Chamber
Plenary, 24 Feb 2000
24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Code of Conduct
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 sovereignty of any monarch. In view of the legal requirement that I had to meet in order to represent my constituents, I made the affirmation, albeit with great reluctance.
The legal requirement is laid down in section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998. When the bill was going through the House of Commons, I tabled an amendment to delete it, but because of the timetable motion my amendment was not called for debate. As a result, the House of Commons was deprived of the opportunity of a debate and vote on this important matter.
Members of the House of Commons are also required to take the oath of allegiance or make an affirmation, but section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 has more serious consequences. People who are elected to the House of Commons but refuse to take the oath can hold on to their seats, but section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 stipulates that if a person who is returned as a member of the Scottish Parliament fails to take the oath within two months of the election, or such longer period that the Parliament may allow, that person shall cease to be a member of this Parliament and the seat becomes vacant.
The rules for the Scottish Parliament are much stricter than the corresponding rules for the House of Commons. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is no obligation to take the oath of allegiance at all, which is just as well, otherwise the peace process would never have got off the ground. In the Welsh Assembly, there is a requirement in the Government of Wales Act 1998 for members to take the oath, but the code of conduct makes no mention of it.
I do not agree with section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998, and to those who support section 2.3 in the code I simply say that if the obligation to take the oath of allegiance is already in statute, surely it is superfluous to write it in the code of conduct.
Some of the comments in the media by those who support section 2.3 suggest that they are under the impression that that part of the code of conduct is necessary or desirable to defend the unity of the United Kingdom. With respect, I think that they are confusing two different issues. Not all unionists are monarchists, and not all nationalists are republicans. Indeed, I recall the late Donald Stewart, who used to be leader of the Scottish National party, telling the House of Commons on more than one occasion that the official policy of the SNP is for an independent Scotland with the Queen as head of state.
We hear a lot these days about modern Scotland being a pluralist society and about the need to end discrimination against people because of their beliefs. Section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998, endorsed by section 2.3 of the code of conduct, is a blatant piece of discrimination against those who believe that, in a modern, 21st century democracy, the head of state should hold that position not by heredity, but by the democratic consent of the people. Those who hold that belief are not dangerous subversives who are out to destroy democracy, or disloyal people who are plotting treason; they are men and women who believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which is the basic democratic principle on which the Parliament was founded.
That principle is enshrined in the Claim of Right that was signed by the participants in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, including the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Minister for Children and Education, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Presiding Officer and other members of the Parliament who, like myself, had the privilege of serving in it.
To be consistent, the oath or affirmation should be one of allegiance to the people of Scotland. It is they whom we were elected to serve; our parliamentary code of conduct should acknowledge that and should not discriminate against those who believe that the alleged sovereignty of one person through inheritance is incompatible with the true sovereignty of the people of Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-517.1, to insert after "Committee":
"with the exception of section 2.3 of the code of conduct".
The legal requirement is laid down in section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998. When the bill was going through the House of Commons, I tabled an amendment to delete it, but because of the timetable motion my amendment was not called for debate. As a result, the House of Commons was deprived of the opportunity of a debate and vote on this important matter.
Members of the House of Commons are also required to take the oath of allegiance or make an affirmation, but section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 has more serious consequences. People who are elected to the House of Commons but refuse to take the oath can hold on to their seats, but section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 stipulates that if a person who is returned as a member of the Scottish Parliament fails to take the oath within two months of the election, or such longer period that the Parliament may allow, that person shall cease to be a member of this Parliament and the seat becomes vacant.
The rules for the Scottish Parliament are much stricter than the corresponding rules for the House of Commons. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is no obligation to take the oath of allegiance at all, which is just as well, otherwise the peace process would never have got off the ground. In the Welsh Assembly, there is a requirement in the Government of Wales Act 1998 for members to take the oath, but the code of conduct makes no mention of it.
I do not agree with section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998, and to those who support section 2.3 in the code I simply say that if the obligation to take the oath of allegiance is already in statute, surely it is superfluous to write it in the code of conduct.
Some of the comments in the media by those who support section 2.3 suggest that they are under the impression that that part of the code of conduct is necessary or desirable to defend the unity of the United Kingdom. With respect, I think that they are confusing two different issues. Not all unionists are monarchists, and not all nationalists are republicans. Indeed, I recall the late Donald Stewart, who used to be leader of the Scottish National party, telling the House of Commons on more than one occasion that the official policy of the SNP is for an independent Scotland with the Queen as head of state.
We hear a lot these days about modern Scotland being a pluralist society and about the need to end discrimination against people because of their beliefs. Section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998, endorsed by section 2.3 of the code of conduct, is a blatant piece of discrimination against those who believe that, in a modern, 21st century democracy, the head of state should hold that position not by heredity, but by the democratic consent of the people. Those who hold that belief are not dangerous subversives who are out to destroy democracy, or disloyal people who are plotting treason; they are men and women who believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which is the basic democratic principle on which the Parliament was founded.
That principle is enshrined in the Claim of Right that was signed by the participants in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, including the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Minister for Children and Education, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Presiding Officer and other members of the Parliament who, like myself, had the privilege of serving in it.
To be consistent, the oath or affirmation should be one of allegiance to the people of Scotland. It is they whom we were elected to serve; our parliamentary code of conduct should acknowledge that and should not discriminate against those who believe that the alleged sovereignty of one person through inheritance is incompatible with the true sovereignty of the people of Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-517.1, to insert after "Committee":
"with the exception of section 2.3 of the code of conduct".
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...