Register of Interests (MSPs' Staff)
On agenda item 3, the register of interests of staff of members of the Scottish Parliament, colleagues will be aware that the Parliament agreed, following debate on Thursday 16 March, that the Standards Committee's motion on the introduction of a staff register be withdrawn to allow a further period of consultation with members and their staff.
Members have in front of them a brief issues paper, listing the principal areas of concern that were introduced during the course of Thursday's debate. However, our primary purpose this morning is to consider the character and time scale of the further consultation that is required. I suggest that we invite written submissions by Friday 7 April from members' staff and any staff associations representing members' staff.
If colleagues agree, I can ask the clerks to write to the Presiding Officer, party business managers and representatives of the smaller parties, including of course Dennis Canavan, the member for Falkirk West, with a view to facilitating this fuller consultation process. I now open this up for discussion.
One of the groups that should have been mentioned from the outset of this process is the trade unions representing members' staff. There are a number of them—for example, I know that the GMB and the Transport and General Workers Union are active among members' staff, and I hope that they will be fully involved.
I will ask the clerks to contact those representatives directly.
I understand what you are saying, convener, but there is a need, given the debate last week, for some clarification. A lot of red herrings were being thrown around by people for their own political purposes, and they did not have anything to do with the register of members' staff interests. They only succeeded in causing alarm among staff, which was not merited by the register and was not raised with any member of this committee prior to the motion being put before the Parliament, even though the draft register had been in the public domain for some weeks. That caused me some concern.
You have identified a number of issues that we need to look at. If we are serious about consulting people, we have to provide them with some clarification, because what members were saying was not necessarily what was in the code of conduct. It would be stupid on this committee's behalf if we did not provide clarification, particularly with regard to a clear definition of members' staff. A member stood up in the chamber and talked about staff working for another organisation who did some work for him. Clearly, that would not come under the register of interest of members' staff but that would come under the rules on paid advocacy or sponsorship. That is mixing up the issues.
The issue of members' families giving members advice at home was also raised. Clearly, they are not members of staff. People were trying to cause problems there. However, in relation to temporary staff, if people are working for 10 full calendar days a year, according to the register they are employed in a registrable capacity by this Parliament or by a member. We need to clarify for members exactly what we mean.
Another issue discussed was that of staff going to conferences. Perhaps I do not understand the code of conduct, but if I decide to pay for a member of my staff to go to a conference, that is not a gift or hospitality; that is a duty of their employment. If they are paid to go to a conference by an outside organisation, with associated expenditure, that is registrable, in the same way that it would be registrable for me as a member. I understand people's queries about the £50 limit on hospitality that need not be registered, but to move to £250, which was being suggested in the chamber, makes a nonsense of the rule and would mean that we would not catch anything.
People have to focus on why we felt a register of interests of members' staff was important. If we think back to the first issue that this committee had to deal with, the lobbygate affair, the underlying allegation was that a member of staff was able to influence a member. We need to provide protection for the member of staff and for the member in such circumstances. If we fail to do that, particularly where lobbying organisations are concerned in the receipt of gifts or hospitality, we will not have moved ourselves forward from where we are now.
I agree with most of what Karen Gillon said. The only part that I disagree with is the assertion that nobody had made representations to members of the Standards Committee before the register was debated. I received representations from members of staff, and I felt that we needed an opportunity before the debate to explain some of the elements within the document that we produced.
The lack of explanation has allowed some of the misrepresentations to which Karen referred to come out into the open. We must take on board the fact that some of the definitions are far wider than we ever anticipated. We need to produce some clarity, particularly about members' staff. I suggest that we should make it absolutely clear that members' staff are those paid for from members' allowances and signed up through the parliamentary payroll. Anyone on the payroll is a member of staff.
Those are good points for clarification, but the whole purpose of extending the consultation period is to allow us to listen to other points of view and to re-examine the matter. There seems to be a difference of opinion, which was not the case in the report that we produced.
