Scottish Parliament, 3 October 2002

369 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Introduction

Disclosure of Complaints

David (None, Lothians)

We have three short debates this morning. The first is a debate on motion S1M-3386, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on an amendment to the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament" in relation to disclosure of complaints. I call on Mike Rumbles, as convener of the committee, to speak to and move the motion.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Parliament's code of conduct for members is rigorous and fair. It underpins the high standards of probity that members are expected to maintain in carrying out their parliamentary duties. Drafting the code of conduct was one of the first tasks of the Standards Committee in 1999 and Parliament endorsed the code on 24 February 2000. When I opened that debate, I said that the committee recognised that the code was an evolving document and that we were committed to revising it as and when necessary and in the light of experience.

Today's debate is a stage in that evolutionary process. The committee has drawn up an amendment to paragraph 10.2.1 of the code, which prohibits disclosure to the media of complaints that are under investigation. Before I set out the details of our proposal, I will remind members why we agreed two years ago to incorporate such a provision. The code as drafted states:

"MSPs should not communicate any complaint to the press or other media until a decision has been made as to how the complaint is to be dealt with."

It is critical to the integrity of the complaints process that an investigation into an allegation of misconduct is carried out in private and independently of the Standards Committee. That is why the Parliament passed the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 in June this year.

The Standards Committee is resolved that members who are the subject of a complaint should not be unfairly prejudiced by press speculation about a complaint that might subsequently be held to be completely unfounded.

It is an unfortunate fact of political life that allegations of sleaze and wrongdoing are generally splashed across the front pages of newspapers, but any subsequent exoneration of the individual is often tucked away in three lines on page 10 or 12.

The new provision is not just about the rights of the member who is the subject of a complaint. Publicising a complaint that is under investigation can prejudice an inquiry. If the standards adviser's or commissioner's investigation is to be thorough and robust, it must be carried out in private and away from the media spotlight.

I stress that the provision is not a gagging order, nor is it intended to imply that complaints against MSPs will be dealt with behind closed doors or swept under the carpet. Although the adviser—and, from early next year, the commissioner—carry out investigations in private at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process, the committee's consideration of a complaint at stage 3 is very much in the public domain. We take any evidence that is required in open meetings and our decisions on whether there has been a breach of the code are made in public. The committee's report and that of the adviser—or soon-to-be commissioner—are published as soon as possible after the committee's decision, together with the relevant evidence that has been uncovered during the investigation.

The amendment that the motion sets out is intended to clarify paragraph 10.2.1. The amendment seeks to prohibit members from discussing complaints in the media during stages 1 and 2 of the investigative process and will give greater clarity to the current ambiguous restriction, which applies

"until a decision has been made as to how the complaint is to be dealt with."

More important, the amendment will prevent members from discussing with the press their intention to make a complaint prior to lodging that complaint.

If, despite those measures, a complaint receives publicity, we propose to give the member who is the subject of the complaint a right of reply. Colleagues will note that that will be restricted to a "brief statement", which should avoid discussing details of the complaint. The provision recognises that members might wish to respond to allegations that are made against them and retains an element of protection for the investigative process.

The amendment to the code is key to preserving the integrity of the four-stage investigative process that the Parliament endorsed. As the first session of the new Parliament draws to a close, the political temperature in the next few months will inevitably rise. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Standards Committee does not wish the forthcoming election campaign to be fought through the complaints process. We will not tolerate allegations by political rivals being trailed in the media. Such behaviour serves only to undermine the Parliament and its members and, ultimately, the democratic process.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to amend paragraph 10.2.1 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament as follows: leave out "MSPs should not communicate any complaint to the press or other media until a decision has been made as to how the complaint is to be dealt with" and insert:

"Disclosure of Complaints

10.2.1A Members should not disclose, communicate or discuss any complaint or intention to make a complaint with members of the press or media prior to the lodging of the complaint or while the Standards Committee is receiving assistance from an adviser appointed under paragraph 10.2.8 in relation to the complaint. The Standards Committee is to be regarded as receiving the assistance of an adviser appointed under paragraph 10.2.8 in relation to a complaint until it has confirmed that no assistance or further assistance from any such adviser will be sought. Where, during the period when the restriction applies, any complaint or intention to make a complaint has been publicised in the press or media without the involvement of the Member who is the subject of the complaint, that Member may issue a brief statement. In doing so, a Member should, as far as possible, avoid discussing details of the complaint or intention to make a complaint."

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The proposed amendment to the code of conduct that the Standards Committee recommends is a matter for the Parliament to consider. However, I am happy to record the Executive's support for the amendment, which seeks to remove the evident ambiguity over when members can disclose to the press information about complaints. The amendment should put beyond members' doubt the question of when such disclosures should and should not be made.

The Executive shares entirely the committee's view that members should not be subjected to unfair speculation in the press about complaints that might subsequently be held to be unfounded. The amendment, if approved by the Parliament, will provide useful clarification of that aspect of the code of conduct and will strike a fair and proper balance. I offer my support, and that of the Executive, for the proposed amendment.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I support Mike Rumbles's and Euan Robson's comments. The Standards Committee found paragraph 10.2.1 in the code of conduct to be inadequate. As Mike Rumbles said, there is no intention to gag members. Press comment that a complaint about an MSP is to be made to the standards adviser is an unedifying spectacle. Such comments are sometimes encouraged for the sake of a press release or a quick soundbite, regardless of the effect on the MSP concerned.

Many MSPs think that the Standards Committee knows all about the progress of complaints, but although the newspapers might say that a complaint is to be made to the Standards Committee, the committee does not know about complaints until stage 3 of the process. It is right and proper that the standards adviser—or, next year, the standards commissioner—should carry out stages 1 and 2, which are the initial complaint and investigation, in private. Members of the Standards Committee first hear about a complaint when a report on it comes from the standards adviser. At that point, the Standards Committee takes over. All further evidence is heard in public and decisions are taken in public.

I support Mike Rumbles's view that, in the run-up to the 2003 elections, we do not want the Standards Committee and the complaints procedure to be used by MSPs to settle scores or to score political points over rivals. MSPs should display more grown-up behaviour. I know from experience that there is nothing worse than finding that the newspapers have been briefed that a complaint is to made against oneself. I suffered that, not at the hands of a fellow MSP, but at the hands of a member of the public, who faxed her letter of complaint to the press. Of course, it was found subsequently that there was no case to answer. That situation was difficult, but I dealt with it robustly. I defended myself and said that the allegation was not true. However, it is not helpful to any member to find in the press details of a complaint that is subsequently considered and in respect of which the member is exonerated. Often, complaints do not reach the Standards Committee.

I ask all members to support the proposed change to the code of conduct. I ask also for all members' consideration as we approach the 2003 elections. Let us conduct our election campaigns out there in the streets and not in here, in the Standards Committee. I am conscious of the fact that the SNP chief whip is sitting at my side. On this and on every standards issue that will ever come before the Parliament, the SNP will have a free vote. There is no SNP whipping on standards issues in the Parliament. That is how it should be, and I hope that the other parties will act similarly.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I agree with what Mike Rumbles and Tricia Marwick have said in support of the motion. The main proposed change is that, if an MSP is to make a complaint against another MSP's honour, that should not be done publicly, because even unfounded allegations might still be damaging. If such allegations were well founded, they would in due course become a matter of public record.

Mike Rumbles wrote a good letter to all colleagues on the Standards Committee on 26 September. In it, he stated:

"It is essential that investigations into allegations of misconduct are carried out in private and independently of the Standards Committee. Members who are the subject of a complaint should not be unfairly prejudiced by press speculation about matters which may subsequently be held to be unfounded. Moreover, publicising a complaint which is under investigation can prejudice that inquiry."

He went on to stress—as he did, quite rightly, this morning—that

"the Standards Committee's proposal is not intended to be a 'gagging order'. Whilst the Adviser's investigation ... takes place in private, the Standards Committee's consideration of the complaint takes place in public. Any oral evidence required by the Committee is taken in open session and our decision on whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct also takes place in public. Both the Committee's report and that of the Adviser or Commissioner are published, together with any relevant evidence."

That is the fairest and most professional way in which to proceed. We are aiming for high standards, and those should be achieved with fairness and professionalism. I support the motion.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I say to Tricia Marwick that I hope that the Conservatives have a free vote on such issues. If we do not, I could be in deep trouble—that will depend on the comments that I get back from Mike Rumbles.

My concern is that the proposal is restricted to MSPs who make complaints against other MSPs. The standards procedure is, no doubt, a good method of control in such circumstances. However, in my experience, complaints do not in the main come from other MSPs but from the wider public. I declare an interest in the matter, as a complaint against me has been through the complaints procedure. I have no complaint to make about the way in which that complaint was handled; it was dealt with reasonably and I welcome the procedure that was followed in that instance. However, another complaint against me was made not to the Standards Committee, but to the Parliament, by an MP. George Foulkes wrote to the Presiding Officer and, at the same time, sent his letter freely to the press. I was happy to respond to that letter immediately, as there were no constraints upon me then. It would worry me if I thought that the code of conduct would place some kind of restriction on my ability to respond in that way in future.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I confirm to Phil Gallie that there will be no such restriction. The proposed change would apply to a complaint against him by an MSP, which would be referred to the Standards Committee. The proposed amendment to the code of conduct would give him the right to respond—that is the whole point of it.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yes. However, as Mike Rumbles said, that would be a right to respond only briefly, which I could accept in cases of complaints from my colleagues in the Parliament. However, I want it to be made clear that, in relation to complaints from other sources—who are liable to run first to the press, as Tricia Marwick said happened in her case—MSPs will be free to respond as they feel appropriate, without worrying about breaking the code of conduct. If I receive that assurance, I will be happy to support the motion; without it, I shall oppose the motion.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

In responding on behalf of the committee, I shall deal first with Phil Gallie's point. The code of conduct is designed to prevent complaints' being dealt with in the media. Members will have a right of response to any complaint that is made against them, but I strongly advise against their playing out in the media any case against them. Perhaps the committee will discuss that. The point of the code of conduct is to defend not only the integrity of all MSPs, but the integrity of the Parliament. To have an argument in the newspapers is not the best way in which to get a fair hearing. However, the proposed change does not detract from members' right to defend themselves at any point.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Ken Macintosh is missing the point that, once a complaint gets into the media, any member who finds himself or herself gagged will face a difficulty. I have no difficulty with the proposed change, because it deals with complaints from other MSPs—such complaints can be dealt with internally. However, other complaints cannot be dealt with in that way, and if a political point were made in the media against an MSP by someone else, it would be wrong for such a gag to be placed on the member. I am looking for an assurance that if, for example, an MP made such a complaint against me, I would be free to respond to that complaint, as the Standards Committee would have no control over the actions of that individual.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am not sure that I can give Phil Gallie that assurance on behalf of the committee. The Standards Committee, with the approval of Parliament, is laying down a code of conduct for all MSPs. Ultimately, a member's reputation will be defended by the findings of the committee. I advise Phil Gallie that, in the circumstances that he described, he should allow the parliamentary standards commissioner to investigate matters on his behalf—we have put in place measures to ensure that that will be a speedy process—and to refrain from making any comment in the press in the meantime. After the process was completed, if he was vindicated by the findings of the committee, he could use that fact. The process and the standing of the process would protect his reputation. I advise him to follow that process.

The code of conduct applies to MSPs, not to members of the public. Ultimately, we have little sanction against members of the public other than the force of our authority and recognition of the fact that our standards are robust. That is what we must rely on.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If a restriction was placed on MSPs and a member of the public made a complaint to the Standards Committee and, at the same time, released details of that complaint to the press, would the Standards Committee have the opportunity not to accept the complaint because it had been passed to other spheres?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

It would be up to the commissioner to consider the complaint first. The complaint would not come before the members of the Standards Committee immediately; it would go to the commissioner, who would be obliged to consider the matter as quickly as possible.

The code of conduct exists to prevent unseemly arguments from being played out in the media. Phil Gallie may think that that loads the dice unfairly against members and gives too much power to anybody who wants to make accusations against them. However, in such a situation, members would not be doing themselves or the Parliament any favours by getting down into the muck and having a squabble. It would be better for them to rely on the commissioner to give the matter a fair hearing, and to allow the Standards Committee to listen to the evidence and find for or against the complaint. That is a far fairer process, which avoids the problems that Phil Gallie is talking about, when a member's reputation is pilloried unfairly in the media. I am sorry if that does not give Mr Gallie the reassurance that he seeks, but the Standards Committee decided that that was the best process.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does my colleague agree that we are trying to avoid trial by the press and allow MSPs the right of self-defence?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Absolutely. The fact that we have lodged an amendment to the code of conduct that would give a member the right to make a rebuttal is an acknowledgement of the fact that saying nothing is sometimes interpreted wrongly. However, we also emphasised that the rebuttal should be a short and to-the-point statement, rather than part of a continuing argument in the press. The way to iron out difficulties is through the Standards Committee and the four-point complaints procedure. MSPs are free to use consequent judgments in any way they want.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I have a brief question for clarification. The proposals that the Standards Committee have presented to us are an improvement and are clearly well worked out and thought through. However, I have a question about people who are not MSPs but who aspire to be, who are selected by their party structures and who campaign as parliamentary candidates. At what point are they expected to come under the aegis of parliamentary standards and principles?

Members of the public might go through the parliamentary process for complaining about an MSP, but might then publicly throw allegations at the MSP. The Standards Committee could not consider those public allegations. A right of reply is all very well, but an MSP does not really have a right of reply to newspaper articles that are already out there. Is there any way in which people who have been selected as parliamentary candidates by their parties, but who have not formally put in their papers could be expected to abide by the high principles and standards that the Standards Committee is setting out for MSPs?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I acknowledge the difficulties to which Ms Boyack refers. Again, I emphasise that the code of conduct applies to MSPs and so by definition cannot apply to candidates. I also emphasise that the approach that we are taking is that MSPs should maintain the highest standards of behaviour and not to get involved in unseemly squabbles. However, I hope that the difficulties to which Ms Boyack referred are hypothetical.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

They are not hypothetical. That is why I asked.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

If they are not hypothetical, perhaps Ms Boyack would like to refer the matter to the Standards Committee for further deliberation. Currently, we have no way in which to exercise control over members of the public. Potential candidates for Parliament are members of the public only until they are elected. We can perhaps look further into the matter and see whether there are powers that we can use. Perhaps we can exercise some authority other than our moral authority in the situation to which Ms Boyack referred. The political parties could perhaps impose discipline.

