Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 20 January 2011
20 Jan 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and Code of Conduct
I am pleased to have the opportunity to mark my nearly 24-hour anniversary as a member of the committee with a speech in the debate. Although I am a newcomer to the committee, it is obvious to me that the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and other committee staff have worked hard and diligently to prepare the reports. I thank them for their work, the respondents for their contributions to the consultation and my fellow committee members for their efforts.
No procedures, regulations or code can be perfect, which is why it is only proper that we keep the code by which all of us abide under regular review. Many of the changes are just general housekeeping of the schedule to the 2006 act, and one or two proposals are being made to tighten provisions and clarify points of confusion.
I welcome the publication of the committee’s report and the opportunity to debate it. I will cover just a few points. One privilege of an MSP’s job is giving school pupils or students who take a keen interest in politics the chance to experience work in a parliamentary office. As the consultation document noted, the definition of gifts in the 2006 act does not exempt the value of the time of volunteers who work in parliamentary and constituency offices. As the report states, some members might not register volunteer support under gifts, because of the exemption under the sponsorship category. It is desirable to clarify that situation, so I am glad that a revision to the schedule is proposed.
As Nanette Milne said, letters often come our way from the likes of Ipsos MORI and ComRes asking us to participate in quite large surveys, for which the pay-off is that we can direct the polling organisations to make donations to local charitable causes. Like most members, I have done such surveys and asked for donations to be made to the likes of the Royal Air Forces Association and common good funds. As arrangements stand, a fee that is paid to a charity in return for completing a survey is still classed as remuneration, although members have no personal benefit.
I agree with the committee’s view that the registration of interests, particularly in relation to remuneration, is intended to focus on significant interests that might be perceived to influence a member’s behaviour. That is without question in the public interest. I also agree with the committee that it is difficult to state that a member could be unduly influenced by directing a small donation to a charity for completing a survey. I question whether constituents really care whether I have participated in a survey and asked that a donation be paid to a local charity. That is why I welcome the proposed changes to focus the remuneration category on relevant and non-trivial interests.
As I mentioned, many of the proposals are just general housekeeping of the schedule. We see that in the restructuring of the number of categories in the schedule from eight to five. As I highlighted, the amended definitions to categories such as remuneration and gifts are welcome, so I am happy to lend my support to the implementation of the proposed changes.
16:40
No procedures, regulations or code can be perfect, which is why it is only proper that we keep the code by which all of us abide under regular review. Many of the changes are just general housekeeping of the schedule to the 2006 act, and one or two proposals are being made to tighten provisions and clarify points of confusion.
I welcome the publication of the committee’s report and the opportunity to debate it. I will cover just a few points. One privilege of an MSP’s job is giving school pupils or students who take a keen interest in politics the chance to experience work in a parliamentary office. As the consultation document noted, the definition of gifts in the 2006 act does not exempt the value of the time of volunteers who work in parliamentary and constituency offices. As the report states, some members might not register volunteer support under gifts, because of the exemption under the sponsorship category. It is desirable to clarify that situation, so I am glad that a revision to the schedule is proposed.
As Nanette Milne said, letters often come our way from the likes of Ipsos MORI and ComRes asking us to participate in quite large surveys, for which the pay-off is that we can direct the polling organisations to make donations to local charitable causes. Like most members, I have done such surveys and asked for donations to be made to the likes of the Royal Air Forces Association and common good funds. As arrangements stand, a fee that is paid to a charity in return for completing a survey is still classed as remuneration, although members have no personal benefit.
I agree with the committee’s view that the registration of interests, particularly in relation to remuneration, is intended to focus on significant interests that might be perceived to influence a member’s behaviour. That is without question in the public interest. I also agree with the committee that it is difficult to state that a member could be unduly influenced by directing a small donation to a charity for completing a survey. I question whether constituents really care whether I have participated in a survey and asked that a donation be paid to a local charity. That is why I welcome the proposed changes to focus the remuneration category on relevant and non-trivial interests.
As I mentioned, many of the proposals are just general housekeeping of the schedule. We see that in the restructuring of the number of categories in the schedule from eight to five. As I highlighted, the amended definitions to categories such as remuneration and gifts are welcome, so I am happy to lend my support to the implementation of the proposed changes.
16:40
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on three motions—S3M-7724, S3M-7725 and S3M-7726, all in the name of Gil Paterson, on the Standards, Procedures and Pub...
Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Members—although there are not many of them here—might be more interested in this debate, which is bit less technical.The central recommendations before Parl...
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con)
Con
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...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD)
LD
I am pleased to have the opportunity to mark my nearly 24-hour anniversary as a member of the committee with a speech in the debate. Although I am a newcomer...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, will make some brief remarks—with an emphasis on the word “brief”—on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s ninth report, whic...
Marilyn Livingstone (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lab
As deputy convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon’s debate. I echo the convener...