Chamber
Plenary, 03 Oct 2002
03 Oct 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Proposed Committee Bill (Members' Interests)
The Parliament is only three and a half years old, but I am sure that we will all agree that we have had a steep learning curve. That was especially true for the Standards Committee when we embarked on the review of the members' interests order. Underpinning our task were the principles of openness, accountability and transparency.
I am proud of the Parliament, as I am sure that we all are, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Whether we like it or not, and whether we think that it is fair or not, public opinion has tarred us all with the Westminster brush. Politicians are corrupt, sleazy and only in it for themselves. If we are to gain the respect of the people of Scotland and give them pride in their Parliament, we must ensure that all our actions are above reproach. That means that we must be accountable in all that we do.
When we reviewed the existing categories of interests, we paid particular attention—as Mike Rumbles has said—to the registration of gifts to MSPs and their family members. At present, members are required to register all gifts with a value of over £250, even if that gift was a birthday or Christmas present from a spouse or partner.
I do not know about everyone else, but if I got a gift worth £250 or more from my husband, I would not wonder what he wanted. I would be wondering what he had done.
I was not the only one on the committee who felt that gifts between partners or family members are unlikely to corrupt the political process. We decided that only gifts to a member that were received in connection with their parliamentary duties should be registered. The same criteria will apply to spouses and partners.
Anyone who has been watching the fluctuations of the stock market over the past year will appreciate the need to change the current requirement to register shares held with a nominal value of over £25,000. That might have seemed fair when the stock market was booming. It certainly erred on the side of those registering their interests. However, ask the thousands of people who are watching their pension funds disappear and they will tell you how much a £25,000 stake is worth in the current market.
Of course, what goes down just might go up. That is precisely the thinking behind our recommendation that the market value of a stockholding is a more realistic criterion for registration. Because of fluctuating markets, it will be necessary for members to update their entries annually.
Probably the most contentious recommendation is the registration of non-pecuniary interests. When is a club or organisation deemed to be a non-pecuniary interest? We were aware of that problem and that is why we must ensure that there will be extensive guidance in the code to assist members in deciding whether they should register a particular non-pecuniary interest.
I have already decided that my membership of an informal group of ladies of a certain age who have been friends since school and are commonly referred to by our husbands as the joy luck club, or the golden girls, should probably not be registered. We recognised that genuine errors of omission could be made and that is why we decided that failure to register a non-pecuniary interest should not be a criminal offence.
I hope that members are positive about the new criteria. After all, the register will show the breadth of experience and expertise that is held by members across the chamber. It must be said that members appear to have been meticulous in the registration and declaration of interests. I hope that we can all accept that things have moved on since the members' interests order was made.
As I said at the start of my speech, it has been a steep learning curve. We must use what we have learned in the past three and a half years to ensure that the members of the Scottish Parliament put clear blue water between themselves and the archaic secrecy that sometimes envelopes that other Parliament. I believe that the Standards Committee will go a long way to doing just that.
I am proud of the Parliament, as I am sure that we all are, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Whether we like it or not, and whether we think that it is fair or not, public opinion has tarred us all with the Westminster brush. Politicians are corrupt, sleazy and only in it for themselves. If we are to gain the respect of the people of Scotland and give them pride in their Parliament, we must ensure that all our actions are above reproach. That means that we must be accountable in all that we do.
When we reviewed the existing categories of interests, we paid particular attention—as Mike Rumbles has said—to the registration of gifts to MSPs and their family members. At present, members are required to register all gifts with a value of over £250, even if that gift was a birthday or Christmas present from a spouse or partner.
I do not know about everyone else, but if I got a gift worth £250 or more from my husband, I would not wonder what he wanted. I would be wondering what he had done.
I was not the only one on the committee who felt that gifts between partners or family members are unlikely to corrupt the political process. We decided that only gifts to a member that were received in connection with their parliamentary duties should be registered. The same criteria will apply to spouses and partners.
Anyone who has been watching the fluctuations of the stock market over the past year will appreciate the need to change the current requirement to register shares held with a nominal value of over £25,000. That might have seemed fair when the stock market was booming. It certainly erred on the side of those registering their interests. However, ask the thousands of people who are watching their pension funds disappear and they will tell you how much a £25,000 stake is worth in the current market.
Of course, what goes down just might go up. That is precisely the thinking behind our recommendation that the market value of a stockholding is a more realistic criterion for registration. Because of fluctuating markets, it will be necessary for members to update their entries annually.
Probably the most contentious recommendation is the registration of non-pecuniary interests. When is a club or organisation deemed to be a non-pecuniary interest? We were aware of that problem and that is why we must ensure that there will be extensive guidance in the code to assist members in deciding whether they should register a particular non-pecuniary interest.