However, as Mike Rumbles said, MSPs' behaviour in the forthcoming election will be important. It is particularly important that we do not get involved in tit-for-tat point scoring that is aimed at damaging someone's personal integrity or reputation. Ultimately, any complaint against an MSP damages every MSP and the institution of Parliament as a whole. We want to guard against that and the only way that we can do so is by members regulating their behaviour. I ask Ms Boyack and all members to bear that in mind.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Macintosh is being very generous, which I appreciate.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

There has been plenty of time in the debate.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There is a way—which I suggested previously—in which to deal with Ms Boyack's point. A block on deliberately passing or leaking complaints to the press could be built into the code of conduct.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Unfortunately, as I suggested, we do not control either the press or the behaviour of members of the public and we have little sanction over their behaviour. However, there might be scope for further work in that area. I need to explore further whether we remain MSPs during the period between the end of the parliamentary session and the election of the new Parliament—the actual election period. I think that we should behave as MSPs and that we should maintain the highest standards.

There might be sanctions that we could apply to potential candidates. Their position should certainly be borne in mind and the Standards Committee might wish to consider the matter further. However, I am content that the code of conduct that we are debating is a huge step forward that clarifies, but does not change, the code of conduct for the benefit of all MSPs and members of the public. It clarifies that we wish complaint proceedings to be carried out fairly, rather than secretly by the Standards Committee, and that we do not want complaints to be dealt with in the media.

I will try to make progress in winding up although, as I said, I do not think that we are pushed for time in the debate. I emphasise that it is critical that our adviser's or commissioner's investigation is carried out in private. It is equally vital that their findings and the committee's decisions are made public. That is why almost all the committee's handling of a complaint at stage 3 is in public. The reports of the adviser, the commissioner and the committee will be published together, including any relevant evidence. That transparency will enhance the accountability of the Standards Committee and of the adviser or commissioner.

The amendment to the code of conduct, as I said to Mr Gallie, will also provide a right of reply to a member who is the subject of a complaint that has been publicised without the member's involvement. We consider that to be only fair to the member concerned. However, the right of reply would be limited to a brief statement and would not touch on the details of the complaint, in order to ensure that the parliamentary investigation can continue.

I thank Tricia Marwick for talking about her experience. I think that all Standards Committee members are aware that it is an anxious process for members to be the subject of a complaint that is investigated and comes before the Standards Committee. It is not a process to be considered lightly. Therefore, it is only fair that the process be carried out properly. It should be robust and timeous, but it is not fair to members to carry out that process in the press. I thank Tricia Marwick for her example and for telling us of her feelings about her experience.

I echo Mike Rumble's words about the coming months when I say that the temptation to use complaints for electoral advantage must be avoided. The Standards Committee will not tolerate frivolous or malicious complaints about political opponents. Such complaints will not help to engage the electorate, nor will they help to increase turnout over that of recent elections. Such complaints will serve simply to increase cynicism about politicians and to undermine the complaints process.

The Standards Committee has worked hard over the past three and a half years to ensure that Parliament has a rigorous code of conduct and robust arrangements for dealing with complaints. Our work in that area has been acknowledged inside and outside Scotland as having developed an exacting parliamentary standards framework. We must not see that undermined. I urge colleagues to support the motion.

David (None, Lothians)

That effectively concludes the debate, but perhaps I might add a word. One of the benefits of the new code of conduct is that, when the standards commissioner comes into being, that will relieve the Presiding Officers of a role they have had until now. I welcome that.

In addition, to respond to what Sarah Boyack said, the Standards Committee cannot deal with election matters. However, a draft code of conduct is being batted around between the four party business managers and me. I hope that that will be available for release to members by the end of October. I think that that code will help to deal with the pre-election period as regards members and, indeed, other persons employed in the Parliament who may be prospective candidates. That code's preparation is well under way. I hope that that is helpful.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Further to your comments, Presiding Officer, can you confirm that that code will, in effect, be rules of engagement that are agreed by you and the business managers and which, I hope, will be agreed by the parties? That code will not replace Parliament's code of conduct but will be more about rules of engagement in the run-up to the election period that will guide the behaviour of MSPs, parliamentary staff who are candidates and others.

David (None, Lothians)

Yes. I think that we are going to call it "election guidance". I hope that that will be helpful to all members.

Proposed Committee Bill (Members' Interests)

David (None, Lothians)

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".

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

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 endorses our proposal today, it will be only the fourth committee bill to have been introduced during this session, although it will be the second time that the Standards Committee has proposed legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the committee for their unflagging commitment to what was, at times, a complex and intensive inquiry.

Members will recall that our first committee bill is now the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002. That act, which comes into force in January, will introduce robust arrangements for investigating complaints against MSPs, including the appointment of an independent standards commissioner. The proposal that I will outline today is intended to enhance the substantive rules that the Standards Committee and the standards commissioner will be required to enforce.

Our proposal for a members' interests committee bill is intended to replace the current transitional arrangements, which are set out in the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. The members' interests order sets out the various requirements on the registration and declaration of members' interests, prohibits paid advocacy, and makes contravention of certain provisions in the order a criminal offence. Article 10 of the order anticipates the eventual replacement of the order by an act of the Scottish Parliament; today, we debate the Standards Committee's proposals to introduce that legislation.

The members' interests order already establishes a rigorous and exacting regime for members' interests—indeed, as I have just mentioned, certain breaches of the rules are a criminal offence—and so gives the Parliament one of the toughest codes of conduct anywhere. However, in the period during which the members' interests order has been in operation, the Standards Committee and others have identified a number of areas that need to be addressed in replacement legislation.

In September last year, we began the process of examining the provisions of the existing members' interests order in detail. We published interim proposals for replacement legislation and invited written and oral evidence in response to our tentative recommendations. In crystallising our thoughts on what shape the new legislation should take, we have examined not only the written and oral submissions that we received but the practices and experiences of other legislatures in the United Kingdom and beyond. We have also consulted colleagues and I would like to thank those members who took the time to respond to our consultation paper, which we published in early 2000. We believe that the package of proposals that we offer today will build on and enhance the provisions that we already have in place.

I will now take members through some of the key elements of our proposals. In relation to the interests that members are required to register at present, the major changes that we have recommended relate to gifts and shareholdings. The current rules on gifts require members to register all gifts in excess of £250, regardless of source or context. That means, for example, that an MSP who has the fortune to receive such a gift from a spouse, partner or relative must register it. The infrequency of such gifts being registered with the clerks suggests that we have less-than-generous other halves. Similarly, any gifts of more than £250 to a member's spouse or partner must also be registered. Again, a quick perusal of the register suggests that MSPs are not given to lavishing expensive gifts on their loved ones.

Joking aside, the committee believes that the current rules on gifts represent an unacceptable invasion of the privacy of family members and that such gifts are highly unlikely to influence a member's political life. Paragraph 4.1.1 of the code states:

"The main purpose of the Register is to provide information about certain financial interests ... which might reasonably be thought by others to influence Members' actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament, or other actions taken in their capacity as Members."

We see the current requirement as doing very little to achieve that. There is little legitimate public interest in disclosing in the register gifts such as those that I described. We have therefore decided to recommend that only gifts that are received by an MSP in connection with his or her parliamentary duties will be registrable. Additionally, we have decided to recommend that the value of a gift that will be registrable will be linked to a member's salary as opposed to being a fixed sum that could become outdated. We believe that that approach will strike an appropriate balance between transparency and privacy.

Members are currently required to register shares where the nominal value—that is, the share price at issue—exceeds £25,000 or 1 per cent of the issued share capital of a company. However, the difference between nominal and market value can be huge. We are convinced that the latter is a more meaningful reflection of the significance of a member's shareholding and the influence that it could have. However, we also recognise that the market value may fluctuate—as indeed it has done in recent days—and we have no wish to impose a heavy and bureaucratic burden on members. We therefore recommend that MSPs register their shareholdings with a market value of more than £25,000 or 1 per cent of the issued share capital of a company, and that they update the registration annually, at the beginning of the financial year.

In addition to reviewing the existing categories of registrable interests, we have recommended the creation of a new category—non-pecuniary interests. The category will include unremunerated directorships and memberships of voluntary and charitable organisations, professional bodies, societies and sporting or cultural organisations. Many members already choose to register such interests voluntarily. The committee thought long and hard about imposing a mandatory requirement on colleagues. However, having taken written and oral evidence on that specific point, we have decided to recommend the mandatory registration of non-pecuniary interests for three reasons. First, we see non-pecuniary interests as potentially wielding the same influence over members in the conduct of their parliamentary duties as pecuniary interests. Secondly, we see the mandatory registration as a positive step, fulfilling the broader purpose of the register, which is to provide information about an MSP's expertise and experience. Thirdly, we are conscious of a similar requirement that is imposed on councillors and others by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. We do not want MSPs to be accused of double standards.

We recognised the complex definitional issues in specifying what non-pecuniary interests should be registered. One option would be to attempt to define the types of interests in the replacement legislation. That sort of approach has been used by some Australian legislatures. However, we believe that that could be overly restrictive and inflexible, and that it would risk excluding certain interests. We have therefore decided to mirror the approach that was taken in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. MSPs will be required to register interests that the public might reasonably think could influence their actions. That would be supplemented by extensive guidance in the code of conduct, which will provide illustrative examples—but illustrative examples only.

Another key recommendation in our proposal is to clarify the rules on paid advocacy. The Standards Committee recognised back in 1999 that the members' interests order contained a major flaw in the provisions on the very serious offence of paid advocacy. Specifically, the members' interests order fails to specify a connection between remuneration and the subsequent action taken by a member as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. That means that, on a strict interpretation of the members' interests order, a member who participates in a debate on a subject on which he or she has a related registrable interest could be caught by the paid advocacy rule, even when the interest has been properly registered and declared and when the member is not participating in return for the benefit that he or she has received. However, our interpretation of the paid advocacy provisions is based on the wording of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Parliament's code of conduct for members.

We propose that the replacement legislation should make it clear that paid advocacy takes place only where there is a connection between the receipt of payment or other benefit and the MSP's subsequent parliamentary action. We also propose to close a potential loophole by ensuring that the new paid advocacy provisions should apply in relation to future or expected interests as well. That will prohibit members from undertaking a parliamentary action in consideration of remuneration or other benefit that they expect to receive in future.

Finally, as I indicated at the outset, contravention of the rules on the registration and declaration of interests and paid advocacy is criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 on conviction. However, the members' interests order does not provide any defences. Liability is strict. For example, a member who failed to register an interest that he or she is not aware of would still commit a criminal offence. Although we believe that it is right and proper that serious transgressions of the members' interests rules should continue to be a criminal offence, we are of the view that MSPs should not commit a criminal offence where they have taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that they have complied with the rules.

In reviewing the members' interests order and developing the proposals for replacement legislation, the Standards Committee has sought to balance the requirements of transparency and proportionality. We were struck by the approach taken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has highlighted the importance of proportionality in developing rules on conduct. In its report on the House of Lords, which was published last year, that committee stated that it

"now sees proportionality as a test to be kept constantly in mind by any body drawing up rules for conduct. Such rules will command more respect and adherence if they are comprehensible, simple and proportionate."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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 instance of paid advocacy?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

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 wording of the Scotland Act 1998 was different from the wording in the members' interests order. I am pleased to say that there have been no cases of transgression in this Parliament; there might have been in others.

The Standards Committee believes that our proposals will bring greater clarity to the rules on members' interests while not diluting or weakening the high standards of conduct to which we must all adhere. The members' interests regime and the prohibition on paid advocacy are essential components to ensure the accountability of members for their parliamentary actions.

We recognise that time might be a bit tight to see the proposal go through the legislative process before the end of the session. However, it is an important bill proposal and it would be helpful to get it on the statute books prior to the new intake of MSPs. We hope that the Parliamentary Bureau will acknowledge the importance of our proposed bill and give us a fair wind.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill under Rule 9.15 contained in the Standards Committee's 7th Report 2002, Replacing the Members' Interests Order: Proposal for a Committee Bill, (SP Paper 621).

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

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 Executive has not yet provided a formal reply, although I understand that one is in process.

The issue is for the Parliament as a whole rather than the Executive. It is clear that the committee has engaged in a very thorough consultation process in working up its proposals. In my view, the proposals to replace the members' interests order are sensible and well founded.

I do not intend to go through the points that Mike Rumbles has already made so eloquently. However, I believe that the proposals will improve the transparency of the registration scheme and thereby improve its effectiveness.

The committee has succeeded in meeting its declared objective, which was to strike a balance between respect for individual privacy and the need to ensure transparency and high standards of probity, openness and accountability.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Bureau will give a fair wind to the proposed bill and I agree with Mike Rumbles that it would be desirable to have the legislation on the statute books. However, the parliamentary session is drawing to a close and there is a great deal of legislation that needs to be completed. There is also a lot of pressure on members' time. We have to bear those points in mind and seek to achieve the objective, but we will need to see how things go.

As I have indicated, the Executive will provide a formal response to the report in due course. However, I do not anticipate that there is anything in the report or recommendations that will give rise to any difficulties.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

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.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I support the motion. Registration and declaration of members' interests are central to the Parliament's core principles of transparency and openness. The Parliament already has a tough system of rules that govern members' interests and certain breaches of those rules constitute a criminal offence.

It has been mentioned that the Standards Committee has undertaken a thorough and comprehensive review of the operation of the existing legislation and has proposed changes to be incorporated in a committee bill on replacing the members' interests order. We believe that the amendments will enhance the rules.

We propose changes to the rules on the registration of gifts and shareholdings. Under the bill, members will have to register any gift that is worth more than 0.5 per cent of the salary that they receive in connection with their parliamentary duties. They will no longer have to register gifts from spouses or relatives. We recommended that the threshold for registration of shareholdings should be set by market value rather than nominal value. That will provide a far more realistic measurement of the possible significance of a shareholding.

Perhaps the most difficult area that we considered related to non-pecuniary interests. We propose that members should register non-pecuniary interests that might be thought by the reasonable man or woman in the street to have a possible influence on an MSP in the performance of their parliamentary duties. I accept what Kay Ullrich said about "golden girls" membership not needing to be included under that heading.

