member is found to be in breach of the rules but that breach is not serious enough to justify the removal of parliamentary privilege. A motion of censure would allow debate and would give the member in question the opportunity to explain the breach and apologise.
Another useful change is the length of time for which information on members’ interests will be kept. The committee considered it more appropriate to keep register entries for 10 years instead of five. There are a number of practical reasons for that. It will assist members by ensuring that information about their previously held interests is available at the start of a session. Similarly, if a member is not returned to Parliament but returns at a subsequent election, it will be easier for them to check the interests that were previously recorded. The change will also increase transparency in relation to members’ interests, as the information will be easily accessible to the public for much longer. Those changes, combined with the changes to the register, will provide an additional layer of transparency to the public seeking to access information on members’ interests.
The ending of dual reporting is an important step. At the moment, information is on the Parliament’s website and the Electoral Commission’s website, depending on the nature of the interest. Streamlining the process will assist people in accessing the information and will help members to comply with the regime.
I am pleased that no member has been found to be in breach of the rules on paid advocacy, but we must keep those rules under review, so it is right to strengthen them through the bill. Most members of the public would expect there to be a breach if a member agreed to undertake paid advocacy, even when cash did not change hands. The bill will ensure that such behaviour will be caught.
I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour and to support the motion, which seeks the Parliament’s agreement to the general principles of this committee bill. The provisions will increase transparency and strengthen the standards regime in the Scottish Parliament. Openness, transparency and accountability must be at the forefront of the way in which the Parliament operates. I am happy to support the motion in Stewart Stevenson’s name.
14:51
Margaret McDougall referred to the bill as technical. She is right about that, and I earlier put on record my thanks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and its clerks for their work to introduce such a technical bill. However, I hope that the debate has made the bill a little less technical for anyone who is listening or who reads the Official Report so that they can understand what it is about and what we hope to do through it. It is good that we have cross-party support for the committee’s proposals.
The bill sends out a strong message about the Parliament’s commitment to a modern and flexible approach to the registration system that can deliver benefits for the Parliament, its members and the public.
Tavish Scott is absolutely right that we need to ensure that we are all subject to the same high standards, and that goes for ministers and other members in equal measure. We have a pretty good record, going back across the years to 1999, of having robust procedures in place. I agree that we must continue to ensure that we keep the standard as high as we can, and that is partly what the bill does.
The committee will no doubt appreciate the constructive comments from across the chamber. The proposal to end dual reporting is a significant step forward. I commend the committee for its commitment to that move, which should deliver benefits for members and the public.
It might have been easier for the committee not to tackle the specific issue of independent members, so we are all grateful that the committee took the time to introduce a bill that tackles that appropriately and to everyone’s benefit.
The bill demonstrates that the committee is alert to the importance of transparency in public affairs, and that it is very much aware of the outward facing nature of the bill. The proposed reforms demonstrate how the Parliament can make better use of the greater competence that is coming to it. Under the original devolution settlement, the competence that was offered in the area was unnecessarily constraining. For example, why were limitations ever placed on the type of sanctions that the Parliament could impose in response to non-compliance? Now that such barriers have been removed, the new arrangements that the committee proposes are better and offer more flexibility. Sanctions are more likely to be imposed if more proportionate ones are available rather than the nuclear option, which is all that exists at the moment.
It is important that our Parliament is seen as continuously willing to deliver tangible improvements in its operation—in this case, building on the robust members’ interests system that is already in place. The proposals seek to further enhance the measures that play a key role in ensuring that Scotland has confidence in its MSPs and its Parliament.
It is in our collective interest to ensure that the public consider that we as MSPs are meeting the highest possible standards of probity as we undertake our parliamentary duties. These measures will above all ensure that the electorate will be left in no doubt that their elected representatives act on their behalf and in their interests.
Building public confidence—and ultimately trust—will help to reinforce the Parliament’s integrity and the bill represents an important further development for this Parliament. As the Scottish Parliament grows in stature, so does public expectation. The Scottish Parliament was founded on the principles of transparency, co-operation and inclusiveness for all the people of Scotland, and the measures that are before us today will help to support and reinforce those principles.
