Official Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STANDARDS, PROCEDURES AND PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE Tuesday 26 February 2008 Session 3 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2008. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Licensing Division, Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by RR Donnelley. CONTENTS Tuesday 26 February 2008 Col. CODE OF CONDUCT REVIEW.................................................................................................................... 101 CROSS-PARTY GROUP ........................................................................................................................... 129 EQUALITIES INQUIRY .............................................................................................................................. 130 DECISION ON TAKING BUSINESS IN PRIVATE .............................................................................................. 137 STANDARDS, PROCEDURES AND PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE 3rd Meeting 2008, Session 3 CONVENER *Keith Brow n (Ochil) (SNP) DEPU TY CONVENER *Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab) *Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con) *Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland) (SNP) *Hugh O‟Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD) *Dave Thompson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Trish Godman (West Renfrew shire) (Lab) Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD) Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP) Elizabeth Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) *attended THE FOLLOWING GAVE EVIDENCE: The Rev Graham Blount (Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office) Dr Jim Dyer (Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner) Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green) Lew is Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) Margo Mac Donald (Lothians) (Ind) Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP) Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab) Jeremy Purvis (Tw eeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Peter McGrath SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERKS Jane Sutherland ASSISTANT CLERK Catherine Fergusson LOC ATION Committee Room 6 101 26 FEBRUARY 2008 102 Scottish Parliament code that has operated since May 2007 has three volumes. The first volume contains aspirational principles and introductory material, the second Standards, Procedures and contains enforceable rules, and the third contains Public Appointments Committee explanatory and guidance material. I understood that the intention was to take all the Tuesday 26 February 2008 overarching principles out of the enforceable part of the code and to leave them as aspirational [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 14:15] principles. That was done. The principle that members should be accessible to constituents and Code of Conduct Review should represent their interests conscientiously was previously in section 2 of the code and was moved into volume 1, but it was left in section 8— The Convener (Keith Brown): Good afternoon the old annex 5—which deals largely with and welcome to the Standards, Procedures and relationships between constituency and list MSPs Public Appointments Committee‟s third meeting but which also includes the principle of this year. We have received no apologies, but I accessibility and conscientious representation. understand that Hugh O‟Donnell is running a little That means that, for the past 10 or 11 months, late and will join us shortly. Alex Neil will not be complaints about the level and quality of the able to give evidence, but we hope that Margo service that MSPs provide have gone to the MacDonald will join us later. Presiding Officer, who deals with section 8 Agenda item 1 is evidence for our review of complaints, rather than to me. I apologise that the section 8 of the “Code of Conduct for Members of first part of the answer has proved to be a bit long, the Scottish Parliament”. I welcome Dr Jim Dyer, but the issue is complex. There is an anomaly in who is the Scottish Parliamentary Standards taking principles out of the code but leaving Commissioner. general principles in section 8. Dr Jim Dyer (Scottish Parliamentary The second part is the answer to the question Standards Commissioner): Good afternoon. whether the standards complaints mechanism should deal with complaints about the level of The Convener: I also welcome the Rev Graham service that MSPs provide. As a matter of Blount, who is the Scottish Churches principle, I think that it should not. Of course, I am Parliamentary Office‟s parliamentary officer. not for a moment saying that MSPs should not be The Rev Graham Blount (Scottish Churches accessible or represent their constituents Parliamentary Office): Hello. conscientiously. They are there to do a job for which public funds pay. However, MSPs are not The Convener: I encourage members and employees of the Scottish Parliament. They witnesses to be as brief as they can in their cannot be held to a strict job description that questions and answers, as time is limited. I thank specifies how constituents‟ problems must be Dr Dyer and Graham Blount for their submissions, dealt with and says that letters must be answered which members have found helpful, and I invite within such and such a time, as an employee questions from members. might be; they answer to the electorate. Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) I therefore think that the standards system (Lab): As the convener did, I thank both witnesses should be reserved for issues such as propriety, for their submissions, which will help throughout conduct and transparency over financial interests. the inquiry. Different ways should found to deal with what My first question is to Dr Dyer. Your submission happens when MSPs are accused of not being says: accessible or of not conscientiously representing constituents. “the inclusion of key princ iples in Section 8 is inconsistent w ith the … approach taken by the Standards and Public Cathie Craigie: I am satisfied with that answer. Appointments Committee”. Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) What do you see as the disadvantages of retaining (Con): Dr Dyer considered complaints about the the principles in section 8? level of service or performance of members under Dr Dyer: My answer has two parts. In the what was annex 5 and is now section 8. Will you Parliament‟s second session, the Standards and elaborate on what in your experience are the key Public Appointments Committee announced its difficulties in reaching a judgment on accessibility intention to clarify the code by separating or conscientious representation? enforceable rules from aspirational principles and Dr Dyer: The first point is that, in the absence of from guidance and explanatory material, so the any job description, it is difficult for me to judge 103 26 FEBRUARY 2008 104 what is reasonable accessibility and conscientious complaints to the Presiding Officer should meet representation. For example, should a member the same requirements? acknowledge all correspondence from Dr Dyer: I think that those are generally sensible constituents? Within what timescale? It is hard for requirements. As you said, I must apply them to me to sit in judgment on the correct standards of any complaint that comes to me, which includes accessibility and conscientious representation. any complaint under section 8. If I receive a I have sometimes had the feeling that people complaint, I must notify the relevant member and were trying to use me to make members do things consider the admissibility of the complaint. If it is for them that the member did not necessarily want about the level and quality of service, it is an to do. Constituents were not just complaining excluded complaint, which I must therefore retrospectively but hoping that I could, in a dismiss and tell the complainer that I will, if they headmasterly way, take a member aside to tell would like me to, pass it on to the Presiding them that they should deal with an issue. Of Officer, who is now the proper recipient of such course, that would not be a proper exercise of my complaints. role. To answer the core of Dave Thompson‟s We get into difficult and inappropriate territory question, it is helpful to have rules that state that for a standards system that should, as I said, be complaints should be in writing and should be primarily about probity, propriety and transparency signed by the complainer, and that they should on financial issues. It should not put me in name the MSP who is being complained about. judgment on the level of service that is provided by There are rules in the legislation that set up my members, which is properly a matter for the role—the Scottish Parliamentary Standards democratic process—the ballot box. Given that we Commissioner Act 2002—about how to deal with have a list system in Scotland, which means that anonymous complaints and so-called undirected parties as well as voters help to choose MSPs, complaints that do not name members, and so on. people could also be encouraged to complain to It is helpful to have rules of that sort. party leaders if they are dissatisfied with the Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland) (SNP): performance of members. Therefore, if someone Good afternoon. In his submission, Graham Blount was dissatisfied with their representative, having explains the procedure whereby complaints would first complained to the member they