The committee did not get down to dealing with complex definitional issues, but I think that the principle to be applied is that if membership of a body leads to disproportionate, considerable or substantial influence, the MSP should consider that membership. For example, freemasonry has been in the press, although we did not consider it in detail. The test should be that an MSP should not be beholden to anyone. An MSP should be their own man or own woman and not beholden to any person or body, only to his or her conscience. If a person was a freemason many years ago, I do not think that that is relevant. However, if a person is currently a freemason, that would be a matter for their conscience and the test that should be applied is whether considerable influence could or might be applied.

Our report sets out a welcome clarification of the paid advocacy rule. Paid advocacy is the most serious offence in the members' interests legislation and it is important that MSPs are in no doubt as to what behaviour constitutes paid advocacy. My friend Phil Gallie asked whether any elected representative had had to resign over that issue. In the 1974-79 Parliament, one MP resigned from the House of Commons when charged with what would now be described as paid advocacy.

Our proposed changes are sensible and proportionate. We believe that they will ensure that the Scottish Parliament continues to have a rigorous registration framework while enabling members to carry out their duties appropriately and effectively. I support the motion.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

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 ourselves purely with weaknesses at Westminster. As someone who has recently joined the Standards Committee, I have come to the issue late. The committee has developed a members' interests order that is in the best interests of the Scottish Parliament and has taken account of many weaknesses at Westminster, but there are a number of positive lessons that we can learn from Westminster. In considering the committee's report, we must ensure that we learn from the experiences of the past three years and develop an effective members' interests order that works in the best interests of the Scottish Parliament. Such an order must be made in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament and must learn from the weaknesses as well as the positive attributes of other Parliaments.

The Parliament has received many knocks. As Kay Ullrich said, its integrity has been questioned many times. However, we should give credit to the Standards Committee for ensuring that this debate has been brought before us today. It should be reported that we are progressing a members' interests order that will ensure that every possible interest is recorded.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to non-pecuniary interests. I question what he said about freemasonry. I have little knowledge of freemasonry and therefore am not in a position to clarify whether he should declare his interest in such an organisation. The Scottish Parliament should ensure that MSPs declare such interests.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

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 (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

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 the organisation is. That is particularly so if the organisation is a secret organisation and its membership is not made public. If the Parliament is serious about openness and transparency, it must ensure that membership of such organisations is registered. I welcome the committee's development of proposals in that respect—we should give it great credit.

The committee has presented proposals to ensure that all possible future interests are declared, which is important. Members will also be required to declare any ceased interests.

I do not believe that it is in the public interest that spouses' gifts should be declared nor is it in the interests of MSPs for gifts that are more than £250 to be declared. A number of partners would scrutinise the register of members' interests to find out whether they had spent more than £250 at Christmas. Many MSPs will breathe a sigh of relief this Christmas—if the proposals are implemented prior to Christmas—that such gifts will not be recorded.

There is little to argue about in respect of the motion. To the best of the committee's ability and on a cross-party basis, we have produced proposals that will ensure that every member's interests are recorded in the interests of openness and transparency.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

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 say to Mike Rumbles that I did not respond to the consultation not because of lack of interest, but because of lack of time when the opportunity arose.

We must be careful about being too complacent. I think that we have an honest and open group of MSPs and that all 129 of them maintain high standards in ethical behaviour and the expression of interests. However, our regime is very liberal and far from restrictive compared to that which I experienced before coming to the Parliament.

As a bank employee, I operated under the Financial Services Act 1986, which had restrictive and specific requirements to register and to relate information. In my circumstances, those requirements were difficult, because I worked for one bank, my wife worked for the stockbroking arm of another bank and my brother worked for a third bank. None of us was a banker, but nonetheless, the rules covered us. For example, if I wished to conduct a share transaction, the 1986 act required me to do so through my employer, but because of my wife's employment in stockbroking, the act also required me to transact through her employer, although that was impossible. Fortunately, a procedure existed by which we could nominate the employer that would get the business, although both employers had to be told about it. I could not sell or buy a share in any company without registering the fact that I had done so, or sell or buy a share in my own company except in two four-week periods during the year and with permission. There were significant constraints, only some of which I have dealt with.

I welcome the proposed change from the nominal value of shares to their market value. I spent 30 years with the Bank of Scotland and put my staff profit share away year by year, little amount by little amount, into shares, because of the advantages to doing so. As a result, I had Bank of Scotland shares with a nominal value of £9,800 when I joined the Parliament. However, when I voluntarily registered my interest, their market value was of the order of £360,000. The difference between those values was huge. Even at that level, I did not require to register the shares and would not require to register them under the present order until their market value reached approximately £1 million. I think that members share my view that shares at such a level should be registered. Alas, I have lost about £100,000 in the value of those shares, but I never had that in the first place, so let us not worry about it.

The Standards Committee turned its attention to outside employment. In my previous life, I would have required permission to accept outside employment. I draw that to members' attention as a model that we might think about.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Standards Committee considered prohibiting members from accepting employment outwith the Parliament. Most committee members felt that being an MSP was a full-time job, but that it was not the committee's place to recommend restricting outside employment.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

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 keep in touch with some matters, but my doing that would be inappropriate if it interfered with my ability to do my job as an MSP. The committee may wish to consider whether prior approval of outside employment could apply that test. My opinion—it might not be the opinion of others—is that an occasional audit could be valuable.

Gifts raise an interesting issue. I forgot my wife's birthday this year, so I can tell members that the absence of a gift can—to use Mike Rumbles's phrase—influence political life. I was a bit grumpy for a few days because my wife was more than a bit grumpy. What is a gift between family members? If the only family member who receives remuneration for employment is the MSP and that person takes their partner on a holiday that costs £500, is that a gift under the order? It might well be. That situation should be considered—it applies to close family members, too.

Outside people could think that many non-pecuniary interests influence members. I voluntarily registered two unpaid directorships. One of those directorships is in a voluntary organisation; I receive no remuneration for it and have no legal obligations under it. The other, however, is in a limited company, which means that the Companies Act 1985 places on me some fiduciary duties that could conflict with my duties as a member of the Parliament, in some circumstances. The test of whether an interest is unpaid is not in itself adequate.

By the same token, we should consider societies and clubs. I am a member of Edinburgh Flying Club. Flying is my hobby, and lest members should think that it is an expensive hobby, I say that if I smoked 20 cigarettes a day, I would spend more than I do on flying, but perhaps that tells members how little time I have spare from the Parliament. As a member of Edinburgh Flying Club, I might—if I were not a member of the Parliament—wish to take a position on developments at Edinburgh airport, which we discussed recently. It would be appropriate for me to make known my membership of that club if we discussed those issues.

I am also a member of an informal group called the escape committee, which comprises former workers in the trenches at the Bank of Scotland, with whom I occasionally have lunch. Like Kay Ullrich, I do not think that it would be appropriate to register such membership. However, if a member were an honorary consul for one of the many small countries around the world that wish to have representation in Edinburgh, it would be appropriate to register that.

I suspect that it would be inappropriate to register the amount of a pension, but there is value in considering registering the fact of a pension, because the source of a pension, the body that pays that pension and the interests of that pension fund might be held to influence a member, in some circumstances.

The members' interests order focuses on services that members provide in their capacity as members and for which they are paid, but members provide services for which they are not paid and which may influence us. For example, I write four newspaper columns for local papers. I am not remunerated for that, but it is in my political interest to maintain a good relationship with the owners of those papers. In some circumstances, members and the general public should be aware that I have a connection with a commercial company that is non-remunerated but is of value to me.

I suggest that having two parts to the register of members' interests could be valuable. One part would be published and the other part would provide the opportunity to record facts. For example, the amount of a pension might be registered but not published. That might be a way forward and might be useful for a range of matters.

I welcome the thought that any changes could be introduced before the election. That would give those who wish to stand for election a clear view of the expectations of them, so that they would meet no nasty surprises when they arrived here. That could be a benefit.

I welcome the Standards Committee's excellent work and I have no difficulty in supporting the motion.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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 need to provide the reassurance that all members have the highest standards of integrity. I am sure that we all sign up to that. We are behind the Standards Committee on that.

I agree with some proposals in particular and I will highlight those that are of note. The proposal on gifts takes a reasonable approach, with a threshold of 0.5 per cent of an MSP's salary, which allows for inflation. I am sure that members feel that that is reasonable.

The committee's research on best practice in other Parliaments impressed me. One of the great benefits of being the baby of the Parliaments is that we can learn from examples of good practice elsewhere. That fact influenced heavily some of the thinking in the committee's report.

The committee recommended that we take the ethical standards route on the mandatory registration and declaration of non-pecuniary interests. That is an area of interest to many of us for a variety of reasons, because we have all made voluntary input of one kind or another at some point in our lives. The committee took a reasonable approach to non-pecuniary interests by suggesting that wherever such an interest might be thought by others to influence a member's actions, it should be treated in a similar manner to their remunerated interests. That is fair. The report notes that that approach is followed in the House of Commons and it is one that we have followed from the beginning of the Scottish Parliament. It would be good to continue on the same basis.

The committee's comparison between the standards that should be set for MSPs and those for councillors is fair and reasonable. It would be entirely unacceptable for us to proceed on the basis of setting standards for ourselves that were lower than those that are set for councillors. I was a councillor for a number of years on Fife Council and we took the standards issue very seriously.

I give a particular welcome to the fair approach that the committee has taken, in the light of experience, to the registration of gifts from spouses, cohabitees and close family members. I cannot remember when my husband last gave me a gift that was valued at £250 or more. Perhaps my memory is poor—he may chastise me severely when I get home this evening. Sarah Boyack and I were talking about engagement rings. She told me that her ring cost X, Y or Z, whereas my engagement ring cost about £19 10/-. Indeed, I may have contributed to the cost on the day. That is life and it probably says more about the days in which my engagement ring was bought.

I believe that members feel that the registration of gifts is an unreasonable intrusion into their personal life. I am pleased that the Standards Committee has come up with a pragmatic approach to the matter. I agree that the bill should be passed this side of Christmas, rather than in the new year when more political point scoring will be going on.

I accept the totality of the section on expected benefits. The issue is important and it has my support. None of us knows what will happen in the future, but if a member has a reasonable expectation that they will benefit in some way, they ought, in all clear conscience, to register an interest. The committee recommended that such a declaration should be made.

The guidance in the code of conduct on standardised forms will be helpful. I am not sure whether other members have experienced difficulties when filling out forms. I find myself asking, "What does that mean?" The code will help all of us and we look forward to its introduction.

Nothing in the report causes me to feel anxious or to experience discomfort. However, I am concerned about one or two of the points that have been raised in the debate. Members spoke about the masons, which is an issue. However, if we are to be even-handed, other organisations, including the Knights of St Columba, should fall into the categorisation of organisations that is set out in the report. We are talking about organisations that have structures—they are not informal dining clubs. If we believe in openness and transparency, there is no doubt that membership of all such organisations should be registerable.

I welcome the clarification on sponsorship. I am one of the members who was dismayed when, in the early days of the Parliament, it emerged that I might not be able to speak on the issues of mutuality or co-operative development because I had been elected as a Labour and Co-operative candidate. However, voters who put a tick beside my name knew that I wanted to promote the idea of co-operative development. Much thought has been given to sponsorship; members will remember the debate at the beginning of the parliamentary session. I welcome the committee's conclusions on sponsorship. I do not receive a penny from the Co-operative party as a result of its sponsorship. The money goes to the party under the party plan system, which is a situation that must be shared by members throughout the chamber.

I congratulate the members of the Standards Committee and its clerks. Members support the work that they have done on this important issue.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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 reservations.

The report contains sensible proposals in respect of gifts. There has been much talk of gifts of up to £250 in value. My gift to my wife this year will be in excess of that, as will her gift to me. We are going on holiday together at Christmas and our gifts to each another will be that holiday. I am sure that other members have found themselves in similar circumstances. That makes total nonsense of the present situation. I recall comments that were made along those lines during the debate on the code of practice.

Stewart Stevenson gave ample reason why changes should be made to the rules governing shareholdings. I have no difficulty in accepting his arguments on that subject.

Euan Robson spoke about the busy parliamentary schedule. We are at the beginning of October and the Parliament will, in effect, wrap up its business in March. The Scottish Parliament should want to pass quality legislation, not bits-and-pieces legislation. It would be nonsense for the Standards Committee to try to drive through yet another bill in the time scale that Mike Rumbles set out, especially as the bill will have to cover the complexities that are detailed in the report. Mike Rumbles should think again. The Executive recognises the dangers of going ahead as the committee proposes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

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 committee has also undertaken comprehensive consultation. If the Parliament approves the motion today, the process of progressing the bill through its stages would not be long drawn out. Speeches this morning have shown that there is support for getting the bill on to the statute book ready for the new intake of MSPs.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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 build either the drafting time or the required level of expertise into a three or four-month period. The bill drafters are up to their eyeballs already. I also do not believe that it is possible in the time available to draft a meaningful and realistic bill that will last in perpetuity.

Kay Ullrich talked about the label that has been attached to the Scottish Parliament. She suggested that there are such things as a Westminster brush and a Scottish Parliament brush. I agree that there is a Scottish Parliament brush and it tars us with the fact that some of the legislation that we have passed has been rushed and not well thought out. It has brought disrepute to the Scottish Parliament in the eyes of the public.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 legislation to close loopholes? Have we had to do that yet?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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 and went to one or two meetings, but I have not attended a meeting since 1961. No doubt I have met other freemasons over time; quite honestly, I have not associated with them as freemasons but as friends and colleagues. I do not see any difference between my associations with such people and my associations with members of the Knights of St Columba and people from other religions.

Irrespective of whether or not it gets me into trouble with the Parliament, I will not declare my involvement with the freemasons in the register of members' interests. It does not impact on any of my actions in the Parliament. That is my judgment, and is the way that I act as a responsible individual who has been elected to the Parliament.

I have demonstrated that responsibility in other issues. For example, as far as remuneration is concerned, the first thing that I did when I was elected was to wrap up my small business consultancy, simply because I knew that it might result in a conflict of interests. However, my support of Ayr United Football Club or Dunfermline Athletic Football Club or my membership of Ayr Rugby Football Club or the Royal National Lifeboat Institution are incidental to my overall involvement in the Parliament. I will not declare those interests. Of course, if we were debating lifeboats, it would be only right and proper to declare that interest at that time. Other than that, such interests have no impact on my involvement in the Parliament.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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 (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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 this parliamentary session are perhaps unrealistic.

