Chamber
Plenary, 24 Feb 2000
24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Code of Conduct
I rise to support Mr Mike Rumbles and my parliamentary colleagues on the Standards Committee who have agreed the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament. It has been extremely pleasant to work with a convener who has shown professionalism, good humour and impartiality at all times.
If the Scottish Parliament is to enjoy the complete confidence of the Scottish people, as Mr Tom McCabe has suggested it must, it is essential that it has and is seen to have high standards. The code undoubtedly introduces strict rules. They are stricter than those that exist in the House of Commons, as I am sure Mr Dennis Canavan will agree. That may be no bad thing. After all, the purpose of the code is to give clear guidance to MSPs on the rules and to ensure that the Parliament is open, accessible and participative and parliamentarians are beyond reproach.
The code is consistent with the recommendations of Lord Neill and with the principles of Nolan. The code of conduct builds on best practice and lays down rules. It is a start based on common sense and I recommend it as a beginning. No doubt it will be subject to revision in the light of experience, but it represents a strong start.
Further matters will need to be considered—for example whether the Standards Committee needs the assistance of a legal adviser, a standards commissioner or a parliamentary commissioner. The committee will not be able to resolve that issue and make a recommendation until it has heard evidence from key witnesses. There is a case for the Standards Committee to be assisted by a person who is seen to be independent of party politics, who has no party political axe to grind and who, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion.
The code of conduct working group to the consultative steering group recommended consideration of appointing a standards commissioner, who would be seen to be independent in investigating complaints. It wrote:
"We consider that it is of the utmost importance that there is a substantial degree of independence in the way in which complaints are investigated. This leads us to recommend the appointment of an Independent Commissioner. The Commissioner would be independent of the Parliament but report his or her finding to the Committee of Standards."
The recent court decision appears to indicate that all the actions of the Standards Committee could be subject to judicial review. It seems that it could be safer to have an independent element. Far more important than that, an independent element would, in my view, increase public confidence in the Parliament and MSPs. It would ensure that justice was not only done but seen to be done. A decision on that can sensibly be reached once we are fully informed about what is likely to be the best way forward, with a solution that will not downgrade the Parliament.
There is then the issue of lobbying: what constitutes legitimate lobbying and what lobbying should not be permitted. Lobbying takes many forms. None of us wishes to restrict voluntary organisations or charities making representations, but there seems to be a strong case for the registration of lobbyists, possibly accompanied by a compulsory or voluntary code of conduct in the case of lobbyists who are clearly acting for commercial reasons. At least with registration the lobbying would be known and in the open, and would not exist or operate underground. That is another issue that the Standards Committee can decide on once it has heard all the relevant evidence. It seems that the key point is that a member should be his or her own man or woman and should not be beholden to any outside interests.
It is made clear on page 76 of the code that the Standards Committee can decide whether complaints are trivial or frivolous. Here, one has to keep a clear sense of perspective. Perhaps I may tell a story against myself. When I was Scottish Tory whip in the House of Commons, I offered a cup of coffee to the Scottish Labour whip, Mr Jimmy Hamilton, MP for Bothwell, who accepted it. I then heard an angry growl from behind, from the late Willie Ross, the then Secretary of State for Scotland. "Beware Greeks bearing gifts," he said, almost as though I might be trying to tow some Trojan horse behind me. I have to say that a cup of coffee is no big deal. What Willie Ross said was good underlying advice, although on that particular occasion it did not prevent Jimmy Hamilton or me from enjoying a cup of coffee.
The code makes it clear that a breach of the paid advocacy rule may constitute a breach of the members' interests order or be a criminal offence. The sanctions that may be applied range from preventing or restricting a member from participating in proceedings to outright exclusion from the Parliament's proceedings or the withdrawal of rights of access to parliamentary facilities.
The code has teeth and it is tough. By agreeing to it, the strong likelihood is that we will keep MSPs out of trouble and provide reassurance—as Mike Rumbles put it—to the public of the Parliament's commitment to the highest levels of probity and honesty. I agree with Mr Tom McCabe that, if the code errs, it errs on the side of strictness. If the Parliament wishes to revise and improve it in due course, I will be extremely content.
For the moment, the code represents our best efforts and I recommend that the Parliament accepts it.
If the Scottish Parliament is to enjoy the complete confidence of the Scottish people, as Mr Tom McCabe has suggested it must, it is essential that it has and is seen to have high standards. The code undoubtedly introduces strict rules. They are stricter than those that exist in the House of Commons, as I am sure Mr Dennis Canavan will agree. That may be no bad thing. After all, the purpose of the code is to give clear guidance to MSPs on the rules and to ensure that the Parliament is open, accessible and participative and parliamentarians are beyond reproach.
The code is consistent with the recommendations of Lord Neill and with the principles of Nolan. The code of conduct builds on best practice and lays down rules. It is a start based on common sense and I recommend it as a beginning. No doubt it will be subject to revision in the light of experience, but it represents a strong start.
Further matters will need to be considered—for example whether the Standards Committee needs the assistance of a legal adviser, a standards commissioner or a parliamentary commissioner. The committee will not be able to resolve that issue and make a recommendation until it has heard evidence from key witnesses. There is a case for the Standards Committee to be assisted by a person who is seen to be independent of party politics, who has no party political axe to grind and who, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion.
The code of conduct working group to the consultative steering group recommended consideration of appointing a standards commissioner, who would be seen to be independent in investigating complaints. It wrote:
"We consider that it is of the utmost importance that there is a substantial degree of independence in the way in which complaints are investigated. This leads us to recommend the appointment of an Independent Commissioner. The Commissioner would be independent of the Parliament but report his or her finding to the Committee of Standards."