I have two or three points. First, if I had been doubtful about the need for a process of registration of members' staff, the debate would have convinced me of the need for one. A number of contributions to the debate betrayed the fact that people had not read the document properly, which I found worrying, or had wilfully misinterpreted aspects of the report, not just in relation to members' staff interests, but, more broadly, to the code of conduct. We need to underline the fact that people need to read such documents carefully. If we can clarify the situation a bit more, we should.
Secondly, we should not move away from the principle, which is correct. We must convey to members of staff the fact that the issue is not optional or negotiable. As Karen Gillon said, the register is required to ensure the propriety of the Parliament. That was the unanimous view of the Standards Committee and of the Parliament, as far as I am concerned. We have indicated that quite clearly. We need to underline the principle as part of any further consultation process. There may be minor adjustments to mechanisms, but we are not moving from the principle.
The third point, which is an important one, is to decide the role of the Standards Committee in any further consultation. We have been clear throughout that our responsibility relates to the behaviour of members. I am a bit nervous about the Standards Committee consulting members' staff or other interests directly, rather than conducting the process through members. Members should have a role and responsibility. It is also probably legitimate for registered interests, such as the trade unions, to be involved.
There is a danger of us motoring down a route of consultation, which, ultimately, is not appropriate, given our role. Our role is to uphold the standards of the Parliament and to maintain members' propriety. Members' staff are a part of that. We need to think quite carefully about the mechanisms of consultation. We cannot have a consultation process just because some people are concerned.
Des McNulty is absolutely correct. Not only is the Standards Committee entirely agreed about the position, but so is the Parliament. We underlined in the paper the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of a register of staff interests. There is no doubt about that. Clarification is needed on some points.
I want to open for discussion Des McNulty's point, as it is important. We are here to regulate the activities of MSPs. I think that contacting all interested parties is a reasonable approach, but I would like to know what the committee feels about that. It is important that, in a consultation period of a couple of weeks, we receive information from anybody who wants to give it. What are the views of other members?
Members of staff can only make informed comments if they have the right information. If the code of conduct is sent out as it is now, without an explanatory note and without options being offered, sadly, there will be the same misinformation as there was at the debate last week.
A number of issues are involved. We should include a note of clarification on point 2(a), which is the need to define the members of staff who will be covered. I do not agree with Tricia Marwick about that, as volunteers in my office could seek to use their position to influence me. Although they are not on my payroll, I use them as I would a member of staff, so I think that they should be covered. I want all members of staff to be covered. A family member who tells an MSP at home that they have made a rubbish decision is not a member of staff—it is their husband telling them to get a grip.
Or their wife.
In my case, it is usually my mother. However, if someone works in my office or does a piece of research for me, they are a member of staff. I think that we should provide a note of clarification on that point.
On point 2(b), we should offer options. Should the threshold be £50, as we have suggested, or £125, in line with Westminster, or £250, in line with MSPs? We should set out why we think that the threshold should be £50 and clarify what interests are covered; for example, members of staff do not have to register attendance at a conference to which they have been sent by an MSP.
At the debate on Thursday, there was a misunderstanding about the £50 threshold. I think that members assumed that they could not do various things if they cost more than £50, but, of course, they are only required to register what they are doing.
We can provide clarification on that as well as offering options.
Options of seven, 14 or 30 days can be offered on point 2(c), so that we can achieve a consensus about the time scale.
On point 2(d), although there is a debate about
"the extent of the burden of responsibility which is being placed upon members for the conduct of their staff",
an answer to that cannot be reached in discussion with staff organisations; it will arise only from discussion with members. It may be incumbent on members of the committee to hold discussions on issue 2(d) with our parliamentary groups, and to report back to the committee with views.
We need to clarify
"the registration requirements applying in relation to temps and agency staff",
and we
"need to explain the rationale underpinning the Register"
and to let people know that this exercise is intended to provide them with support rather to hammer them. The purpose is the opposite of what it was portrayed as being last week.