As for Helen Eadie's question, I will take that decision in the future. Right now, I state categorically that I will not declare my involvement in the freemasons in the register of members' interests. I am not suppressing the information; indeed, I have acknowledged my membership this morning and will tell any constituent who asks me about it. Instead, I want to make it clear that I will not register the interest because I do not think that it is relevant to my job. If that puts me in conflict with the law, I will have to think about my position.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

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 to the obvious fact that we have a lot of legislation coming up and that there is a lot of pressure on members' time. It is important to get the legislation right. I hope that he accepts that reassurance.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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 practicality and reality. On that basis, I do not think that there is any chance that the bill will be introduced and passed by the Parliament between now and next May. That is certainly my interpretation of Euan Robson's comments.

All MSPs have a responsibility to the electorate to be open and honest about everything, especially in matters that affect their daily work in the Parliament. However, we do not need legislation to ensure that we fulfil that responsibility. If we do, it reflects badly on all of us.

Similarly, we do not need to go through the legislative process to achieve the committee's aims as far as gifts and shareholdings are concerned. Instead, the committee could draw up a code of conduct that would be acceptable to the Parliament. I stand to be corrected on that point. Perhaps someone could respond to it in the summing up.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 proposal is technical, the chamber must not underestimate the importance of rules on members' interests and paid advocacy. They not only underpin how we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, but govern how we are perceived by the world at large. We need only go back to Westminster in the early 1990s to see how corrosive allegations and impropriety can be to the democratic process. As other members have pointed out, much of the public's disenchantment with politics and politicians probably has its roots in cash for questions and other scandals of the 1990s.

However, it is important that we do not get allegations of sleaze out of proportion. It has been a busy parliamentary session for the Standards Committee, but for all the right reasons. Through the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002, we have established robust and transparent procedures for investigating complaints. We have produced a comprehensive code of conduct and—as we did today—we have not hesitated to make changes to it as we have learned from experience. We have also conducted a wide-ranging inquiry into lobbying, which we will debate later.

The complaints that we have dealt with have generally been matters of protocol not probity. Today, following a comprehensive review of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999, we seek the Parliament's agreement to introduce a committee bill.

Other members have outlined the key elements of our proposals. We have recommended changes to the rules on gifts that will balance transparency with allowing family members to have legitimate privacy. I seem to recall that, when Karen Gillon was a member of the committee, the two of us discussed the fact that our husbands were mean. At that time, she said that she hoped to get a ring worth £250. I have looked at the register of members' interests and have found no such declaration. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that Karen never received the ring from her husband, Jim. That is a disgrace; after all, she has had two children since then.

We have suggested changes to the rules on shareholdings, which will make the registration and declaration of such interests far more meaningful. Moreover, we have proposed the mandatory registration of non-pecuniary interests, which we believe will enhance the current registration framework. The registration of such interests will not only strengthen our commitment to openness but provide a fuller picture of the experience and expertise of the member concerned. Every step of the way, we have tried to ensure that our response has been proportionate. It is not—and never will be—the Standards Committee's intention to overburden members with unnecessary bureaucratic rules that hamper the conduct of their parliamentary duties.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 standards that reflect the high expectations that we as elected members must strive to meet.

I want to focus on the issue of paid employment, which was raised in the course of the debate. Following oral evidence in April, the committee considered whether MSPs should be permitted to take on paid employment. That consideration followed a suggestion from witnesses that the Parliament and the committee should be able to act if a member's outside employment impacted adversely on his or her parliamentary duties.

The committee feels that the MSP's role should be a full-time commitment. However, provided that outside employment is properly registered and declared, we feel that any decision to accept such work is a matter for individual members' judgment. It is not for the Standards Committee or for the standards commissioner to judge whether a member's parliamentary work is being hampered by outside commitments. That is ultimately a matter for the electorate to decide. That said, it is vital that members' entries on paid outside employment in the register of members' interests contain sufficient information. As a result, details of the nature of the work and its regularity should be provided as set out in the code of conduct.

I will address the matter of non-pecuniary interests and in particular the points that Phil Gallie raised. The bill will not allow members to decide for themselves whether their non-pecuniary interest necessitates an entry in the register. The committee deliberately went down the route of using the wording in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. MSPs are required to register interests that the public might reasonably think could influence their action.

Whether something should be registered is not a matter of individual conscience. An MSP must bear in mind the fact that the test is whether the public could reasonably expect that membership of an organisation might influence the member's actions.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 Parliament to uphold the Parliament's standards and protect its reputation. I think that Phil Gallie's statement was appalling—notwithstanding the fact that the Parliament may pass an act with which he will not comply.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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-pecuniary interests go. Personally, one of the greatest influences on my thinking and on the actions that I take in Parliament is the fact that I am a member of the Church of Scotland and that I believe, as a Christian, in Christian processes. Should I register that fact in a register? Should those who are Muslim, Jewish or who perhaps follow other faiths do likewise? All those faiths have a major impact on the things that we do and on the ways in which the public sees us act.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Comprehensive guidance, which will include illustrative examples, will be issued to all MSPs but, ultimately, the test is not whether the member believes that there is an interest to declare; ultimately, the test—as in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000—is whether the member has an interest that the public might reasonably think could influence their action. The test is not a personal test; it is about what the public might reasonably think could influence a member's action.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I accept Tricia Marwick's definition of the test. Does she believe that the public would see religious beliefs as being one aspect of that?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Comprehensive guidance will be produced. If we were discussing issues of morality, I imagine that an MSP who is a member of a particular church and has a certain point of view might well register that, and that the public might reasonably think that the member should register it. Comprehensive guidance that contains illustrative examples will be produced. I hope that we will all register all our interests to ensure that the Parliament, which is supposed to be open, transparent and accountable, genuinely meets those standards. The situation is the same for all members.

We believe that the rules on paid advocacy must be clarified and that the flaw in the current MIO must be addressed. Paid advocacy is a serious offence, not only in the sense that it is a criminal offence, like other transgressions of the MIO, but because it is the ultimate betrayal of trust. It strikes at the heart of the relationship between an MSP and the electorate. Any such allegations will be treated with the utmost seriousness by the Standards Committee, the standards commissioner and, if necessary, the procurator fiscal.

It is crucial that the rules on paid advocacy are clear. Although the Scotland Act 1998 is unambiguous, the omission of the link between the payment of benefit and an MSP's subsequent parliamentary action is a failing of the current MIO. Members may recall that that omission gave us great concern in late 1999.

The proposal is not just about parliamentary housekeeping; it is about individual members' accountability for their actions and decisions in the Parliament and about maintaining the highest standards of integrity and probity. Our conduct impacts not only on our individual reputations but on the credibility of the Parliament as a democratic institution. That is why I urge colleagues from all parties to support the bill.

On whether we will get the bill passed by 2003, I have great faith in the parliamentary draftsmen. We have done a lot of the hard work on the thinking behind the bill already. The bill will be a doddle for the parliamentary draftspeople who drew up the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002. I believe that there will be sufficient time for us to make the bill an act by 2003, so that the next intake of parliamentarians to this democratic institution will have the benefit of an MIO that will guide them, protect them and ensure that the people of Scotland have faith in the parliamentarians and the institution.

Lobbying

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3428, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on its first report of 2002, on lobbying. I call on Mike Rumbles, as convener of the Standards Committee, to speak to and move the motion.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Standards Committee's report on lobbying. Lobbying is at the heart of the democratic process. It impacts not only on our commitment to accessibility but on our commitment to openness and transparency.

The report that we are debating represents the culmination of an inquiry that took us a year and a half. I take the opportunity to thank members of the committee, past and present, for their commitment and enthusiasm during the inquiry and I also thank the clerking team.

The roots of the lobbying inquiry can be traced back to the Parliament's founding principles. The original report by the consultative steering group stated:

"For the Scottish Parliament to deliver a Parliament which will meet the expectations of the Scottish people, a culture of openness and accessibility has to permeate the Parliament".

The Standards Committee wanted to examine how that applies to the relationship between the Parliament and lobbyists.

I say now that we did not—and still do not—see a problem with lobbying in the Scottish Parliament. There is not a problem. Throughout our inquiry, we recognised that lobbying is an integral and legitimate part of the democratic process. However, it is imperative that lobbying is carried out transparently in line with the Parliament's core principles of openness and accessibility.

As MSPs, we represent a wide spectrum of people in differing occupations with differing interests and businesses and diverse needs. We should not be guided only by our own opinions on matters that are brought before us. We should meet and hear from interest groups, lobbyists and constituents—a wide range of people—so that they may inform us of their concerns and needs and we may take the temperature of public opinion. Lobbying can help us to become better informed in forming our political judgments. It also enables us to engage with different sections of society.

All of us must recognise that public concerns remain about the possibility of undue influence being wielded by lobbyists in our legislature. That concern is most marked when organisations carry out lobbying commercially or for profit for third parties. If we are to allay such concerns and reassure the public that lobbying activity is consistent with our core principles of accessibility and openness, transparency must be our watchword.

The need for transparency is paramount when companies lobby on behalf of third parties. That is why the core recommendation of our report is the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for such organisations.

It is a fact of business life that commercial lobbying organisations are paid by their clients to achieve certain results. There is a risk that observers will assume that, because of that, a lobbying or public affairs agency has greater access to or clout with a politician than do individual citizens or a much smaller and less well-funded local voluntary group that is pressing for reforms. We found no evidence to support that proposition, but it is a perception that nevertheless exists in some quarters.

To help address the questions of perception, access and openness, the Standards Committee undertook a wide-ranging inquiry. We have taken evidence from and consulted a broad spectrum of witnesses including commercial lobbyists, interest groups, the voluntary sector, academics and the lobbied themselves—we, the MSPs. We are grateful to all who contributed to that undertaking. The committee has distilled that information down to the four principal recommendations that are outlined in our report.

First, there should be further guidance for MSPs. At the moment, the guidance is contained in section 7 of the code of conduct and relates to statutory obligations. Paragraph 71 and 72 of the report outline some of the practical steps that members can take that will keep us all on the right side of the code of conduct.

Secondly, annexe E of the report sets out a revised section 7 of the code of conduct on lobbying and access. The revisions are not extensive, but the committee felt that they added clarity and enhanced the existing text. The changes that we are asking Parliament to agree to incorporate into the code today will clarify the role of commercial lobbyists; will place greater emphasis on the need for transparency in the relationships between MSPs and commercial lobbyists; and will provide supplementary and practical advice on dealing with commercial and other lobbyists. Those changes to the code will provide greater clarity to members on their obligations and will ensure that the relationships with all lobbyists are handled with complete propriety.

Thirdly, we recommend that a statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists be introduced. As that proposal has attracted a lot of attention, I will spend a little time explaining the background.

The main impetus in our decision to recommend statutory registration is the need to ensure transparency. Only then can we begin to dispel the unease that is felt by the public. The evidence that we received during our inquiry does not suggest that substantial difficulties exist in the relationships between MSPs and lobbyists. Our recommendations are not driven by a few examples of bad practice in the lobbying industry, nor are they intended to constrain or inhibit the legitimate business of commercial lobbying companies.

Some witnesses said that our approach would secure greater transparency but at the expense of accessibility. They were concerned that such a registration scheme would confer elite status on a group of lobbyists and give the impression of privileged access to MSPs. By the same token, other organisations or individuals might be deterred from engaging with the Parliament. However, we were not persuaded by that argument. Any eventual registration scheme will be restricted to commercial lobbyists working on behalf of a third party. Voluntary organisations or interest groups, for example, would not be covered by the scheme.

In response to the suggestion that statutory registration would create a so-called favoured elite, I refer the chamber to the code of conduct, which specifically prohibits members from giving preferential access to commercial lobbyists. The Standards Committee would view any breach of that provision with the utmost seriousness.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Is the point not that members would give anybody who was registered elite status, but that the public would perceive that people who were registered had special status?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is a valid point, but the point that I am trying to make is that it is up to us to ensure that that impression is not created and, if it is, to ensure that it is dispelled immediately and forcefully.

Our proposed registration scheme for commercial lobbyists would include the name of the lobbying firm, the names of the staff engaged in the lobbying and the identity of the clients that the firm represents. The sanctions of naming and shaming for failing to register or for deliberately providing inaccurate information should be sufficient deterrents for commercial lobbyists in the relatively small world of public affairs consultancy. The Standards Committee did not propose that in-house lobbyists, trade associations or voluntary groups should register. If they contact an MSP, whom they represent is clear to the MSP, which is not always the case with a commercial lobbyist.

Our fourth recommendation is that the Scottish Parliament draw up a voluntary code of conduct for all lobbyists. The Standards Committee is aware that various umbrella groups and professional associations that are involved in lobbying have their own codes of conduct to which their members are required to sign up. We welcome those codes, as they show a desire to commit to and maintain high standards within those industries. The Parliament code that we recommend would serve as a common standard or level playing field that we would be able to recognise. It could be published on the internet or issued as a handout and would be readily available to help lobbyists and MSPs.

The Standards Committee recognises that a significant proportion of lobbying activity is directed at the Executive, be it ministers or civil servants. We have reiterated our view, which the committee first voiced in late 1999, that the Scottish ministerial code should be re-examined to ensure that it contains appropriate guidance and safeguards on dealing with lobbyists. We have also asked the Executive to consider whether any subsequent statutory registration scheme that might emerge from our report should cover the relationship between ministers and commercial lobbyists.

I am pleased to say that, last week, the Minister for Parliamentary Business wrote to me to say that the Scottish ministerial code will be revised to bring it into line with the changes that we have proposed today to the Parliament's code of conduct. The minister also indicated that she sees no difficulty in the relationships between commercial lobbyists and ministers coming within the scope of the statutory registration scheme. I particularly welcome the minister's statement that the Executive would not stand in the way of a committee bill if the Parliament's view is that having a statutory register is the right way to proceed.

The motion calls on the Scottish Parliament to note the recommendations of the Standards Committee's first report of 2002, on lobbying, and agree to amend section 7 of the code of conduct along the lines that are set out in annexe E of the report. The Standards Committee believes that the recommendations in the report will ensure that lobbying continues to be carried out in a transparent and appropriate manner.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the recommendations of the Standards Committee's 1st Report 2002, Lobbying, (SP Paper 507) and agrees to amend section 7 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament as set out in Annex E of the report.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

As the convener of the Standards Committee has just said, the Minister for Parliamentary Business has responded on behalf of the Executive to the Standards Committee's report on lobbying and I am grateful to be able to say a few words on the subject.

