PRESIDING OFFICER

HC Deb 11 November 1998 vol 319 cc406-11

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 9, line 28, at end insert—

("(7) The validity of any act of the Presiding Officer or a deputy is not affected by any defect in his election.")

5.30 pm

Mr. McLeish

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 22, 49 to 52, 119 to 122, 130 and 221 to 234.

Mr. McLeish

This group of amendments focuses on issues concerned with the internal workings of the Parliament. I commend them all to the House. The amendments are partly concerned with the relationship between the Parliament and the courts. We have adjusted the boundary between them to make it clear that the Parliament and those in it should be able to go about their legitimate day-to-day business without the courts being used as a means of interfering with their activities. I shall say more about that in a moment. We have also recast somewhat the provisions in the Bill dealing with the regulation of Members' conduct, to give the Parliament greater flexibility.

A further set of amendments clarifies various matters associated with the Scottish parliamentary corporate body—the SPCB. Other amendments in the group recast the provisions relating to witnesses, mainly to reflect changes in the description of legislative competence—a theme to which we shall return in a later group. Another set of amendments makes additional provision in respect of the position of political parties in the Parliament.

I draw to the attention of the House the amendments made as the result of our further consideration of the boundary between the Parliament and the courts. Amendments Nos. 2, 49, 50, 51 and 231 were welcomed on all sides in another place.

At the heart of this package is the new clause inserted by amendment No. 49, which will restrict the remedies which may be granted against the Parliament. We judge that it would be wise to ensure that no court may make an order for suspension, interdict, reduction or specific performance, or another like order. That provides a broad protection against attempts to manipulate the business of the Parliament via the courts.

We do not think that we can put the Parliament completely above the courts. For that reason, we have left open to the courts the option of making a declarator. It will, of course, be for the Parliament itself to decide how it should react to any declarator. The Parliament would not be liable for contempt of court if it merely decided to take no action to give effect to a declarator. Rather, it will essentially be a political decision for the Parliament to decide how to react in such cases. We believe that the Parliament will wish to be seen to uphold the law and in most cases would expect it to comply with any court judgment, in particular any that directly affected the civil rights of individuals—for example, a judgment concerning the legitimacy of the withdrawal of rights and privileges of an MSP.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I heard what the Minister said about the amendments being welcomed in another place, but can he tell us how the relationship between Members of the Scottish Parliaments and the courts, as defined by amendment No. 49, differs from the position in this place? Are there major differences?

Mr. McLeish

That is a fair question. Unlike Westminster, the Scottish Parliament will not enjoy the wide but ill-defined privileges accorded by article 9 of the Bill of Rights and through that, Parliament's historic position. We do not believe that we can justify conferring such wide-ranging protection on the Scottish Parliament. However—this is the nub of the matter—the Bill as originally drafted provided only limited privileges for the Parliament, principally in respect of defamation and contempt of court, leaving it exposed to possible attempts to interfere with its day-to-day business via the courts and to question the validity of its proceedings in certain circumstances. We are taking forward the issues that were raised in the Lords, as a result of which there will be significant differences between Holyrood and Westminster.

The provisions strike the right balance for a body that must be both free to go about the business of law-making while not being above the law. We have also taken the opportunity in the new clause to prevent actions being pursued by the back door, against individuals associated with the Parliament.

We have tabled amendments Nos. 2 and 231 to ensure that the validity of acts of the Presiding Officer or the SPCB cannot be questioned because of some defect in their appointment and, in particular, any defect in any parliamentary proceedings that must be followed before the relevant appointment.

Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 clarify the scope of protection provided to the Parliament in relation to contempt of court, by clarifying that, in order to enjoy the protection conferred by the Bill, reports of proceedings must be fair, accurate and made in good faith.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 and 232 deal with Members' conduct. The Government want to ensure that the Parliament puts in place a framework to regulate its Members' interests. Paragraph 9.8 of the White Paper indeed made it clear that there would be "minimum requirements" in respect of, among other things, rules about Members' pecuniary interests.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 ensure that the Parliament is under a duty to make provision for the regulation of its Members' interests. The Parliament will have to make provision for a register of interests that is published and publicly available, and for its Members to register their financial interests and to declare such interests before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter.

The Parliament will also be required to make provision prohibiting paid advocacy. Previously, the Parliament was to be required to make provision for that in its standing orders. We looked carefully at that provision and considered that it could restrict what the Parliament could do. For example, the Parliament may want to make provision for a code of conduct for MSPs, which could go beyond what MSPs did in the proceedings of the Parliament. That would be outwith the scope of Standing Orders. The amendments give the Parliament the flexibility to address such situations.

