 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2015 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I remind everyone to switch mobile phones off as they affect the broadcasting system. Agenda item 1 is about taking a decision on business in private. Do we agree to take agenda item 2 in private? This is an item of correspondence sent to the Presiding Officer from Jim Murphy MP. Are we agreed? No, I would like to say that it could be taken in public. I don't see why it should be in private. Could you perhaps comment on that? Well, I will explain that I thought that at this meeting we might discuss it in private, and if we wish to... I'm in your hands, I'm not... Nobody wishes to... I'm quite happy to take it in public if you wish, right? I would like to, because I don't see that it should be in private. That's absolutely okay. We'll take it in public in that case. Let's not worry about that. Okay, that's agenda item 1 dealt with, and agenda item 2 is to consider correspondence received by the Presiding Officer from Jim Murphy MSP. MP, you're perfectly correct, MP. There is also the letter that the Presiding Officer has sent back to Jim Murphy in which he says in the last paragraph that I'm passing the letter to the committee for us to consider. Does anyone wish to comment? Yes, David. As everyone here knows, we've got a very good system here, a very tight system that deals with the sort of issues that have been raised here by Jim Murphy. I presume it's in the back of Members of Parliament who have been found to be possibly doing things they shouldn't have been doing. You know, Mr Murphy wants us to tighten that, but of course we're already looking at that in other ways in the committee. That's been ongoing now for some time. We could obviously take his comments into account, but I think I would be slightly concerned if people thought that we were reacting to this and that there were things going on here that had been happening elsewhere, because we really do have a system here that is very open and very transparent. I'm pretty confident in the current system, to be honest, and also given what's going through in terms of lobbying and all the rest of it, we're tightening up and we've got a history of looking regularly at ourselves, at our systems, and improving things as we go along. Patricia? Yes, convener. I think that the very interesting thing about Dave's comments, if I may say so, is that when we discussed the introduction of a code of conduct in our register for lobbyists, one of the reasons we were minded to do so was because we recognised that there had been arguments in this Parliament that we were aware of, but we wanted to make sure that we were doing everything in our power so that—and I think that it was referred to in our discussions, albeit in private—that, while it had never happened, we wanted to make sure that we had a mechanism in place that prevented it where possible, and if it happened that we had something that would allow us to react and we wouldn't be reacting to change the system just because an incident had happened. I think that what Jim Murphy is suggesting here is very similar to that. He is asking that we look at the issue of paid directors and consultants. I would accept what my colleague Dave said about the fact that we're not aware of there having been any incidents in the Parliament, but once again I think that we should err in the side of caution and we should seriously consider how we would give power to this particular proposal. Margaret? Yes. I agree with what has been said already, and Jim Murphy does mention in his letter that he is proud of the Scottish Parliament, which is above reproach, but he is asking us if we should consider looking at the rules again. Patricia Marwick, in her response, says that there are a very limited number of MSPs that hold a second paid rule. Although that is not consultancy work, there are some who have directorships, and that is permissible. As Patricia said, when we were looking at the lobbying inquiry, we took the stance that we were looking at it and considering it before, not because something had happened but because we thought it was a good thing to do so that we have that rule in place if anything should happen. I think that we should be looking at the rules again and seriously considering what we do around MSPs who have second paid directorships or consultancies. Cameron? I think that part of the issue is that in the House of Commons there are many, many more back benches than there are here. Therefore, people don't always have time for it. There are 600 Members in the Commons and 128 of us and 129 of us here. I do not really think that that issue is coming up. We are also discussing so much in the lobbying department that I do not think that we need to worry too much about this at the moment. Let me just express my personal views and then I will say something as convener. I think that it is always proper that we are challenged as to whether our rules are correct and Mr Murphy is properly asking us to look at something in relation to what may have happened elsewhere. I use the word may because at this stage there are processes to be undertaken elsewhere perhaps in relation to what has been in the public domain. We clearly will have an opportunity as a committee—sorry, before I move on to convener's comments. The thing that I am specifically uncomfortable about is that instead of focusing on what people do, the letter is focusing on what people are. In