Our response welcomes the report, which we consider to be an important and valuable contribution to the debate on lobbying. We welcome the committee's conclusion that there are no substantial difficulties in the relationships between members and lobbyists. We note the committee's recommendation that a statutory register of commercial lobbyists should be established. Our response queried what value a statutory scheme would add to the existing codes governing the conduct of MSPs and lobbyists, especially when the committee also recommends that those voluntary codes should be strengthened. However that is, of course, a matter for the Parliament to decide and we will listen with interest to the views that are expressed today. I listened carefully to the details of Mike Rumbles's speech on that point.

The report recommends the extension of the proposed statutory scheme to cover the relationship between ministers and commercial lobbyists and, as Mike Rumbles said, our response made it clear that we see no difficulty in a statutory scheme applying to dealings between ministers and commercial lobbyists in exactly the same way as it does to MSPs.

The recommendations for the Parliament to draw up a voluntary code of conduct for lobbyists and to strengthen the relevant section of the code of conduct for members seem entirely sensible and practical.

The report sought the Executive's re-examination of the code of conduct for ministers with regard to the relationship between ministers and lobbyists. The Scottish ministerial code was comprehensively revised earlier this year—in February, I think—and now includes a new section on contact with commercial companies. However, as the convener of the Standards Committee also said, in the event that the Parliament approves the revised code of conduct, the Executive will amend the Scottish ministerial code when it is next revised to include a specific cross-reference to the new guidance on dealings with lobbyists in the code of conduct for MSPs.

The committee's report and recommendations are a substantial and important piece of work for which thanks are due from us all. I am pleased to record the Executive's thanks. I look forward to hearing the views of the Parliament on the committee's recommendations.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I was not on the Standards Committee when it started its deliberations into lobbying; I joined the committee more than a year later. Like all members, I was aware that a national newspaper had bounced the committee into conducting an inquiry into the so-called lobbygate affair before a proper discussion of lobbying could take place. Talk about being thrown in at the deep end. I commend all our colleagues who had to endure the full glare of media speculation while trying to conduct a serious inquiry. However, after all the hoo-hah, the committee settled down to its original intention of conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into lobbying.

As I said in the previous debate, our new Parliament tends to find itself hoist by Westminster's petard. The Standards Committee has been aware of the need to learn from Westminster—and, indeed, from throughout the world. The fact that we are a new Parliament means that we can learn from others' mistakes, as well as from their successes.

The committee presents its recommendations today, but we realise that some members may wish to dispute aspects of those recommendations. I, for one, sincerely hope that they will take the opportunity to do so, because we must all be involved in areas that affect our credibility in the eyes of the public, who, after all, elected us to represent them. I tell members from the horse's mouth that, for that reason, the Scottish National Party does not apply a whip on issues that involve standards.

Not least among the contentious issues will be the fact that the proposed statutory registration scheme is only for commercial lobbyists who work for a third party. Members should note that the committee does not ask for statutory regulation, although they may dispute the committee's view on that. On the evidence that the committee received, no difficulties seem to have been encountered between members and commercial lobbyists. We therefore opted not to recommend statutory regulation. However, ever mindful of public opinion—highlighted, I am afraid, by the lobbygate affair—we took the view that the Parliament's relationship with commercial lobbyists must be transparent and accountable. Hence our recommendation for a statutory registration scheme.

That argument apart, the most important of the committee's recommendations are the proposed changes to the code of conduct for MSPs and the voluntary code of conduct for all lobbyists. Colleagues should make no mistake: the committee is not taking an anti-lobbying stance. The Parliament should welcome lobbying. Members should think of the information that we have received over the past three and a half years from lobbyists. They should also think how much that information has done to inform our debates and our decision making. I used to serve on the Health and Community Care Committee. Without doubt, organisations that are defined as lobbyists made a valuable contribution towards the delivery of free personal care for the elderly in Scotland during that committee's inquiry into care in the community.

I ask that, whatever views are expressed in the debate, members acknowledge at all times the need for transparency and accountability in our dealings with lobbyists. I also ask that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water and that we acknowledge that, although there must be codes of conduct on both sides, the Parliament is better informed, more in touch with society and, in general, a more democratic organisation if it acknowledges the role that lobbying plays in the democratic process. I urge members to support the Standards Committee's motion.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As many members know, especially if they have looked at my register of interests, I come from a commercial world. I recall my first experience of being involved in a lobbying process, which was on an interesting trip to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We were trying to demonstrate to Europe the worth of the distribution system for prescription drugs. The purpose of the trip was as simple as that. We were not lobbying for one company alone, which I believe complied with the European Parliament's rules.

When we got to Strasbourg, we found that we were in a long corridor—there were six large halls, in each of which were food, drink, slide shows and presentations from different organisations. Instead of taking up Kay Ullrich's idea that the process is a great way of getting information, the wonderful members of the European Parliament seemed to have decided that they would have the first course with us, the second course with someone else and finish off with the wine at the presentation at the far end because that was the best menu selection that they could get.

I thought at the time that that was a cynical approach, but I realise that the members were making an excuse to drift through all four presentations. They were taking the opportunity to visit interest groups and pressure groups while they were giving up their time. With hindsight, I look at that situation and smile, because a benefit to everyone came out of it.

When I consider the quality of the lobbying that happens around the Scottish Parliament, I realise that we have a lot to be grateful for. Some of the companies merely facilitate. They do not come in and sell a line; they facilitate opportunities for speaking to people. I can think of occasions on which many members have shared a working dinner that was facilitated by one of the public affairs companies, sponsored perhaps by a drugs company, and at which key people who deliver an aspect of health care were present. Such dinners provide an opportunity and a safe working environment to get different points of view. That is an essential point, which has been picked up in annexe E of the committee's report.

As all speakers have said, it is an essential part of the democratic system that any individual should be able to lobby the Parliament or any of its members. That right should also apply to voluntary and charitable bodies, because many of them have general interests to pursue.

Lobbying is not only about seeking change or benefit. It is also about ensuring that MSPs and ministers are up to date with information. We live in a fast-moving world—knowledge moves extremely quickly. The Parliament is supposed to be about choices and we have a duty to ensure that we come to debates informed. We must do more than rely on the half-page summary sheet that some researcher has drawn up and that makes us world authorities. We must go out and speak to those who are delivering or trying to bring about change in our society.

Being in the Parliament is like living in a goldfish bowl. One of the Parliament's strengths is the easy and ready access. We can all moan about the piles of people who want to come and see us when it is a bad day, but everyone else has that problem, too. We should be proud and feel privileged that we are given the opportunity to be accessed by so many.

In some instances, statutory or compulsory registration schemes for lobbyists in other countries have failed. If that is the route that the Parliament decides it will follow, we must, whatever we do, make our scheme workable.

A commercial company's choice of lobbyist is based on the lobbying firm's track record. The perceived transparency in the actions of the firm generate respect. No minister will go anywhere near anyone who he thinks is not open, professional and transparent. I welcome Euan Robson's comments on that.

We have no evidence yet to prove that a commercial lobbyist has managed to pull the wool over a politician's eyes. Is that still to come? I do not think that any member has complained about someone trying to do that. It is my firm view that the Scottish people expect their politicians to be capable of not being conned by any lobbyist, be they an individual, an organisation or a commercial interest. Earlier this morning, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton talked about conscience. If personal conscience is applied to annexe E of the committee's report—in other words, if there is a rewrite of section 7 of the code of conduct—people will have a good set of guidelines. We have to take responsibility to ensure that we properly consider, and do not just buy or snatch at, the material that we receive from people who approach us.

Let me throw a point of discussion into the debate. Let us suppose that we institute a voluntary registration scheme and ask commercial lobbyists to join it. If, at the end of a year, there is evidence of transgression and a statutory scheme is introduced, with everyone aware of the rules, will the industry miss out on the opportunity to demonstrate its professionalism and integrity? I think not. We have to work with people who are involved in lobbying, many of whom facilitate rather than bring a single message.

I have seen the industry change since the establishment of the Parliament. In the early days, no one knew what to do or how to do it; now, there is a good understanding of the amount of time that MSPs have to spare and of the kind of information that is helpful to us and useful to the Parliament.

I am pleased that the Standards Committee has decided not to go down the route of statutory regulation, which tends to spring to politicians' minds too quickly. We sometimes think that we must get everything on to the statute book, although that often means that later we have to go back to unscramble it and sort out where different pieces of legislation overlap.

In annexe D of the committee's report, various bodies, including the Association of Professional Political Consultants and the Association for Scottish Public Affairs, propose codes of practice. I wonder whether some work could be done by the Parliament and those organisations to come up with a simple, jointly agreed code, rather than our each having our own code—although there may be professional reasons for that.

If we are to enact any legislation, we must do so only when it is complete. We must not rush it. We have seen rushed legislation in the chamber before. It is important that we get the ground rules of the operation of the Parliament in place at an early stage. We have come a long way from being at the mother's breast. Suddenly, we are crawling into the world. Now, we are expected to run. Rushing does not help anything.

I hope that we get the time to consider such a bill, although that puts the onus on the Executive. If we are to have a properly thought out code in place before the second Parliament is elected, with many new members, we must ask the Executive whether it is prepared to consider that such a bill is more important than some of the political legislation in its programme. It is far more important that the Parliament is in good order, as that will, in time, lead to good legislation and will help us win the respect of the people of Scotland. Not all of them put us here—not all of them voted. We need the people to have confidence in the Parliament. Is it not more important to pass a bill to that end and give it fair time than to pursue some of the political matters that could wait until after the election?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I look forward to Mr Davidson and the Conservatives giving up some of their Opposition debates in the chamber, which I think we all recognise are mostly a waste of our time. We could use that time to reassure the public that we are doing the right thing on standards.

Neither the committee's report nor its inquiry into lobbying was motivated by a perception of bad practice. In fact, our inquiry was reassuring and revealed high standards of behaviour from lobbyists and the lobbied alike. Lobbying is not only a legitimate activity; it is a desirable one. We do not want to put barriers in the way of any member of our society who wishes to make their views known to us. We are keen to establish a more open, transparent way of working. The rich and powerful already have no difficulty in making their views known. It should be clear to MSPs and the public who is talking to whom.

We in the Scottish Parliament are establishing a new way of working and a new and, I hope, more accessible approach to politics. I am particularly pleased that we are now setting an example for others on how to deal with lobbyists. The desire not to create barriers between the Parliament and those whom we represent, to encourage an open, understandable way of working and to set the highest standards of behaviour in public life underpins the committee's recommendations on lobbying. The committee is not only suggesting that we have a new code of conduct for all lobbyists; we want to establish the first ever statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists—those who provide professional lobbying services on behalf of third parties.

There will now be no doubt about who is lobbying the Parliament, but that does not mean putting in place disproportionate or onerous obligations and regulations, which might put small voluntary organisations or neighbourhood groups at a greater disadvantage than they already are.

I remind members that, ultimately, the greatest guarantor of appropriate behaviour on the part of lobbyists rests with us, the lobbied. The new, enhanced guidance for members is arguably the most important of the committee's recommendations. I urge members to read that guidance and to support the motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Before we move to the open part of the debate, I point out that Mr Davidson, Mr Macintosh and Mr Robson are all entitled to give closing speeches. If they wish to do so, they will need to press their request-to-speak buttons. I have received no requests to speak in the open part of the debate, so we now proceed to the closing round. I call Tricia Marwick.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am neither closing for the Scottish National Party, nor closing for the committee; I am speaking as an individual Standards Committee member, which is how I think it should be.

I have listened with interest to the brief, but beautifully formed, debate. It is important that we go back to 1999, when the Standards Committee hoped to set up an inquiry into all aspects of lobbying. The reason why lobbying was important to the committee and filled some of our early discussions was that we were aware that the Parliament was set up at a time when the institution of Westminster had been discredited over such issues as cash for questions. There was a great desire among the people of Scotland that the Parliament should be different. I am sure that I am not alone in recalling that one of the aspirations that was often cited during the referendum campaign and the 1999 election campaign was that the Scottish Parliament should be different from that lot down at Westminster.

That was the background to the initial discussions about standards and lobbying. At that point, as Kay Ullrich said, we found ourselves parachuted into an inquiry subsequently known as lobbygate. In the context of commercial lobbying organisations, it is important to remember what that inquiry was essentially about—a lobby company, Beattie Media, boasting to a potential client that it could deliver privileged access to ministers. The subsequent inquiry found that, on the evidence available, none of the ministers in question had transgressed. Why did that commercial lobbying organisation boast that it could offer privileged access? It made that boast because, if it had not, the client might have wondered what the point of employing the firm was.

I believe that lobbying is an essential part of the democratic process. Whether we are talking about the man who came to my office last week to lobby me about his concerns over fluoridation of the water supply or Help the Aged, Shelter Scotland and other voluntary organisations, they are all engaged in lobbying. As Kay Ullrich and others have said, the information that such bodies and individuals have provided has helped to inform debates in the Parliament. It has allowed us to make better legislation than we would otherwise have made.

Commercial lobbying organisations fall into a different category. They lobby for profit and engage with the Parliament and parliamentarians on behalf of third parties. During our inquiry, it became clear that the commercial lobbying companies were lobbying heavily to influence the thinking of the Standards Committee. The inquiry took a long time. We listened to commercial lobbying organisations, trade unions, representative organisations and individuals. We also consulted MSPs. The report is not a rush job. We have worked on the issue since 1999.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I did not intend to indicate that the committee had rushed the job. However, I want to ensure that any bill that is introduced to the Parliament is properly prepared and that there is adequate time for all concerned to consider it before it becomes law.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Committee bills are unique, because they originate with committees. We have proposed the establishment of an ad hoc committee to scrutinise the bill, as happened with the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. I anticipate that ad hoc committees will be set up to consider any future committee bills. That is the right and proper thing to do.

I agree with many aspects of the Standards Committee's report, but I would like to distance myself from some of it. That is why I am speaking as an individual in this debate.

I do not agree that a statutory registration scheme is enough or that the commercial lobbying organisations are being asked to give enough information. They are not being asked to detail the fees that they receive to lobby the Parliament on behalf of their clients. That is wrong—fees should be banded. I will lobby members of the Standards Committee and of future committees heavily on that issue.