The recent court decision appears to indicate that all the actions of the Standards Committee could be subject to judicial review. It seems that it could be safer to have an independent element. Far more important than that, an independent element would, in my view, increase public confidence in the Parliament and MSPs. It would ensure that justice was not only done but seen to be done. A decision on that can sensibly be reached once we are fully informed about what is likely to be the best way forward, with a solution that will not downgrade the Parliament.
There is then the issue of lobbying: what constitutes legitimate lobbying and what lobbying should not be permitted. Lobbying takes many forms. None of us wishes to restrict voluntary organisations or charities making representations, but there seems to be a strong case for the registration of lobbyists, possibly accompanied by a compulsory or voluntary code of conduct in the case of lobbyists who are clearly acting for commercial reasons. At least with registration the lobbying would be known and in the open, and would not exist or operate underground. That is another issue that the Standards Committee can decide on once it has heard all the relevant evidence. It seems that the key point is that a member should be his or her own man or woman and should not be beholden to any outside interests.
It is made clear on page 76 of the code that the Standards Committee can decide whether complaints are trivial or frivolous. Here, one has to keep a clear sense of perspective. Perhaps I may tell a story against myself. When I was Scottish Tory whip in the House of Commons, I offered a cup of coffee to the Scottish Labour whip, Mr Jimmy Hamilton, MP for Bothwell, who accepted it. I then heard an angry growl from behind, from the late Willie Ross, the then Secretary of State for Scotland. "Beware Greeks bearing gifts," he said, almost as though I might be trying to tow some Trojan horse behind me. I have to say that a cup of coffee is no big deal. What Willie Ross said was good underlying advice, although on that particular occasion it did not prevent Jimmy Hamilton or me from enjoying a cup of coffee.
The code makes it clear that a breach of the paid advocacy rule may constitute a breach of the members' interests order or be a criminal offence. The sanctions that may be applied range from preventing or restricting a member from participating in proceedings to outright exclusion from the Parliament's proceedings or the withdrawal of rights of access to parliamentary facilities.
The code has teeth and it is tough. By agreeing to it, the strong likelihood is that we will keep MSPs out of trouble and provide reassurance—as Mike Rumbles put it—to the public of the Parliament's commitment to the highest levels of probity and honesty. I agree with Mr Tom McCabe that, if the code errs, it errs on the side of strictness. If the Parliament wishes to revise and improve it in due course, I will be extremely content.
For the moment, the code represents our best efforts and I recommend that the Parliament accepts it.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
I remind members who may not have been present this morning that decision time will be at 5.30 pm today, to allow a full debate on the code of conduct. I cal...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
It is with great pleasure that I am able, on behalf of my colleagues on the Standards Committee, to present our first report of 2000, which proposes a draft ...
Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West):
*
When I made the affirmation on taking my seat in this Parliament, I made it clear that I believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland rather than the...
The Minister for Parliament (Mr Tom McCabe):
Lab
On behalf of the Executive, I will begin by expressing our thanks—and, I hope, those of the entire chamber—to the Standards Committee for its work in an area...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
I rise to support Mr Mike Rumbles and my parliamentary colleagues on the Standards Committee who have agreed the code of conduct for members of the Scottish ...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I thank Tom McCabe for his comments about the Standards Committee and the work in which we have been engaged since we were all elected. I would particularly ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
Nine members have indicated a wish to speak before Des McNulty winds up the debate. It should be possible to include everybody if speeches are kept to about ...
Mrs Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
I welcome the code of conduct and I applaud the work of the Standards Committee. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said that he hoped that the code would keep all ...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I want to direct my remarks to section 8.3 of the code of conduct, on cross-party group rules. I endeavoured to intimate to Mike Rumbles and Des McNulty the ...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
On a point of order. I am concerned at the line and level of detail that Christine Grahame is pursuing. I do not think that it is appropriate in this context.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I share your concern, Mr McNulty.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I accept that and will move on.A motion was put on the basis that the rules had not been ratified by the Parliament and that I was not debarred from moving t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Ms Grahame, I must ask you to focus on the work of the Standards Committee.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I am focusing on it.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Do so more precisely, please.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
My point is that the group would have been inhibited in discussing certain matters if the public had been there—not members of the general public, but the tw...
Des McNulty:
Lab
On a point of order. There is a difficulty, as Christine Grahame has not formally lodged amendments to the motion.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I accept that.
Des McNulty:
Lab
If Christine Grahame wants to propose amendments for the Standards Committee to consider at a subsequent stage, there is a mechanism to allow her to do that....
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I think that that would be fair. Will Ms Grahame please draw her remarks to a close?
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I shall draw my remarks to a close.
Mr Rumbles:
LD
It is important that we clarify the situation, so that members are absolutely clear about the rules for cross-party groups.The Parliament has already adopted...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I agree with that comment. I ask Christine Grahame to cease her remarks unless she has anything of great urgency to say to the chamber.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I knew that I could not move an amendment today, but there are practical difficulties that might not have been foreseen—and that might not be foreseen—by oth...
Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue today, as the subject of members' conduct goes hand in hand with our continuing desire to make the Scottish Par...
David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Before I begin my speech, I want to declare all my registered interests, as I intend to refer to them.I have always argued that this Parliament should seek t...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
I will try to clarify the issue. If a member has a registrable interest, has registered it and wants to speak about it in a debate, the procedure is straight...
David Mundell:
Con
That is helpful, but guidance to members would be useful. Obviously, the situation will evolve as the committee considers individual cases, but—as Mr Rumbles...
Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
Although this might not be the most riveting subject for debate—by the number of members of the press who have been present throughout, it is clear that they...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
In public life, I have never lied or knowingly misled. That is why members who have asked me how I got my black eye have believed me when I have told them th...