other words, they are consultants or directors. I am not interested in the label and I am interested in what people do and why we should discriminate against one category of employment rather than all. I am unclear, but I think that now speaking as a convener, we will have an opportunity to consider this when we look at our member's interest bill because that I think would be the proper place to do that. Perhaps if members are content that I would propose that we respond, we have been written to by the Presiding Officer, so it would be proper for us to reply to the Presiding Officer and copy Mr Murphy in so that he is aware what we are saying. I think that the response that I would recommend to my colleagues is that we do note what is said and agree that we will consider this during our further consideration of the member's interest bill that we plan. I am seeing you nod, Dave. Thank you, convener. I am quite happy with that course of action. I think that it is rather unfortunate that Mr Murphy has already made his mind up as he says in his letter that he is committing in their manifesto for 2016 that this will happen. It may be necessary for us to do this, but personally I always like to have a very good look at the facts, the issues, all the consequences before I make my mind up about things like this. At the end of the day, it may well be that when we do look at it through members' interests that we think that this is something worth pursuing, but it is going to be a commitment in the Labour manifesto, so the mind is made up, which I think is a shame. I think it would have been better if he had come to us with a more open approach, asking us to look and come back, because there is plenty time for parties to sort out manifestos before the 2016 election. I am not going to succumb to the temptation to engage in a matter of politics. That will be dealt with in the proper place here. I hope that we look at things objectively. There also is the opportunity, as the lobbying bill goes forward, to look at that facet of it, and that may be a proper place for it to be dealt with. I think that in our work programme we have a number of opportunities to deal with this, and I think that it would be at this stage to write to the Presiding Officer and copy Jim Murphy. I need to declare an interest, convener, because I own a family business that I cannot shut down just because I am here. There is an income from time to time. I may say to you this year that it was not a good year, no income at all. It fluctuates, but there is nothing that I can do about that. It is like a farmer closing his farm. I have got over just under 50 people now working for me. I am here, and if I shut it down, what happens to them? The one thing that I would say to you is that I have declared in my members' interests 20 days a year that I have never spent, and the whole time I have been in Parliament, I have never spent a day in my business one single day. In terms of this Parliament, I take the same view as we have taken when it comes to looking at people who are engaged with us. I do not think that there is anything wrong in Belton braces. I really do not. I am encouraged by what you said that we should look at what we do rather than the names that are given. Up until recently, I have been a board member of Rape Crisis Scotland. In that situation, although I am a board member, no expenses, no wages, nothing, a cup of tea is all I could declare from there, and sometimes a biscuit. I am also a board member of an organisation that covers the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not get any expenses, I do not get anything, no remuneration, nothing. I do it because I want to help. When you see somebody labelled as a board member of something, do not assume that they have made big bucks from it. It is normally the opposite. It is out your pocket when you are in this place. That is all Julie noted. I have proposed that we write to the Presiding Officer saying that there are two opportunities going forward. I did not see me convener, but I had been trying to indicate to you what to do. To clarify for Gil, Mr Murphy's letter talks about paid directors or consultants. Your voluntary work would of course not come into that category. It is something that should be caused for congratulations rather than otherwise. I would also point out to Dave that, although Mr Murphy has indicated that it will be in Labour's manifesto for 2016, that is a matter for the Labour Party, but what he has done in his letter is to write to the Presiding Officer to ask that we consider beginning the process of banning paid consultancy work in terms of referring the issue to the standards committee to consider the appropriate changes to Parliament's code of conduct. It is not about making this committee a judgment on the hoof, as it were. It is suggesting to the committee that they want to consider it. I think that it is a separate piece of work from the work that we are already doing. It may have links and it may have read across, but I honestly think that it is something that we could look at regardless of the other two pieces of work that we are doing. To follow on, convener, from Gil's point, this is not a simple thing. What is the definition of paid consultancy work? Directorships might be an easier thing to define, but paid consultancy work, I am a vice president of the trading UK trading standards institute. My career was in trading standards. I hosted an event this week, a consumer