My main difficulty is with the desire of the majority of committee members for a statutory registration scheme. Mike Rumbles, who knows a great deal about these matters, referred to such a scheme as the third way—somewhere between doing nothing and regulation. However, it is for us to propose regulations for the engagement of lobbying organisations with the Parliament. It is for us to regulate the activities of lobbying organisations, in the same way as we regulate the activities of MSPs through the code of conduct. I agree that the primary responsibility lies with MSPs. That is why I support the proposed changes to the code of conduct.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give way to the member in a minute. We have had these arguments before and will no doubt have them again.

I do not accept that commercial lobbying companies should be able to play fast and loose with the reputation of the Parliament, as Beattie Media did in 1999. The act by a commercial lobbying company of promising something that it did not and could not deliver harmed the Parliament's reputation, which is of paramount importance—it is far more important than the reputations of individual members and the commercial considerations of lobbying companies.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I do not want anyone who is not a member of the Standards Committee to get the wrong impression. Tricia Marwick makes a valid point and has argued her case consistently. However, the report reflects the unanimous view that the committee took when it signed off its report. For legitimate reasons, Tricia Marwick was unable to attend the meeting in question, but all the other members of the Standards Committee are 100 per cent behind the report.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that. The first Standards Committee meeting that I missed was the meeting at which the committee signed off a report about which I feel strongly. That was no one's fault—it was simply one of those things that happen. I accept that the unanimous view of the committee members who were present at the meeting was that we should opt for registration rather than regulation. I disagree with that view and will continue to argue my case in the future.

Having said that, I invite all members to support the motion. I look forward to contributing to the debate that will take place in future. Whatever happens, the system that has been proposed is robust. Whether we opt for registration or regulation, standards in this Parliament will be far higher than standards elsewhere. No other Parliament has proposed even a registration scheme. Such a scheme would be okay, but it would not go far enough. I will argue for regulation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am grateful to Tricia Marwick for clarifying that that was not a closing speech. The SNP is entitled to have one of its members make a closing speech, if it wishes. We are still in open debate.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I have again experienced the attraction and excitement of the Standards Committee. I am a former member of the committee and remember the lobbygate inquiry. I returned from a party conference in Bournemouth to attend the meeting of the Standards Committee at which we considered how we would respond to claims that had been made in a newspaper the previous Sunday.

My view, which I have expressed to the committee, is that to regulate or register commercial lobbyists is to confer undue status on them. I have listened to today's debate with interest. My remarks refer only to commercial lobbying organisations. Lobbying is a legitimate part of the parliamentary process. I prefer to think of it as advocacy on behalf of constituency organisations, trade unions or voluntary organisations. In a previous life I acted in that role, and I make no apology for saying that it is legitimate for trade unions and voluntary organisations to approach MSPs, MPs and councillors and to seek to make their views heard. The private sector, businesses and those who employ commercial lobbying organisations have the same right.

I was surprised when, shortly after my election to the Parliament, four lobbyists from a lobbying organisation that was acting on behalf of sportscotland approached the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—of which I was a member—to ask whether they could arrange a meeting between sportscotland and members of the committee. I did not understand why sportscotland was paying money to a commercial lobbying organisation to gain access to MSPs who are involved in regulating it. That does not happen anymore. Now representatives of sportscotland approach us directly and we meet them directly. That is the kind of culture that I would like us to develop in Scotland.

I am not convinced that the Standards Committee has done the right thing by recommending the registration of commercial lobbying organisations. Registration is a halfway house—it is neither one thing nor the other. It would not involve regulating lobbyists, so we would have little control over them. There would be few sanctions that we could use against them. We could deregister organisations, but what would that mean? If we are serious about controlling the activities of commercial lobbying organisations, we must opt for regulation.

In my view, registration or regulation would confer a status on commercial lobbying organisations that they do not deserve. The public would perceive such organisations as having something that they do not have. If lobbygate taught us anything, it is that people believe that commercial lobbying organisations have undue access to politicians. I do not believe that that is the case. The lobbygate inquiry found clearly that that was not the case in the Parliament. The person who had made, in a tape-recorded conversation, the claims that we were investigating could offer no evidence to substantiate them. He was unable to say why he had made them, except to secure financial gain for his company.

A halfway house may lead us to more problems in the future. Over the past three years, I have come round full circle to Tricia Marwick's view that, if it is the will of Parliament, we need to monitor and regulate commercial lobbying firms. Tricia and I have previously had vicious and difficult debates in the Standards Committee, but if the Parliament is going to do something, rather than getting caught in the middle we should go the full hog. We need to make the system right and ensure that it is enforceable. It must be worth something to the people of Scotland.

I shall therefore watch the debate with interest and I will certainly contribute in the future.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We come to the closing speeches. I think that Mr Davidson has taken me up on my offer.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I shall be brief, Presiding Officer.

Some interesting points have been made in the debate, in particular in the latter stages, when some personal contributions have shown that there is a little unease in some areas of the Parliament. Unlike Karen Gillon, who has seen the hard work that goes on in the Standards Committee, I have not had the privilege of being a member of the committee. Karen Gillon was there in the early days, when the committee had to move in and decide how to deal with what was becoming a problem.

It was interesting that sportscotland, which as Karen Gillon pointed out is accountable to the Parliament, took advice on how to lobby. I see nothing wrong with that, because many people do not have the necessary skills for presenting their case. Perhaps what is required is the hiring and firing of a chief executive or a marketing director, but that is for the organisation itself.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Surely to goodness, if the people who work for sportscotland do not have the ability to talk one-to-one with MSPs to tell us what they are doing to promote sport and to improve people's involvement with sport in Scotland, they should not be there in the first place.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As I said, whether the chief executive or whoever is up to the job is for somebody else to decide. I am simply saying that many people need help with lobbying.

Karen Gillon also said that she did not want an uneven playing field with the professional commercial bodies on one side and the active charitable and voluntary sector bodies on the other. Many people who work for charities and so on need to know how to present their case. That does not mean to say that the lobbyist needs to hold their hand and front everything, but many people take advice because that is a cost-effective way for them to work.

All that I am saying is that anybody can come to the Parliament, but some may need advice on how to do that. I have no objections about whether they get that advice on a good-will basis from a friend or from a former teacher who was in the field or whatever, but I am concerned about this rush to regulation, which would continually need to be amended to take account of new situations.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am getting a little concerned at some members' contributions. Despite Tricia Marwick's genuine comments, the report has nothing to do with regulation. It recommends registration because that would provide transparency and would not confer any special status on those who lobby through a third party.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thoroughly agree with Mike Rumbles on that. I have no difficulty with that, but I wanted to respond to an issue that was brought into the debate.

I found it amazing that there should be any difference between the ministerial code of conduct and the code of conduct for MSPs. Although I understand that people will not necessarily come through MSPs to get to ministers, we are basically all in this together. I am delighted at Euan Robson's earlier comments that ministers will seek to standardise the way that we work across the Parliament so that we have the same standards of transparency for all activities.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Earlier, I offered Mr Robson the opportunity of making a closing speech. I think that he now wishes to do so.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will be brief.

Ministers are of course MSPs to start with. There was no omission from the ministerial code, but we will simply need to cross-reference the ministerial code with any new developments. We have given full assurances to the Standards Committee about that.

I do not want the impression to be given that there is somehow a yawning gap in the ministerial code. The code will be cross-referenced with and brought into line with the suggested code of conduct for MSPs. I re-emphasise that ministers cannot be anything other than MSPs to start with. Ministers are already covered because they are MSPs.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I thank colleagues for their comments during this morning's lively debate. In particular, I wish to thank the clerks of the Standards Committee for the excellence and dedicated professionalism that has been the hallmark of their work throughout.

Kay Ullrich mentioned lobbygate, which arose before detailed machinery for investigating complaints had been put in place. Happily, that is not the position today. At that time, there were concerns that, in the absence of clear rules, commercial lobbying should not take place with MSPs for an interested purpose or purposes.

Both Tricia Marwick and Karen Gillon have said clearly this morning that they would like to go further than the committee suggests. We need to strike a balance. Although those members would like us to go further, we are obviously going much further than a great many of the commercial lobbyists would like. In due course, we will need to review how our policies are working in the light of experience.

If I may respond to the point that was made about regulation, countries that have regulation are required to review and update the regulations every few years because of changing circumstances. That would be a complex, detailed and cumbersome process. I mention that in passing.

During lobbygate, there was a fear that, in the absence of clear rules, MSPs could be approached by commercial lobbyists in such a way as to give rise to possible charges of impropriety against MSPs. That gave rise to unease. When one commercial lobbyist approached me, I replied somewhat bluntly, "I prefer to deal with constituents directly". I never saw that commercial lobbyist again and that was the end of the matter.

However, we must recognise that much lobbying is legitimate and healthy and central to the democratic process. It is a sign that Parliament is engaging with civic Scotland. In the Parliament's first few years, much of its energy has rightly been directed at securing increased participation in the political process.

Our inquiry showed much about the lobbying landscape in the Parliament. For example, our MSP survey found that 98 per cent of respondents had been lobbied by voluntary organisations and charities. We also found that 49 per cent had been approached by commercial lobbyists. Of those, some 87 per cent stated that it had always been made abundantly clear from the outset on whose behalf the firm was acting.

Many respondents emphasised the knowledge and experience that the many and varied interest groups that engage with MSPs bring to the democratic process. However, some respondents sounded a cautionary note. They pointed out that there is a danger that some of the more powerful pressure and interest groups could dominate the democratic process. In that context, it is important that nobody should be discouraged from participating in the democratic process.

Respondents emphasised the need for transparency in the way in which commercial lobbyists deal with MSPs, as was highlighted by Kay Ullrich. That imperative has driven our recommendations.

The written and oral evidence that we received generally painted a positive picture of an open and accessible Parliament, but we cannot be complacent. Although the Parliament's website is seen as a powerful resource, some concern exists about how we can engage with groups and individuals that are without access to the internet. Those and other issues are being examined in the Procedures Committee's CSG inquiry. Presiding Officer, we very much look forward to your committee's eventual report.

The Standards Committee's inquiry into lobbying has been underpinned by the principles of transparency and openness. Our recommendations would in no way restrict the commercial lobbyist from going about his or her business.

We have always stated—and indeed the Standards Committee convener has restated this morning—that lobbying is part and parcel of the legislative process and a legitimate activity in which to be engaged. Similarly, from an outside perspective, what we propose in our report would not hide lobbying activity behind closed doors, but would bring it out into the light of day to be scrutinised by a wider public.

I make it clear that the recommendation in paragraph 83 of the committee's report, which recommends a statutory registration scheme, would require legislation, but that the recommendation in paragraph 84, which seeks a voluntary code for lobbyists, could, I understand, proceed more quickly, as it is a voluntary code and there is no reason why it should be unnecessarily delayed.

As we have already heard, two key recommendations flow from the report. First are the changes to the members' code of conduct, which are set out in annexe E of the report. We are asking the Parliament to agree to incorporate those changes to the code with immediate effect. The changes are intended to buttress the existing provisions in section 7 of the code. They clarify the current rules and emphasise the need for transparency in our dealings with lobbyists. The additions also provide practical advice for members, which will make certain that we continue to engage with lobbyists in an appropriate manner.

Secondly, the report also recommends the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists. I acknowledge that David Davidson queried that policy. It is, of course, a radical proposal. If the scheme were to be enacted, it would be the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. Some observers have suggested that such a scheme would create a perception of preferential access for commercial lobbyists, or that other organisations or individuals might be deterred from engaging with MSPs. That is neither the intention nor a plausible outcome The code is explicit in that regard. All lobbyists, be they individuals, interest groups or commercial lobbyists acting on behalf of a third party, must have equal access to members. Any allegations of preferential treatment for commercial lobbyists will be treated seriously by the Standards Committee. The scheme will not deter individuals or groups from engaging with the Parliament. The scheme is restricted to commercial lobbyists acting for third parties.

Our decision to exclude in-house lobbyists from the proposed scheme has attracted considerable comment. While a number of written submissions criticised their exclusion, we believe that the transparency issue does not arise for members when dealing with in-house lobbyists. There is a clear distinction between organisations that lobby on their own behalf and those that lobby on behalf of third parties in return for payment. If a parliamentary officer from a company contacts an MSP concerning an issue, it is quite clear whose interest he or she is representing.

Finally, I wish to touch on our recommendations on the Scottish ministerial code. During our inquiry, we heard evidence that a significant proportion of lobbying activity is directed towards the Executive. That is hardly surprising, given the policy-making role of ministers and civil servants.

We therefore made two recommendations in relation to the Executive. First, we suggested that the Executive considers extending any subsequent statutory registration scheme to cover the relationships between ministers, civil servants and commercial lobbyists. Secondly, we reiterated our recommendation—first voiced in November 1999—that the Scottish ministerial code should be re-examined by the First Minister to make certain that it has adequate guidance for ministers dealing with lobbyists. After all, it has to be appreciated that ministers are also MSPs. I am pleased that the Executive has responded positively to both those suggestions.

The report that we have debated this morning represents the considered findings of a wide-ranging inquiry. The fine tuning of section 7 of the code of conduct that we are asking the Parliament to endorse will not only give greater clarity to members about their obligations when dealing with lobbyists, but it will give practical advice that will assist members. The purpose of a statutory registration scheme is to enable all concerned to know who is and is not a commercial lobbyist, so that MSPs should know exactly who and what they are dealing with. Our recommendation for the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists does not represent a knee-jerk reaction, but should be seen as a positive step towards fulfilling this Parliament's commitment to transparency, openness and probity. I commend the motion to colleagues.

