Hansard

My contribution to the debate will be brief and fairly general.

We have heard from the committee convener the detail of why we thought it appropriate to carry out an inquiry to look at the schedule to the 2006 act, which defines the categories of registrable interest, and section 2 of the code of conduct, which gives further guidance on what interests require to be registered, and then to suggest changes to them that would come into force at the start of the next parliamentary session in May.

I, too, pay tribute to the committee clerks and the legal team, who put so much effort into the very detailed work that was required in reviewing the schedule and formulating the proposed amendments to it and the necessary changes to the code of conduct that arise from those amendments.

It took a lot of detailed consideration and discussion to arrive at the amendments that are now before the Parliament. I hope that members will agree that the committee has managed to achieve the intended clarity and simplification of the register of members’ interests as outlined in the principles that guided the committee’s deliberations—notably, that the register should capture significant financial interests; that it should be as straightforward and simple as possible for members to comply with the register’s requirements; and that the proposed changes should be in the public interest and ensure that transparency and accountability are maintained. We hope that that will be achieved by reducing the number of interest categories in the schedule from eight to five and by amending the remaining categories, as outlined by Gil Paterson.

The only category that I will discuss at length is remuneration. It is in the public interest that significant financial interests that could influence or be perceived to influence a member’s views or actions should be registered, but if many interests that are so trivial that they are unlikely to create the appearance of prejudice are recorded, no useful purpose is served. The definition of remuneration that is in use also makes registrable some interests that most people who read them would not look on as remuneration.

The committee felt that it was important that the code of conduct made clear as far as possible what is and is not registrable. An example that vexed most members, including me, was participation by members in opinion surveys by organisations that make a small payment for that participation directly to a charity that members nominate. The legal advice is that, because a member can direct where such a donation is paid, it falls within the definition of remuneration and should be registered. I will not go into other such examples, but I think that the proposed changes to the remuneration category will help members to decide when they need to make an entry in the register of interests.

If the registrable threshold for gifts, heritable property and shares is fixed at the start of the parliamentary session rather than being raised whenever members receive a salary increase, as has happened until now, that will make it more straightforward for members in the next parliamentary session to register those items.

I have only skimmed the surface of the proposed changes to the schedule and the code of conduct, but I hope that the Parliament will appreciate the committee’s efforts in reaching our conclusions and will see the merit in what is proposed. I hope that the motion on the schedule and all the other committee motions that are being debated will be agreed to at decision time.

16:36