Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 24 Feb 2000

24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Code of Conduct

Smith, Margaret LD Edinburgh West Watch on SPTV

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.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 24 Feb 2000

In the same item of business