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We move to the next item of business, which is consideration of the business motion S1M-3451, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 9 October 2002 2:30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Ministerial Statement on National Debate on Education followed by Executive Debate on the Future of Air Transport in Scotland followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3419 Michael Matheson: Closure of Prison Officers' Social Club at HM Prison Polmont Thursday 10 October 2002 9:30 am Justice 1 Committee Debate on its 6th Report 2002 on the Prison Estates Review followed by Transport and the Environment Committee Debate on its 4th Report 2002 on Petition PE327 by the Blairingone and Saline Action Group on Organic Waste Spread on Land followed by Procedures Committee Motion on its 4th Report 2002 on Changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Debate on Closing the Opportunity Gap followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3407 Rhoda Grant: European Capital of Culture Bid - Inverness Highland 2008 Wednesday 30 October 2002 2:30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3388 Kenny MacAskill: 50th Anniversary of the Nordic Council Thursday 31 October 2002 9:30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Stage 1 Debate on Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in Respect of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and (b) that Stage 1 of the Building (Scotland) Bill be completed by 6 December 2002 and that the date for completion of Stage 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill be extended to 6 November 2002.— [Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I apologise to the school party that arrived at two minutes past 12.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is Airdrie Academy.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I would not dare to suggest whether their four-minute exposure to the debate makes them the luckiest or unluckiest school party to visit, but business is closing early.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to protect vulnerable and at risk children. (S1O-5709)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Current measures include the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill and the review of child protection, which will report shortly.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the minister for her answer. Shortcomings in the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill have been identified. In particular, the bill does not cover the voluntary sector. What steps can be taken to ensure that children who are subject to services that the voluntary sector provides have the safety and security that they deserve?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The member will be aware that earlier this week we launched a parental checklist that encourages parents to ask a series of questions before children and young people take part in clubs and organisations. Of course the vast majority of clubs and organisations are run well and have committed volunteers, but parents will want reassurance and it is important that the voluntary sector has child-protection policies in place. We will continue to consider the matter.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that, in evidence to the justice committees yesterday, Jim Wallace declared that, according to the advisory committee report on secure accommodation, there was no evidence to suggest that there was a shortage of such accommodation, even across her portfolio? Given that, according to the minister's leaked documents, it is now clear that the 25 additional places have been filled, will she confirm that no vulnerable children are waiting for secure accommodation?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We made a clear announcement that we want to reconfigure the secure estate to take account of the needs of young people who are there for their own care and protection as well as the needs of those who are there because of offending behaviour. That is part of our policy. That is what we will continue to implement and I believe that it is the correct course of action.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Minister for Social Justice last met Fife Council to discuss homelessness. (S1O-5686)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have not recently discussed homelessness with representatives of Fife Council.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am disappointed to learn that. The number of homelessness applications in Fife has risen 49.2 per cent since Labour came to power more than five years ago, promising, in the words of Mr Blair, to end the scandal of homelessness. Is the minister satisfied with that record?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Executive would expect there to be an increase in the number of applications as awareness of local authority homelessness services increases and as we work towards full implementation of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. As we further extend the rights of homeless people, we expect there to be more pressure on the services. We are determined to tackle the root causes of homelessness, which is more than a housing problem, rather than carry out a simple statistical exercise.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to reduce the risk of meningitis. (S1O-5668)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Immunisation, which provides effective protection against some forms of meningitis both for individuals and for society as a whole, is offered routinely as part of the childhood immunisation programme. Immunisation against meningitis C now covers everyone up to 25 years of age. The Executive also funds and will fund voluntary sector activity to raise awareness of meningitis and provide support for sufferers.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

What is the Executive doing specifically to raise awareness of the fact, which the Meningitis Trust raised in a campaign this week, that adults, too, can get meningitis and that 25 per cent of meningitis cases last year were adults? Some 90 per cent of adults are not aware that they can get meningitis. At this time of freshers going to university and college, will the minister do what he can to raise awareness throughout Scotland?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I share the concern that Margaret Smith raised and indicate that we are concerned that the proportion of adults among those who suffer from meningitis has increased, although the number of adults with meningitis has decreased. I am happy to work with organisations on meningitis and campaign to ensure that public awareness is increased. I would welcome the member's views on how to progress with that.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will follow on from the minister's first answer, in which he said that all students would be pulled into the scheme. How many students are inoculated against meningitis? Has the Government's programme been a success or a failure?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I said that the opportunity for immunisation was available to everyone up to the age of 25. I would consider David Davidson to be a mature student—perhaps we are not able to cover the age profile into which he fits. I do not have the statistics on the specific point that he raised in front of me, but I would be happy to write to him about that. We are working in partnership with agencies to ensure that adults are aware that the programme may apply to them and that they should consider taking up whatever immunisation is available to them.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that the principles of the national waste strategy are adhered to by local authorities. (S1O-5688)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We will provide support to authorities from the strategic waste fund only for schemes that are in line with approved area waste plans. Those plans will only be approved if they have followed the principles in the national waste strategy. We also plan to take a power in the Local Government in Scotland Bill to allow ministers to set statutory targets and to require authorities to prepare integrated waste management plans to meet those targets.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for his answer. For his part, will he give a commitment not to overturn decisions by local planning authorities to reject large-scale waste management centres, such as those that are proposed for Killoch in East Ayrshire and Westfield in Fife, given that those proposals are not consistent with the principles of the national waste strategy?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

It would be wholly inappropriate for me to give commitments in relation to planning matters, particularly as I have not been involved in those proposals. It will be important that those developments—or any similar developments—are shown to fit the best practical environmental option for dealing with waste, so that we may consider them in the context of the national waste strategy and determine whether they qualify for financial support.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Given the huge success of small-scale recycling projects, such as the new project in Golspie, Campbeltown Waste Watchers Ltd and the waste collections in central Scotland that are organised by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, what proportion of the Executive's funding is destined to support waste minimisation and small-scale recycling projects?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As Robin Harper is aware, the entire national waste strategy enshrines a hierarchy as its first principle, at the top of which is waste minimisation and reuse. We have not allocated specific sums, but it is quite clear that we can deliver that national waste strategy only as long as we address each element in that hierarchy.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Does the minister intend to give the Scottish Environment Protection Agency additional powers to ban landfilling of specific types of waste and to direct waste producers to dispose of their waste by a particular route or process?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not think that we have plans to give such powers or directions. There is no question but that we are looking at the regulations on landfill, as there is an issue to do with whether the proximity principle is being properly adhered to. We are consulting on that matter and I hope that the outcome will address some of the issues raised by John Scott.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I think that the minister said in reply to Adam Ingram's first question that the Executive means to require local authorities to adopt adequate and suitable waste management policies. Is he willing to require Midlothian Council to act on the planning permission that has already been granted to a company for what I am told is a proposed high-tech waste management scheme? In co-operation with the City of Edinburgh Council, that scheme might kills two birds with one stone: it would give Midlothian an adequate treatment centre and Edinburgh access to something other than the proposed landfill into which Midlothian would otherwise have to put its waste.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As a minister with some responsibility for wildlife, I am never keen to kill birds with stones.

Midlothian Council and other authorities have voluntarily entered into agreements for the area waste plans. It is imperative that they deliver on those agreements. If the proposal to which the member refers meets the guidelines, there is no reason why Midlothian Council should not proceed on that basis.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent action it has taken to encourage closing the pay gap between men and women. (S1O-5662)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Last year, the Executive launched a major campaign—"Close the Gap"—to raise awareness about the pay gap between men and women. This year, through the EQUAL Community initiative, our development partnership secured nearly £500,000 of European money to help us to achieve that. On 24 September, I addressed a conference that was hosted jointly by the Scottish Executive and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was aimed at alerting employers, trade unions and advocacy agencies to their rights and responsibilities in tackling the pay gap.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Does the minister agree that in spite of the introduction of equal pay legislation in 1970, women are still not able to fulfil their earnings potential and are under-represented in managerial positions in all levels of local government, the civil service and the private sector? What steps is the Executive taking to set targets to eliminate such iniquitous discrimination?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I totally accept the premise that legislation is not enough to tackle the pay gap between women and men. We recognise that women are not properly valued in the work force, in relation both to pay and opportunities. The Executive has strong targets for promoting women at all levels in the civil service. I will provide the member with the relevant details. I give the Parliament the categorical assurance that I will be happy to champion the rights of women in the Executive to ensure that they are properly valued.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is the minister aware that, since Labour came to power, the pay gap between men and women in Scotland and men and women south of the border has widened? Will she tell us why the gap is widening and will she name one policy that will go some way to closing the gap?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

It is most disappointing that when we are discussing gender issues and the promotion of women the Scottish National Party has again raised a constitutional issue. The fundamental approach to tackling pay inequality is to understand why such divisions exist within the work force and why there is a segregation in relation to work and the value of women's work. Obtaining such understanding will enable us to find the solutions to the pay gap problem. That is what the Executive will do and that is how we will narrow the gap between women and men.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister use the fact that significant numbers of women are the main or sole breadwinners in their families to promote pay audits?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Yes. Much of the Executive's work involves the promotion of pay audits. We have been talking to the public sector and the private sector to ensure that pay audits are promoted. We think that there is indirect discrimination against women, particularly those who are lone parents and who have such serious responsibilities. Through that process, we hope to increase significantly the earning power of women.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is ensuring that all parts of Scotland benefit from the spending review 2002. (S1O-5697)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The spending review created a budget for all Scotland. In providing for the long term, its focus was on growth and opportunity for all Scotland's people.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

The minister will be aware of the development of plans for a modern transport system in Aberdeen. The largest part of that integrated transport plan is the western peripheral route, which will provide a bypass for Aberdeen. The western peripheral route, together with proposals for the Aberdeen crossrail project and a park and ride system round the city, make up the main elements of the modern transport system. Will the minister clarify how the extra resources in the spending review might assist with that?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Elaine Thomson has been assiduous in lobbying transport ministers and finance ministers about the transport needs of Aberdeen. We acknowledge that much work needs to be done in Aberdeen.

In relation to spending review funding for the western peripheral route, the member will be aware that we are awaiting the results of a study that is taking place. We will study those results and the value-for-money case. I assure the member that the Scottish budget contains sufficient resources to make the necessary progress on the road in question during the spending review period.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I refer the minister to the announcement that the First Minister made on "Newsnight Scotland" two nights ago, in which he stated his intention soon to announce additional measures to tackle depopulation, which was highlighted in the census report on Monday. Have those additional measures already been costed and included in the spending review and, if so, under what budget do they appear?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Alex Neil is aware that the spending review has been greeted warmly by the business community in Scotland and by most sectors of the Scottish community, because it provides for growth and opportunity. The challenge of tackling population decline in Scotland is essentially about stimulating the economy. That is why we have taken so much care with the spending review and the Scottish budget to provide for new transport links, better education, better training and better skills development and to reduce the taxation burden on businesses. That will result in the growth of the Scottish population.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

When the minister considers how he will distribute his largesse, will he consider the position of the health service in Grampian? Famously, it contributes 10 per cent of the activity of the entire health service in Scotland, but does so on only 9 per cent of the resources.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We have seen health spending grow dramatically in the Scottish budget—far more than would ever be possible under any policy of any other party in the chamber. Health spending will rise to more than £8 billion. In recent years, we have had reviews of the distribution of health cash through the Arbuthnott formula. Rural parts of Scotland in particular have benefited and Grampian has benefited from the growth in the available funds.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The minister—living in the Highlands as he does—will understand that I am much bothered by the fact that doctors and dentists are resigning from their posts in Caithness. Indeed, the accident and emergency service in Thurso is suspended at present. Does the minister agree that all agencies, including the Scottish Executive, must get together to work out the situation and bring it to a stop as soon as it is humanly possible?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Again, I am aware that my colleagues in the health department are conscious of the particular problems of recruiting staff in the Highlands. My colleagues will work with whomever necessary to find solutions to those problems. The health budget in the Highlands is growing by more than 7 per cent in the year in question. That provides new opportunities and more money is coming into the Highlands through the Arbuthnott formula changes, which will provide the flexibility to consider how those resources can be spent.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to protect the rights of children and adolescents under the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. (S1O-5700)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Children or adolescents who might be subject to measures of compulsory care and treatment will be entitled to the same protections as the bill provides for other patients. Other specific provisions in the bill, for example, particular treatments and education, will bring additional safeguards and benefits for children.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Of the 30 children and adolescents who were admitted to hospital under section in 2001, 21 were placed in sometimes highly disturbed adult environments. Given the Millan committee recommendations that all children and adolescents should be treated in age-appropriate environments, and Bruce Millan's recent evidence to the Health and Community Care Committee that he would welcome a duty to that effect being placed on health boards and local authorities, why is such a duty not in the bill? Why does the Executive seem to be resisting the important recommendations of the Millan committee?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The Executive recognises the concerns about the inappropriate placing of children. That is why a national review is being carried out by the Scottish needs assessment programme to examine the organisation and housing of such children. However, the recommendation that a specific duty should be placed on the health service will not be accepted at the moment because we believe that that goes beyond the general duty of the Executive to support the national health service. We will continue to consider whether benefits can be drawn from such a duty.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the national review take account of the declining number of in-patient beds and the increase in the incidence of mental health problems in the under-16 age group, which means that more children and young people are treated in inappropriate adult psychiatric settings? Is there not a compelling argument for putting a duty on health boards to provide appropriate treatment facilities for children and young people? Otherwise, that practice will continue.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The argument cannot revolve around the number of beds alone. The question is about providing the appropriate treatment and support for each of those children. Given that the review is on-going, it is important that we listen to the findings of the review and respond to them appropriately.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the minister accept that one in 10 children under the age of 16 is said to suffer from a mental illness severe enough to affect their daily functioning? The World Health Organisation estimates that that figure will rise to one in five by 2020. Does the Executive accept that it is wholly inappropriate that any child or young person should be treated in an adult in-patient psychiatric setting?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

As I said, it is essential that we provide the most appropriate setting for children, whether that is residential or supported within the community. The review will assist us in deciding how and where that should be provided. Once that has been done, we will take further decisions.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the proposed Glasgow housing stock transfer will take place on 28 November 2002. (S1O-5701)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Executive has always made it clear that the aim is for the transfer to be concluded by the end of the year. The transfer will deliver real and lasting change for the tenants of Glasgow.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for her rather evasive reply. Will she advise us whether the Scottish Executive intends to provide any additional funding to the Glasgow Housing Association to meet its targets? If so, how much will there be and from which budgets will the money come? Will she explain whether the delay in delivering the Glasgow transfer is the reason why tenants in Glasgow will have to wait two years longer than tenants elsewhere in Scotland for completion of the central heating programme, as outlined in the fuel poverty statement? Given that the date of transfer was a promise made to tenants that will now be broken, will she tell us what other promises will not be kept?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Executive will, as ever, always honour the promises that it makes. I was most struck by the SNP's response to my answer to Mr Gibson's first question, because it goes to the heart of the confusion that exists among SNP members over whether they support the radical proposal for investment for tenants in Glasgow. Some of them seem to support it as Kenny Gibson has in the past and others, such as Sandra White, appear not to.

We will work to honour the decision of the tenants of Glasgow and to make the transfer work. The financial framework that underpins the process is absolutely robust. We will move according to the timetable to deliver sustained investment for the tenants of Glasgow. The SNP could never have dreamed of a policy that would deliver that for tenants.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we go further, I remind members that the question is about the date of the transfer and not about the general policy.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware that there is concern that is growing into genuine anxiety that those deadlines will not be met? Can she give us a description of some of the tangible measures that she is taking to ensure that the deadline is met?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Is nagging a tangible measure?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In the minister's case, it most certainly is.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I do myself a disservice—that was an assertive intervention.

