Chamber
Plenary, 24 Feb 2000
24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Code of Conduct
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 like to thank members of the Standards Committee's clerking team for their advice, good humour and hard work in helping to bring the code of conduct before members today.
The need for a code of conduct was identified as a priority at the first meeting of the Standards Committee last June. Work was started almost immediately. I point that out to members and to the media to remind them that work on the code was already under way at the time of the so-called lobbygate inquiry, and was not developed as a response to it.
Why do we need a code of conduct in the first place? During the referendum campaign, I was struck by the number of people who said that not only did we need a Parliament, but it must be different from Westminster, from the sleaze, lobbyists, cash for questions and the general feeling that all politicians were somehow at it. That all contributed to the general belief that the Scottish Parliament could and should be different.
The code draws on the recommendations of the consultative steering group and is consistent with the principles that were set out by the Nolan committee. It was drawn up for this Parliament and I hope that members will give it their full support today.
No one claims that the code is perfect; as Mike Rumbles said, it is an evolutionary document and much more work needs to be done. For example, a number of points in the members' interests order need to be addressed from a legal perspective, particularly the difficulties that we have experienced relating to the rule on paid advocacy. While we are satisfied with the current interpretation, clarification might be needed in the future. As has already been mentioned, there are problems with the registering of gifts from spouses, which was a matter that greatly exercised Karen Gillon and me during the Christmas period. Members will note that we made no declaration and can take it from that that we were disappointed that our gifts were less than £250.
The Standards Committee will review and revisit such legal matters. The committee has tried to be as pragmatic as possible and has set out standards of behaviour while trying not to constrict the ability of members to do their jobs.
On lobbying, we have restricted the code to dealing with how MSPs should conduct themselves in relation to lobbying organisations. We will start a separate inquiry at Easter into how lobbyists and lobbying companies interact with the Parliament. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, we will hear evidence on registration and regulation and a report will be brought back to the Parliament. It is vital that people know how to engage with their Parliament, that everyone who approaches MSPs is treated in the same way and that there is no question of organisations or individuals getting preferential treatment.
The lobbygate inquiry was a searing experience for most of us. The procedures for carrying out an inquiry were not in place, but the inquiry was carried out swiftly and professionally. We have all learned from that experience. Jack McConnell said a few weeks ago that the inquiry made him grow up. It made us all grow up. Indeed, it made the Parliament grow up. It established the right of the Parliament to conduct its own inquiry and we now have in place procedures for inquiries, although we hope and pray that they will not be needed.
The Standards Committee has still to consider the possible appointment of a standards commissioner for the Parliament. Lord James outlined some of the arguments for that. It will be a matter for discussion in the near future and we will come back to the Parliament with our recommendations.
With regard to Dennis Canavan's amendment, it is no secret that I opposed the inclusion of the oath in the code of conduct. I believe that the code should deal with MSPs' behaviour, not their beliefs. Scottish National party members of the committee in particular expressed concern about how that part of the code would be interpreted and enforced by the Standards Committee. I appreciated Mike Rumbles's swift reply to the SNP on the matter of enforcement.
I welcome the fact that MSPs who do not stand for the national anthem or who express republican views will not be in breach of the code. That is a sensible and pragmatic response and is typical of the way in which the Standards Committee has acted.
Section 2.2 of the code makes it clear that the primary duty of members is to act in the interests of the Scottish people and their Parliament. The code of conduct has been drawn up to assist members in their duties, not to prevent them from carrying out those duties. It will change and evolve as the Parliament does. The document belongs to the Parliament and it is important that MSPs take ownership of it by supporting the motion.
The need for a code of conduct was identified as a priority at the first meeting of the Standards Committee last June. Work was started almost immediately. I point that out to members and to the media to remind them that work on the code was already under way at the time of the so-called lobbygate inquiry, and was not developed as a response to it.
Why do we need a code of conduct in the first place? During the referendum campaign, I was struck by the number of people who said that not only did we need a Parliament, but it must be different from Westminster, from the sleaze, lobbyists, cash for questions and the general feeling that all politicians were somehow at it. That all contributed to the general belief that the Scottish Parliament could and should be different.
The code draws on the recommendations of the consultative steering group and is consistent with the principles that were set out by the Nolan committee. It was drawn up for this Parliament and I hope that members will give it their full support today.
No one claims that the code is perfect; as Mike Rumbles said, it is an evolutionary document and much more work needs to be done. For example, a number of points in the members' interests order need to be addressed from a legal perspective, particularly the difficulties that we have experienced relating to the rule on paid advocacy. While we are satisfied with the current interpretation, clarification might be needed in the future. As has already been mentioned, there are problems with the registering of gifts from spouses, which was a matter that greatly exercised Karen Gillon and me during the Christmas period. Members will note that we made no declaration and can take it from that that we were disappointed that our gifts were less than £250.
The Standards Committee will review and revisit such legal matters. The committee has tried to be as pragmatic as possible and has set out standards of behaviour while trying not to constrict the ability of members to do their jobs.
On lobbying, we have restricted the code to dealing with how MSPs should conduct themselves in relation to lobbying organisations. We will start a separate inquiry at Easter into how lobbyists and lobbying companies interact with the Parliament. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, we will hear evidence on registration and regulation and a report will be brought back to the Parliament. It is vital that people know how to engage with their Parliament, that everyone who approaches MSPs is treated in the same way and that there is no question of organisations or individuals getting preferential treatment.
The lobbygate inquiry was a searing experience for most of us. The procedures for carrying out an inquiry were not in place, but the inquiry was carried out swiftly and professionally. We have all learned from that experience. Jack McConnell said a few weeks ago that the inquiry made him grow up. It made us all grow up. Indeed, it made the Parliament grow up. It established the right of the Parliament to conduct its own inquiry and we now have in place procedures for inquiries, although we hope and pray that they will not be needed.
The Standards Committee has still to consider the possible appointment of a standards commissioner for the Parliament. Lord James outlined some of the arguments for that. It will be a matter for discussion in the near future and we will come back to the Parliament with our recommendations.
With regard to Dennis Canavan's amendment, it is no secret that I opposed the inclusion of the oath in the code of conduct. I believe that the code should deal with MSPs' behaviour, not their beliefs. Scottish National party members of the committee in particular expressed concern about how that part of the code would be interpreted and enforced by the Standards Committee. I appreciated Mike Rumbles's swift reply to the SNP on the matter of enforcement.
I welcome the fact that MSPs who do not stand for the national anthem or who express republican views will not be in breach of the code. That is a sensible and pragmatic response and is typical of the way in which the Standards Committee has acted.
Section 2.2 of the code makes it clear that the primary duty of members is to act in the interests of the Scottish people and their Parliament. The code of conduct has been drawn up to assist members in their duties, not to prevent them from carrying out those duties. It will change and evolve as the Parliament does. The document belongs to the Parliament and it is important that MSPs take ownership of it by supporting the motion.
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...