empowerment event. I am hosting a young consumer thing in another couple of weeks and so on. I do not get paid for that post either, just the same point Gil was making. I have claimed expenses from them once when I went down to the UK annual conference in Brighton. This is a hugely complex issue. Would that be caught as paid consultancy work? This needs a lot of very detailed consideration. It is not an easy and simple thing to deal with, which is the implication, I think, in the letter. We will get down to that detailed discussion, of course, when we consider it. I am quite comfortable about your own suggestions that there will be opportunities for us to do that in our work programme. Anyone else wish to say anything? No, we are at the moment, I think, of two views on the subject. The view has been expressed that this should be a separate piece of work and there is a view being expressed by the committee that we have two opportunities as we take lobbying forward and as we look at the member's interests. Do you wish to press this to a decision, Patricia? I think that the balance of the committee is against you. Yes, I realise that. Colleagues are making the point that we need to consider this very seriously. I think that you best do that by considering it as a piece of work, a piece of work that, yes, has read across to other issues and other matters, but one that could be looked at on its own. It certainly could be looked at on its own, but I do not think that anyone in the committee is saying otherwise than that. I think that it is whether it should be. By the way, if we were to look at it in the context of lobbying and the member's interests and conclude that we had to do work, I do not propose that, if we take a decision today that our existing work programme can accommodate this, that that rules out our returning to the issue if we find that that does not adequately deal with it. Just procedurally, I think that it would be important to say that so that we do not end up saying, if we go the road of using our existing work programme, that we are barred from looking at it by other means, if we conclude we need to come back to that subject. I made the proposal that we use our existing work programme. Do we wish to divide the committee? We have heard from different members around the table that it is a serious consideration that we have got to make on this, and perhaps it does require to be looked at separately. I mean, I do not know how our programme is that we could actually fit it in. Well, currently we will be looking at the rules on lobbying in May, and what I am suggesting is that we can consider it at that time. Can I suggest, convener, that we come back to our next meeting with a short report from the clerks indicating the work programme and the opportunities for fitting the sound before rather than make a decision? Well, let's put it this way. We are looking at the rules for lobbying in May anyway. That is already something that we have agreed as a committee. I am content that we could do that, but I suggest that it would be unlikely that the clerks would say that we could do it any earlier. Let me put it no stronger than that, given that May is six or seven weeks away. Rather than make a decision just now and divide the committee that we could come back and have a look with a bit more information about the work programme and how this would fit into it, because if it fits into it neatly, then that would lead us to take it as part of another bit of work. If it looked as if it wasn't going to fit in neatly, then the points being made about it as a separate part of work might gain more momentum. It would be useful to get a short note from the clerks at the next meeting just where we can decide either way. Are others going to fall in behind David's suggestion? Is that my question, Patricia? I know what is from the clerks at the next meeting. My concern about having it as a piece of work that is part of the other work that we are doing is that we are actually quite far along with the work on those two issues. That is fairly fundamental in the sense that we were at pains with the lobbying enquiry to make it clear that we weren't talking about MSPs, we were talking about lobbyists. My concern would be that, if it was rolled up into other work, we would be so far along that it would be much more difficult to make it cohesive and make it work. Whether it is worth having the clerks do a job of looking at where it could fit in, I am not sure, because if there is a willingness to have it fit in, then it will fit in, is my view. I am not sure what is to be gained from that. My preference would be simply to decide today that we incorporate it in our existing work programme, where we have two elements of work, two opportunities. Does the committee want to divide? I think that the committee is clearly of that view that we fit it in. However, we know on the record that, if we find that the existing opportunities to look at it do not provide it, that is not blocking off that we can return to the issue at a later date and schedule a specific piece of work, to make that absolutely clear. Are we content to proceed on that basis today? As long as we are committed to taking this piece of work forward. That I am committed to doing and I get the impression. The point has probably been made to us and I think that we will proceed on that basis. Right, I am very grateful for that, that is helpful. That completes agenda item 2 and we now move into private session.