I assure Mr Aitken that I appreciate that the proposal has been to the fore of Glasgow tenants' minds. It is a serious proposal and we must ensure that it delivers. I will always listen to tenants' genuine concerns about the matter, rather than to party politicking, which undermines the process. I assure members that all efforts are being made to ensure that the policy will deliver as soon as possible for the tenants of Glasgow.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I note that the minister has still not given a firm date. She is now saying that the transfer will be concluded by the end of the year. She will recall that the scheme was first launched formally by Wendy Alexander in April 2000. Since then, the dates for ballots have changed constantly; in fact, the Glasgow housing stock transfer has had more political dates than Edwina Currie. Will the minister please admit that the privatisation of Glasgow council houses and the sell-off to the private sector is simply not working?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have just been advised by my colleague Jim Wallace that I should tell Dorothy-Grace Elder that the housing stock transfer is indeed a major policy for the Scottish Executive. [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

In addressing Dorothy-Grace Elder's serious comments, I would like to make a correction: Calum MacDonald was the first minister to pursue the policy. I reassure members that we are moving forward on the development of the proposal. We have strong financial interests and the package is about to go to funders. When the lead funder is appointed, we will move to transfer. That is imminent. It is in the very near future.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making with the expansion of new community schools. (S1O-5714)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

On 30 September, Cathy Jamieson, the Minister for Education and Young People, and Mary Mulligan, the Deputy Minister for Heath and Community Care, announced additional funding of £21.5 million in 2004-05, rising to £25.8 million in 2005-06, to support the roll-out of the community school approach to every school in Scotland.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the minister deal with the large number of complaints that I have received from parents in connection with the public-private partnership in Glasgow and the fact that that partnership has not been rolled out to the primary school sector? Will he ensure that we deliver community schools in Glasgow and assure me that the successful public-private partnership in Glasgow will be rolled out to other sectors in Glasgow, including primary schools and community schools?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

On public-private partnerships, we announced more than £1 billion of new investment earlier this summer, which will ensure the building of new primary schools as well as secondary schools throughout Scotland. So far, Glasgow City Council—in contrast with other authorities—has chosen to focus only on its secondary schools. The same is true of the initiative that it has taken on new community schools.

I think that I have all my documents with me. I can tell members that, for 2004-05, Glasgow received more than £1.75 million of additional funding for new community schools. For 2005-06, there will be more than £2,350,000 of additional funding. Such funding will allow investment in every primary and secondary school in Glasgow.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Is the minister aware of the problems that are being experienced by amateur sports clubs in gaining access to community facilities in schools in the Falkirk area as a result of the prohibitive charges that are being levied by the private finance initiative company that built and owns the schools? Will the Executive ensure that community schools belong to and are accessible to communities, rather than follow Tony Blair's inane suggestion that people do not care who builds and owns schools?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am—as all members are—concerned about making certain that there is community access to new PPP schools and, indeed, to every school that is built in Scotland. Too few schools in Scotland offer high-quality community access. Most—indeed, virtually all at the moment—that do are owned by local authorities. There are examples of lack of access that I would like to turn around. Community access being allowed is central to getting new investment right both in PPP schools and in schools that are built using traditional capital funding initiatives. We should ensure that there is an expansion of community access and that new schools have not only excellent traditional classroom facilities, but excellent drama, music and sporting facilities to which young people and local communities can obtain access.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what stage the discussions with the lead agency for the redevelopment of Waverley railway station have reached. (S1O-5703)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

A steering group that is chaired by the Strategic Rail Authority and includes the Scottish Executive is overseeing the necessary preliminary work required to inform the final design of the station. Output from that work is expected in spring 2003.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The minister will know that a number of people are anxious to know the plan for Waverley station, given its strategic importance to transport in Scotland. Does the Executive have a timetable for the redevelopment of the station? Is it in a position to order that timetable? If it is not, who is?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Because of the station's strategic importance to the rail network, the lead agency on its redevelopment is the SRA, but the Executive has shown leadership recently by providing £1 million for the technical work that is necessary to develop the plans. In the real world, there must be a plan before we can progress. That work and 35 other pieces of technical investigation are now under way. I see no reason why, if we progress properly, Waverley cannot be redeveloped by 2008. There is no reason why we should not progress properly.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

On this day of the establishment of Network Rail—the replacement for the failed Railtrack—will the minister give his commitment that he will, with that not-for-profit company, the Strategic Rail Authority and the UK Government, do everything in his power to keep the Waverley station project on track, on time and to a standard that people in Edinburgh and throughout the UK require of the development of the Government's aspirations for our railway network?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Sarah Boyack has a well-known interest in Waverley station, which is in her constituency. Her Westminster counterpart for Edinburgh Central has some interest in the matter, too. The subject has been important in my discussions with him recently.

One problem in the redevelopment of our rail network is that we continue to deal with the botched privatisation that took place under the Tories. Today's announcement that Network Rail takes over from Railtrack is a significant step forward. I expect that to have positive consequences for developments at Waverley station.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase the number of new community schools. (S1O-5669)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive is committed to rolling out the new community school approach to every school in Scotland by 2007.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the minister join me in welcoming the recent introduction of the community school approach at Petersburn Primary School in my constituency? Does he agree that community schools can play an important part in building social capital in Scotland's communities?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am happy to welcome what has been done in North Lanarkshire. It is interesting to contrast Karen Whitefield's question with Paul Martin's earlier question. North Lanarkshire chose to focus the new community school approach exclusively on its primary schools and will roll out the programme to its secondary schools in the coming years.

New community schools are about more than providing a room or an office for a social worker and for a member of health board or health department staff. They are about a school's ethos and spirit and its links with the community and they are about focusing on the needs of individual children and bringing services to a school. Before community schools, children and parents had to track round parts of the community to access those services. That spirit and that ethos are important—that links to Dennis Canavan's question. When we do not get that right, we must ensure that we tackle the problem and make new community schools meaningful to every community.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I welcome the minister's comment. To ensure that new community schools work, will the minister establish realistic monitoring and evaluation that involves the stakeholders and the parents who use the schools, in order to ensure that money is spent on creating not only new schools, but new community schools?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Yes; that is one of our concerns. Full monitoring of the phase 1 projects will not be available until 2003, so we have worked hard to pull forward information from the early-stage monitoring to ensure that we have good access to quality information about the new community school initiatives that make the greatest difference. It is vital that parents and young people are involved in that.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it gives to rural post offices to expand the public services that they offer. (S1O-5676)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Consignia, post offices and postal service matters are reserved, and direct support to post offices is a matter for the UK Government. The Scottish Executive is encouraging rural post offices to participate in its public internet access point initiative.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of the performance and innovation unit report that said that some aspects of the programmes for rural post offices were the responsibility of the devolved Governments. Will the minister explain the delays in rolling out the "Your Guide" programme and in access to internet learning, which are causing considerable concern among sub-postmasters in rural areas throughout Scotland?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As the member knows, the Department of Trade and Industry published an evaluation report on the proof of concept pilot, but as the member said, no announcement has been made.

The Scottish Executive has been in close contact with the DTI and Consignia about "Your Guide". The public internet access point initiative, to which I referred in my earlier reply, offers the opportunity to establish 1,000 new venues throughout Scotland where people can get cheap, easy access to the web and all its services. I suggest that that would be an admirable way for rural post offices to compete in an industry that is changing both globally and in the nature of its competitiveness.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

How can post offices be expected to compete on services such as the payment of tax credits when the credit transfer application form asks only for bank account details? Is not it time that those application forms also asked for post office payment details? Will the minister liaise with his colleagues south of the border to ensure that the post office option is given equal prominence to direct bank payments?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The short answer to the question is yes. I am happy to liaise with colleagues south of the border on those matters. As I said, we are committed to a high-quality, universal postal service that can compete and thrive in a world of technological change. We are investing massive sums of money—£270 million to sustain the rural network and £480 million to automate it—so it is very important that the Post Office give its customers and consumers the service that they want and that they can take full advantage of that service. It is not enough only to invest; we must ensure that the service to the consumer is of the required standard. I am happy to make representations to the DTI.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister do more than liaise? Will he have a quiet word with his friends in the United Kingdom Labour Government whose policies are decimating the incomes of our sub post-masters, not only in rural sub-post offices, but in suburban and urban sub-post offices? Will he take a more proactive stance in ensuring that "Your Guide" is rolled out much more widely? As my colleague from the Mid Scotland and Fife constituency rightly said, we will otherwise see sub-post offices close and sub-postmasters thrown out of work.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I have been in touch with colleagues south of the border to discuss those very matters. I met Douglas Alexander and I propose to meet Stephen Timms. However, I did not discuss Mr Raffan's assertion that the incomes of sub-postmasters have depreciated under Labour. In fact, the decline in the closures of post offices that was instigated by the Tories has been halted by Labour. The Tories would not invest in the Post Office because they did not believe in it. The nationalists cannot invest in the Post Office because of the black hole in their fiscal finances. Only the Labour Government can and will invest in the future of the Post Office.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 13 is withdrawn.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it intends to take to improve the disposable income of those households in Glasgow currently living in poverty. (S1O-5699)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Supplementary to UK-wide tax and benefit changes, a number of measures are already in place to improve the disposable income of low-income households in Glasgow. Those measures include: supporting older people with free personal and nursing care; free off-peak local travel for pensioners; tackling fuel poverty through the central heating programme and the warm deal; tackling financial exclusion by improving access to credit and other financial services through credit unions; and helping young people stay on at school or college through educational maintenance allowances. All those measures will contribute to closing the opportunity gap for Glasgow's poorest citizens.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The level of poverty in Glasgow is shameful. I want to address child poverty in Scotland. I ask the minister to respond on a point that was made by his previous incumbent, Jackie Baillie, on 15 November 2000. In reply to a question about how she measured poverty in Scotland, she said:

"The main measure on which we base our findings is 60 per cent of median income".—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol 9, c 16.]

According to the latest statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions, child poverty in Scotland in the period between 1999-2000 and 2000-20001 rose from 29 per cent to 30 per cent.

David (None, Lothians)

The member must ask a question.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

That means that 27,624 more children are now living in poverty under the Executive. Is the minister ashamed of that? Will he apologise for failing those children?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Executive recognises that more needs to be done to reduce child poverty; indeed, our spending plan commitments will make inroads into that problem. However, we will tackle the issue in partnership with the UK Government, which has a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who are passionately committed to that aim. I point out that there have been steep falls in child poverty from 34 per cent in 1997 to 21 per cent in 2001. As I have said, we recognise that more needs to be done. Everything that the Executive has done indicates that it takes the situation seriously.

First Minister's Question Time

David (None, Lothians)

We move to First Minister's questions. I call John Swinney.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Come on, John. Release your potential. [Laughter.]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is happening, and it will happen on 1 May 2003. [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Let us settle down.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-2151)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have met the secretary of state on a number of occasions over the past week and we have had very interesting discussions on a number of issues.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I want to ask the First Minister about events surrounding his Government this week. First, Wendy Alexander, who was recently a Cabinet minister, admitted that the only big idea in Scottish politics in 96 years was independence in Europe. Secondly, we have had today's disclosure of the First Minister's spin manual to deceive the public on youth justice. Will the First Minister confirm that his commitment to have more facts and less spin—which is less than a year old—lies in tatters today?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is interesting to note that independence in Europe is one of the few big ideas in Scottish politics in the past 100 years that has completely failed. That is a much more accurate reflection of the situation.

Since I became First Minister last November, I have taken an absolutely rigorous and consistent approach to the issue of government information and transparency of facts and statistics. Over that time, I have had to act on a number of issues to ensure that our information is more accurate; that we provide it in a more transparent way; and that we reduce additional comments around the edges and focus on the facts. That was the right approach for the confidence of the people of Scotland and the Parliament and to ensure that the Executive is focused on the key priorities, which as I have said before are jobs, transport, housing, education and crime.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I want to ask the First Minister about a specific point in his spin manual. He wants to use the launch of new standards as part of a

"pre-emptive handling of an Audit Scotland report"

that will say that the current youth justice system is

"too slow, inconsistent and lacking in clear aims".

In judging that he needs such a pre-emptive strike, the First Minister has either had sight of an Audit Scotland report three months ahead of publication, which is a matter of enormous public concern, or else knows what every reasonable person knows—that the youth justice system is in crisis. Which one is it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hope that an Audit Scotland report would make such comments about the youth justice system. It is too slow; it does not have clear aims; and it requires radical action. That is exactly why we published a 10-point action plan in June, which will make changes to transform the system into one that meets Scottish society's objectives in tackling the particular issue of young teenagers between 14 and 18 that the current system does not tackle well enough.

If Mr Swinney had listened to any of the answers that he has received in the chamber since January, he would have heard me—not some junior official in some department who was drafting a note for a minister—saying those things over and over again. I will say them again today, and will say them when the Audit Scotland report is published, whatever its conclusions might be. In the meantime, we will take action. Youth court pilots are on the way; specialist children's hearings pilots are on the way; an increase in secure accommodation is on the way; national standards for the children's hearings system are on the way; and a police visibility campaign is on the way. All those measures will make a difference in Scotland, and they are much better than the Scottish National Party's spinning.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We can always tell: the long answers are the defensive ones. The First Minister's answer beautifully ignores the fact that he has been responsible for youth justice not only as First Minister, but as the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. He has delivered no progress. He has told us in the chamber that the youth justice system has problems that need to be tackled. Is not the problem with the youth justice system the cynicism and deceit that lies at the heart of the Government?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I regard the last comment as offensive and not worthy of a response.

The issue is the important one of youth crime and fear of youth crime throughout Scotland. To tackle that issue, we need solutions not slogans. We need real solutions. That means youth courts for older teenagers and specialist children's hearings to get younger offenders—who currently go back out on to the street because the system cannot cope with them—through the system and dealt with properly. It means getting the number of secure accommodation places increased to ensure not only that we have enough places for those who need them but that we have the right places, so that boys and girls are separate, and ensuring that offenders are rehabilitated and come back out as better people.

All those changes are important. The pace of change in youth justice in the past few months has been quicker than on any other item that has ever been on the Scottish Parliament's agenda and there will continue to be quick movement, because we treat the matter as an absolute priority for the people of Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2140)