There is a question about individual rights but, unfortunately, if one works in the Parliament, one is in some way responsible to the public, which pays one's wages. There must be a balance between individual rights and preventing people covering up what is in their past or present. It is incumbent on us to publish a register of interests.
Karen Gillon has given us a helpful outline of the current situation and how we can develop it. I want to pick up on the issue of staff members and volunteers in relation to points 2(a) and 2(g) on the paper. As Karen said, there is an issue about information being in the public domain. That has been the subject of most of the representations that have been made to me.
We might want to differentiate between people who are paid from the public purse and are on the Parliament payroll and those who volunteer their time. However, regardless of that distinction, the onus is on the MSPs to be responsible for the conduct of those people. MSPs must realise that the Standards Committee will hold them responsible for anyone who is working on their behalf. Perhaps we have not made that clear.
There is a difference between the people who volunteer to help out, but also hold down a full-time job, and those people who are paid. Whether information on the former should go into the public domain is an issue for debate. We must reach a balanced judgment, which is not to say that everyone will be happy about the judgment that we reach. We must get some feedback on that point.
I support the suggestion that we invite written submissions by 7 April. The draft register is not an options paper, but a proposal. The staff would be able to come back to us if they disagree with any points. After the end of the consultation period, no doubt the clerks will kindly make an assessment of all the responses and we will be able to gauge whether they want the threshold changed to £75 or £100, and so on. We cannot judge such matters until we receive the responses.
I imagine that it would be possible to include a clarification note similar to those that were circulated to members of the committee in preparation for the debate. Those addressed some of the misunderstandings that had arisen.
It is necessary and appropriate to provide some explanation of what we are about, not just in terms of specific issues, but in terms of the overall tenor of what we are trying to achieve. The register is being proposed in the context of our code and we must make that clear.
I think, although I am not 100 per cent clear, that Des McNulty was trying to suggest a method for formal consultation with staff. I cannot think of such a method, but I would be happy to discuss that further if necessary.
We have covered the main issues outlined in the debate, but there was another, which we have not really discussed. I do not agree with this point, but we should not leave it out because other people think that it is important. That was the idea of the names of members' staff being made available through the publication of the register of interests. Some people argued against the publication of the register. I think that that is wrong. However, we should refer to that argument, not necessarily as an option, but to clarify our intentions.
The clerks have made a note of all the points that members have made and the consultation document will be accompanied by an explanation of those points. In response to the point that Des McNulty made, and Patricia Ferguson followed up on, I suggest going through business managers as well, as they should be able to see if staff, trade unions or other organisations have views.
In practice, the parties would circulate the paper to members and their staff, unless there was any objection to that.
If we are serious about consultation, we must consult with the organisations that represent members' staff—the trade unions and the SNP staff association. The trade unions involved in the Labour group are the TGWU, the GMB and Unison.
I will ask the clerks to contact those organisations direct.
Are members content for the clerks to show the consultation document to me to check that it reflects the tenor of the committee's discussion this morning?
Will responses be sent to the clerk, to give a complete picture?
What I am trying to get at is that I do not want to bring the consultation document back to the committee before it goes out.
Will that give the clerks time to prepare a report to be produced after the recess?
Yes. It would probably be addressed at the committee's first meeting after the recess.
Would it help if members of the committee made themselves available if staff organisations wanted to receive a presentation on the committee's proposals?
I nominate Des McNulty.
That is a helpful suggestion. We could state in the document that if they want a presentation from, or discussion with, members of the Standards Committee, we would be happy to do that.
Is the clerk confident that, by the time he has produced his explanatory notes, he will get the consultation document out within a reasonable period so that responses can be made by 7 April?
Bill Thomson (Clerk Team Leader):
If it is possible to clear the document via the convener, we should be able to produce it by the end of the week, which would leave a fortnight for consultation.
Are members content that we do that?
Members indicated agreement.
We will have a two-minute adjournment.
All those breaks. You are too generous, convener.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—