Meeting of the Parliament 22 April 2015
There is so much to learn when a new member comes into the Parliament. I have to say that I found the rules and regulations of the SPPA Committee quite daunting, even with the undoubted expertise of our convener and his prehistorical memory of past procedures.
The dual reporting that we have to undergo, whereby we must register interests with Parliament and the Electoral Commission, seems to me to be as unnecessary as everybody has said it is. Our proposal is that members will register their interests in only one place—here, in the Scottish Parliament. That would prove to be a great help to members, especially new members like myself, because we can then approach the SPPAC clerks for advice no matter the level of interest concerned.
The consultation with the Electoral Commission has been extremely complex and there has been a lot of work for the committee to bring rules into our Parliament’s regime and make them more accessible. It would be helpful if the Electoral Commission, together with the SPPAC clerks, could brief new members at the start of the next parliamentary session so that we can all understand the new rules from the outset, because they are very complicated.
The second point that I want to make is that when the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland receives a complaint about an MSP’s having failed to register an interest and is made aware that a criminal offence—however small—has been committed, it must be reported to the procurator fiscal. Investigations then get held up until the procurator fiscal has ended his or her investigation either by a prosecution or by deciding not to prosecute. As far as I understand it, there have been no prosecutions, so I feel that Parliament can introduce an element of flexibility in relation to this criminal offence, particularly when the matter is small. No criminal proceedings have been initiated since the Parliament’s inception in 1999; I presume that that is because it has not been in the public interest to do so.
The Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 required that provision be made in section 39 of the Scotland Act 1998 to proscribe certain conduct, including failure to register or declare certain interests and paid advocacy, but it makes contravention of those provisions a criminal offence. However, the Scotland Act 2012 amended section 39 to give the Scottish Parliament more flexibility in relation to the imposition of sanctions and the criminal offence attached to the failure to register or declare an interest, with options ranging from removing the criminal offence to providing for a reasonable excuse for more minor breaches.
I therefore feel that Parliament could introduce an element of flexibility in relation to the criminal offence. That should in no way be interpreted as being lenient or as weakening the punitive aspects of members’ interests rules. Another way would be not to make a criminal offence mandatory but to leave it to the discretion of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland as he sees fit.
There are other ways of strengthening Parliament’s powers to deal with breaches, including motions of censure or withdrawal of members’ rights and privileges—again, without it necessarily becoming a criminal offence. It would also mean that breaches or complaints could be dealt with more speedily and, if necessary, be resolved in shorter timescales. There could still be a need for prosecution for serious breaches of the rules. Such breaches would then be reported to the procurator fiscal, but it is all about deciding and not defining what constitutes a serious breach of parliamentary rules. The committee has taken the views of others into account and has agreed not to change the criminal offence at this time, but it is something that I believe should be considered again in the future, for the reasons I have outlined today.