I have already decided that my membership of an informal group of ladies of a certain age who have been friends since school and are commonly referred to by our husbands as the joy luck club, or the golden girls, should probably not be registered. We recognised that genuine errors of omission could be made and that is why we decided that failure to register a non-pecuniary interest should not be a criminal offence.
I hope that members are positive about the new criteria. After all, the register will show the breadth of experience and expertise that is held by members across the chamber. It must be said that members appear to have been meticulous in the registration and declaration of interests. I hope that we can all accept that things have moved on since the members' interests order was made.
As I said at the start of my speech, it has been a steep learning curve. We must use what we have learned in the past three and a half years to ensure that the members of the Scottish Parliament put clear blue water between themselves and the archaic secrecy that sometimes envelopes that other Parliament. I believe that the Standards Committee will go a long way to doing just that.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
We come now to the second debate, which is on the Standards Committee's "Report on Replacing the Members' Interests Order: Proposal for a Committee Bill".
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the Standards Committee's proposal to introduce a committee bill on members' interests. If the Parliament e...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Given the simple approach that Mike Rumbles has just mentioned, does the member have any examples where action has been taken against a member for an instanc...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
I am delighted to say that there is no example of paid advocacy transgressions. In 1999, there was one case that brought to our attention the fact that the w...
The Deputy Minister for Parliamentary Business (Euan Robson):
LD
The Standards Committee did not seek a response to its report from the Executive. That is quite proper because the matter is for members. I am sorry that the...
Kay Ullrich (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The Parliament is only three and a half years old, but I am sure that we will all agree that we have had a steep learning curve. That was especially true for...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
I support the motion. Registration and declaration of members' interests are central to the Parliament's core principles of transparency and openness. The Pa...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab):
Lab
I want to refer to what Kay Ullrich said, particularly the important point that she made about Westminster. We must consider whether we are concerning oursel...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Con
I am not and never have been a freemason, nor do I have any inside knowledge of freemasonry. I tried to assert what I thought the principles should be.
Paul Martin:
Lab
That is an important point. In submitting ourselves to public scrutiny, it is crucial that every organisation of which we are members is registered, whatever...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
As the most recently elected MSP, I thought that it might be useful to speak about some views that I formed when I had to draw up my entry in the register. I...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
The Standards Committee considered prohibiting members from accepting employment outwith the Parliament. Most committee members felt that being an MSP was a ...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
I understood that. I do not oppose small, relevant, outside interests. I lecture a little in the business school at a local university, which helps me to kee...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I agree with most of the comments that members have made and I support the principles in the Standards Committee's report. Public confidence is essential. We...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I want to identify myself with some of the comments that have been made by members in their speeches. At the same time, I want to share some of my deep reser...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
As I am sure Phil Gallie recognises, the Standards Committee has worked for well over a year on the proposals that are before the Parliament today. The commi...
Phil Gallie:
Con
I refer Mike Rumbles to his own words. He spoke earlier about the complexity of the non-pecuniary interest issue. I do not believe that it is possible to bui...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Can Phil Gallie name one act that has been rushed through the Scottish Parliament? Is it not the case that Westminster has repeatedly had to introduce other ...
Phil Gallie:
Con
I am thinking of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.I openly declare that I am a member of the freemasons. I became a member in the late 1950s ...
Helen Eadie:
Lab
Is the member saying that, if the bill is passed—as we hope that it will be—he will openly break the law?
Phil Gallie:
Con
For a start, we are talking about a code of conduct, not legislation. Euan Robson has suggested that the time scales for passing the bill before the end of t...
Euan Robson:
LD
I want to reassure Mr Gallie that I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Executive will put a brake on the committee bill. I simply referred ...
Phil Gallie:
Con
I accept that Euan Robson did not intend to suggest that a brake would be applied to the bill. Perhaps I should have referred instead to his argument about p...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
First, I thank Sam Jones and the Standards Committee clerking team, who have done all the hard work and guided us through this issue.Although much in our pro...
Phil Gallie:
Con
Will the member give way?
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
If Mr Gallie bears with me, I think that I will address his point.We are determined that the rules on members' interests will establish clear and rigorous st...
Phil Gallie rose—
Con
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
I will let Phil Gallie intervene in a minute, although I must say that I was disappointed with his earlier comments. It is incumbent on every member of the P...
Phil Gallie:
Con
I thank Tricia Marwick for letting me intervene. I will not respond to her comments; I believe that I made a valid point. I ask her to define how far non-pec...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Comprehensive guidance, which will include illustrative examples, will be issued to all MSPs but, ultimately, the test is not whether the member believes tha...