Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 08 Jun 2006

08 Jun 2006 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill

Butler, Bill Lab Glasgow Anniesland Watch on SPTV

Thank you for that generous amount of time, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether I will need it all.

This subject directly impacts on all 129 members of this Parliament. I thank members for their participation and contributions, not only this morning, but at earlier points in the process.

I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and especially to the convener, Brian Adam, as Alex Fergusson did in the previous debate. Although Brian Adam did not, in the debate on 26 April, persuade every member on the subject of determination, what he said made perfect sense to me. However, now that we have changed "determination" to "resolution", I hope that we will now resolve to get on with things. We have agreed to do so, and that is good.

I also pay tribute to members of the committee's clerking team, who were excellent, as usual. Without their help, it would have taken us even longer to reach this stage. I also pay tribute to past members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for their contribution.

I mention in particular the members of the Interests of the Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee, which was formed to scrutinise the bill at stage 2. They had the unenviable task of getting to grips at fairly short notice with a sometimes technical policy that was formed by two separate committees over almost two sessions of the Parliament. They have the thanks of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for engaging with the bill and staying with it beyond stage 2. I believe that they also have the thanks, quite rightly, of the Parliament.

The bill has taken a long time to make its way through the process. In October 2000, the then Standards Committee started to look at replacement legislation for the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 1999 Members' Interests. It is perhaps a good thing that the bill's progress has been measured. As times change, new issues naturally emerge, and members have had time to reflect on the experiences of the past few years. No doubt, some of us will make similar utterances in a few years' time, if or when we review whatever legislation is then governing members' interests.

At this moment in time, the Scotland Act 1998 is the starting point for any bill on members' interests. The requirements of the 1998 act have to be reflected in the provisions of any bill that the Parliament produces. The 1998 act requires that we make provision for the registration of members' financial interests. One of the main areas of discussion at each stage of the bill has been whether non-financial interests should be registered. It is only sensible that I leave more substantive comments on the issue to the committee's convener, Brian Adam, who will sum up following other members' contributions to the debate.

Suffice it to say that in any matter in which 129 people have a shared interest, there is room for divergent opinions. Even given the time that the bill, in whatever form, has been under consideration, we have probably not managed to produce something that fits everyone's expectations. It has been healthy to disagree about and discuss aspects of the bill, and the fact that we have done so is probably also a healthy sign that all MSPs do not think alike, even on shared concerns about members' interests.

Of course, members are open to many influences. Although that is sometimes perceived as a good thing, more often than not it is portrayed as a bad thing. Parliamentarians should be accessible to people and organisations as they consider and act both on issues that affect their local communities and on national matters. However, all members have their personal baggage, and deliberately hiding certain interests or experience could be portrayed or perceived as wrong. For example, the provisions on paid advocacy have quite rightly provoked no argument. However, members have wrestled with ideas about the other influences that should be required by law to be registered and the extent to which such requirements would intrude upon the right of every person to a private life. That aspect of our debates has been interesting and—dare I say it?—compelling.

To conclude, I return to our starting point, the Scotland Act 1998, which requires that

"Provision shall be made for a register of interests of members of the Parliament".

We are currently working under the members' interests order that was laid at Westminster in 1999. Its full title tells us that it is a "Transitional and Transitory" piece of legislation, and its final article states that the order will

"cease to have effect on the day appointed by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament."

I have to say that I am not sure about the difference between transitory and transitional and, after the debate, I will seek Alasdair Morgan's advice on that matter. In any case, I hope that if this afternoon Parliament agrees to pass the bill, as amended, we will be a step nearer to that act.

Overall, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee has tried to hold to the original consultative steering group principles of transparency, openness and accountability, and we hope that they are all reflected in the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill be passed.