14:55
We as a Parliament pride ourselves on openness and accountability in relation to the behaviour of all our MSPs. The question is, of course, whether we could do more to build public trust and ensure that we have a regime that is fit for purpose. Robust standards are essential to ensure that, if wrongdoing should occur, there are sufficient checks and balances to hold MSPs to account.
The bill seeks to increase transparency and accessibility. The matters that it deals with are important, and the Parliament must always keep them under review and make improvements where the opportunity arises.
I thank the Parliament for establishing a committee to take the bill forward, provided that the bill receives members’ support at 5 o’clock tonight. I thank those who have participated in the debate for engaging with a topic that is so important for our future probity and reputation.
I turn to some of the points that have been raised in the debate. The minister mentioned the reduction in the gifts threshold from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent of a member’s salary. We first discussed that subject in committee on 10 October 2013; it stems from the establishment of the groupe d’états contre la corruption, which is a development that we are following.
The minister referred to the Electoral Commission, from which we have received a helpful briefing that makes clear that the commission is satisfied with what we are doing. In particular, the commission is satisfied that it will be able to obtain the necessary information that it requires from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerks in the Parliament to meet its future publication, compliance and enforcement obligation.
I welcome the fact that Tavish Scott has come along to the debate and brought his considerable experience to bear on the subject. I will pick up a couple of the points that he made in a moment.
The minister has already indicated that ministers will be caught by the legislation—I was going to raise that point, but the bill will certainly apply in respect of their behaviour as MSPs.
Tavish Scott made an interesting point with regard to soliciting. Section 9 of the bill introduces the phrase, “or agreeing to receive”. We certainly intend that provision to catch soliciting, but I will take further advice from the clerks to see whether any further amendments could be made to clarify it beyond misapprehension. It is clear that soliciting would be as unacceptable to any of us as “agreeing to receive” would be.
With regard to political parties funding members’ activities in their constituencies and elsewhere, we are seeking to catch the whole issue of the funding of political activities by members with some of the amendments that we have lodged. However, in relation to elections in particular, the Electoral Commission’s requirements on reporting by political parties already catch such activity, and parties’ responses are published on the commission’s website. Equally, the bill refers to the period of election in which financial returns must be made, and it makes provision for when money that is solicited for that purpose is not spent within 35 days of an election.
I want to say a little bit more about one or two points that have arisen. I promised that I would say something about the motion of censure. It would serve as a useful middle ground when the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee found a member to be in breach but did not consider the breach to be sufficiently serious to justify a sanction such as exclusion or removal of other parliamentary privileges. Such a motion could be debated, which would provide the MSP who was the subject of the motion with a public opportunity to apologise in person. A motion of censure would be a useful addition to the Parliament’s toolkit of sanctions.
I also mentioned the bill’s provisions for the retention of members’ registers and we heard a great deal about that from Mary Fee. Keeping the register for 10 years as opposed to five years will be particularly useful in general, and specifically when members have what might be termed as broken service and come back to the Parliament. There are practical reasons for extending the time period, in that it will allow members to see what they said previously. The change will also increase transparency overall. The current five-year term was set in relation to the time for which members were elected but it is reasonable to extend it. Additional transparency for the public has to be good news and keeping the register for longer will help with that by letting the public see what is going on.
At the moment, all the information that we are referring to is on the Parliament’s website and held by the Electoral Commission. However, depending on the nature of the interest, the bill will mean that people will be able to come to one place much more readily. It will also help members to comply with the two regimes. Most of us have comparatively modest operations that involve the Electoral Commission but when it occurs, we will be unfamiliar with it and we do not have sources of advice in the Parliament. That will change.
As other members have said, we have never seen the rules on paid advocacy breached. The changes that we want to make today are important because they signal to everyone how important the rules are but, at the end of the day, it is down the personal probity of each and every one of us, not just to the rules that appear in the book. The provisions in the bill will ensure that we are in both places and that is a comfortable place to be.
I am delighted to close the debate and that we have had the opportunity to take the bill through stage 1. I confirm that I seek the Parliament’s agreement on the general principles of this committee bill. As the minister suggested, I hope that we might see a greater number of committee bills in future sessions, not all of which will be related to our internal business.
The bill is an important one that increases transparency and ensures that our procedures will remain robust.
Previous
Topical Question Time