Chamber
Plenary, 24 Feb 2000
24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Code of Conduct
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 MSPs out of trouble—I do not know whether it will manage that, but it is a good starting point. It is an evolutionary code that will try to get us to do what the people of Scotland want us to do in our parliamentary duties. It sets fundamental requirements for how we should behave in the discharge of our duties.
The code is comprehensive—it covers lobbying, hospitality, confidentiality of information, cross-party groups and registration of members' interests. Many members have placed the code in the context of years of public scandals and disillusionment with politicians. Make no mistake—the public think that we are at it, as has been pointed out. They place us at the level of tax inspectors and double glazing telesales people who call just as one sits down to tea.
In recent years, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Nolan and Neill, has addressed some of the public's concerns. In Scotland, we have an opportunity to take that a step further. We can rise up to meet public expectations for the Parliament and adhere to a strict but fair set of rules and guidelines on public conduct.
The rules on lobbying, consultancy, paid advocacy and gifts are stricter than those to which our Westminster counterparts are bound and they mean that criminal charges can be brought against members who break elements of the statutory code, such as the rules on paid advocacy.
The code is not purely self-regulatory. As other members have said, we are examining the question of the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner. Some of the rules will be more difficult to keep than others. One rule says that we
"should not engage in any activity as a member that would bring the Parliament into disrepute."
That includes excessive consumption of alcohol—I hope that the owner of Deacon Brodies Tavern is not listening to this. I suggest that we exempt from that rule the months of December and January and Burns night. Most of the other rules will be welcomed by all members.
I would like to focus on a particular aspect of the code—the leaking of committee reports. I speak from my experience of some weeks ago, when the report of the Health and Community Care Committee on the Arbuthnott report was leaked in advance of its publication amid much press speculation and, indeed, inaccuracy. Copies of reports from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and elsewhere have also been leaked. Partly because we had only a draft code of conduct in place, we were unable to act in those cases.
In future, members will be bound by the confidentiality requirements that are outlined in section 9.4. It is my intention, as a committee member and convener, to be as open and as accessible to the public as possible. However, when committees are working through drafts of reports, it is essential that those drafts remain confidential. That is a long-held tradition in the House of Commons, and to break the confidentiality of a draft committee report must be seen as an act of contempt not only for the Parliament's committee system, but for colleagues.
Leaking of reports can lead to misinformation and lack of clarity for the public. It can also give preliminary views a status that they do not warrant and can lead to recommendations or findings that are not adopted by the committee being prematurely attributed to it. The temptation to talk to the press is always there, particularly when members are told that a story is already in the public domain. That is a temptation for back benchers, committee members, committee conveners and the Executive when it is faced with criticism.
All members are treated equally by the code and we must all resist the temptation to speak about or to leak the contents of draft committee reports. We have duty to the public, but—as is made explicit in the code of conduct—we also have a duty of courtesy and respect to one another. I hope that in future Parliament will come down hard on members who transgress that section of the code. In this small, incestuous world of spin that we inhabit, it is never easy to find the sources of leaks. Parliament must, however, send a clear message that it takes a serious view of such behaviour and that it is prepared to investigate such matters and, if necessary, to enforce its rules.
The Standards Committee and our chief enforcer, Mike Rumbles, must be prepared, through sanctions and the withdrawal of rights and privileges, to police the code of conduct effectively. Parliament's legal authority lies in the Scotland Act 1998, but our moral authority lies in our code of conduct and in the support of the Scottish people. Our code binds us to the Nolan committee's seven principles of life in the pursuit of our public duties, which include integrity, honesty, accountability, openness and leadership. If we prove ourselves equal to the task of living up to those ideals, Scottish democracy will flourish. If we do not, we will have lost the greatest prize of all—the respect of the men and women of our country.
The code is comprehensive—it covers lobbying, hospitality, confidentiality of information, cross-party groups and registration of members' interests. Many members have placed the code in the context of years of public scandals and disillusionment with politicians. Make no mistake—the public think that we are at it, as has been pointed out. They place us at the level of tax inspectors and double glazing telesales people who call just as one sits down to tea.
In recent years, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Nolan and Neill, has addressed some of the public's concerns. In Scotland, we have an opportunity to take that a step further. We can rise up to meet public expectations for the Parliament and adhere to a strict but fair set of rules and guidelines on public conduct.
The rules on lobbying, consultancy, paid advocacy and gifts are stricter than those to which our Westminster counterparts are bound and they mean that criminal charges can be brought against members who break elements of the statutory code, such as the rules on paid advocacy.
The code is not purely self-regulatory. As other members have said, we are examining the question of the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner. Some of the rules will be more difficult to keep than others. One rule says that we
"should not engage in any activity as a member that would bring the Parliament into disrepute."
That includes excessive consumption of alcohol—I hope that the owner of Deacon Brodies Tavern is not listening to this. I suggest that we exempt from that rule the months of December and January and Burns night. Most of the other rules will be welcomed by all members.
I would like to focus on a particular aspect of the code—the leaking of committee reports. I speak from my experience of some weeks ago, when the report of the Health and Community Care Committee on the Arbuthnott report was leaked in advance of its publication amid much press speculation and, indeed, inaccuracy. Copies of reports from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and elsewhere have also been leaked. Partly because we had only a draft code of conduct in place, we were unable to act in those cases.
In future, members will be bound by the confidentiality requirements that are outlined in section 9.4. It is my intention, as a committee member and convener, to be as open and as accessible to the public as possible. However, when committees are working through drafts of reports, it is essential that those drafts remain confidential. That is a long-held tradition in the House of Commons, and to break the confidentiality of a draft committee report must be seen as an act of contempt not only for the Parliament's committee system, but for colleagues.
Leaking of reports can lead to misinformation and lack of clarity for the public. It can also give preliminary views a status that they do not warrant and can lead to recommendations or findings that are not adopted by the committee being prematurely attributed to it. The temptation to talk to the press is always there, particularly when members are told that a story is already in the public domain. That is a temptation for back benchers, committee members, committee conveners and the Executive when it is faced with criticism.
All members are treated equally by the code and we must all resist the temptation to speak about or to leak the contents of draft committee reports. We have duty to the public, but—as is made explicit in the code of conduct—we also have a duty of courtesy and respect to one another. I hope that in future Parliament will come down hard on members who transgress that section of the code. In this small, incestuous world of spin that we inhabit, it is never easy to find the sources of leaks. Parliament must, however, send a clear message that it takes a serious view of such behaviour and that it is prepared to investigate such matters and, if necessary, to enforce its rules.
The Standards Committee and our chief enforcer, Mike Rumbles, must be prepared, through sanctions and the withdrawal of rights and privileges, to police the code of conduct effectively. Parliament's legal authority lies in the Scotland Act 1998, but our moral authority lies in our code of conduct and in the support of the Scottish people. Our code binds us to the Nolan committee's seven principles of life in the pursuit of our public duties, which include integrity, honesty, accountability, openness and leadership. If we prove ourselves equal to the task of living up to those ideals, Scottish democracy will flourish. If we do not, we will have lost the greatest prize of all—the respect of the men and women of our country.
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...