Moreover, Members of another place expressed concern that provisions relating to criminal offences would be defined in Standing Orders, rather than in legislation. We felt that that was a fair point and the amendments address that concern. They provide that the Parliament must make provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament—ASP. That is not to say that Standing Orders cannot be used at all in the context of provisions about Members' interests. It is anticipated that the core provisions would be in an ASP or subordinate legislation under it, but there is no reason why certain procedural matters, for example, could not be left to Standing Orders.

The provisions are intended to ensure that all MSPs work in a properly regulated framework that ensures propriety in the conduct of the Parliament's business.

Mr. Evans

We welcome the provisions of amendment Nos. 5 to 14 in clause 22. It is right that the Bill should contain provision for a register of Members' interests, to ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets as fair a wind as possible. Is the register to be enforced in a similar way to that at Westminster, or will separate provision be made?

Mr. McLeish

We shall use similar enforcement procedures to those at Westminster, but build further on them. A new Parliament provides an excellent opportunity to go much further with a code of conduct and its enforcement than exists at Westminster. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman of our intention. The consultative steering group, which I chair and in which there is all-party involvement, is examining the details necessary to flesh that out. A report will be sent to the Secretary of State in December.

The key issue tonight is to ensure that that important provision is written into the Bill, so that we have the strength of the Bill behind us initially, and the Parliament is able to legislate in the future. Standing Orders and the work of my committee will ensure that the code of conduct is first class and subject to the strictest enforcement procedures.

Amendment No. 232 makes it clear that the power of the Parliament to withdraw the rights and privileges of an MSP is not restricted to those cases where an MSP is also being excluded. There may be cases where the Parliament takes the view that the limited withdrawal of rights or privileges may be a sensible sanction to deal with certain sorts of misconduct, but that exclusion would be excessive. The amendment also makes it clear that this is an area with which Standing Orders can properly deal.

Amendments No. 15 to 22 deal with witnesses. I should explain that the ground on which clauses 23 and 24, which also deal with witnesses, were originally built has moved considerably since the clause was first drafted—for example, because of the amendments concerning the legislative competence of the Parliament that were made in another place.

In redrafting the clause to take account of those changes, we have tried to state, in ordinary language, what the Parliament may require someone to give evidence about, while preserving the general position as to the Parliament's powers in the clause as it originally stood.

The key alteration is that we propose to replace references to "devolved matters" and other matters in relation to which functions are exercisable by Scottish Ministers by a reference to giving evidence or producing documents concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility. We think that it makes sense to use, so far as possible, language that can be given its ordinary meaning, rather than tying the provision to the complexities of "matters", "relating to" and so on.

In the House, payment to political parties is recognised as the Short money provision. Amendments Nos. 130, 233 and 234 deal with matters concerning political parties. Amendment No. 130 confers a power on Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for the SPCB—the corporate body—to make payments to any Opposition political party represented by MSPs in the Scottish Parliament in order to assist those MSPs in performing their parliamentary duties. That money is an expense of the SPCB and would come out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund.

It is intended that that should enable provision to be made for payments to Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament equivalent to the so-called Short money that is provided to Opposition parties in this Parliament. That accords with the recommendation of Lord Neill's committee on the funding of political parties. It is envisaged that such money paid will be applied by the parties to obtain research and support facilities for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and women, assistance in the Opposition Whips office and other staff for the leaders of the Opposition parties. The amendment provides a way of providing some funding for Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament until—this is an important point—such time as the Neill recommendations are considered fully by the Government and put on the statute book.

Mr. Dalyell

On a factual point, have all those requirements been made clear to Mr. Miralles the architect? In particular, what will he be told about the change in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? These are not frivolous matters and should be addressed now.

Mr. McLeish

All the considerations that are being discussed in the House and in the consultative steering group are recognised by the designers of the Parliament building, so they will be taken fully into account. As to my hon. Friend's remarks about "potential empty offices", the Parliament building will suit its purpose and provide the best deal for the taxpayers. If there are changes in the future, I have no doubt that the accommodation will be utilised properly. I correct my hon. Friend's reference to a "separate office": I think that the impression was created of a separate building for each MSP. That will certainly not be the case. The temporary Parliament on The Mound will be very tight, but there will be ample space for MSPs in the Miralles building. However, the space will not be over-generous.

Mr. Evans

We recognise that there is a need for Short money—especially now that we are in opposition. It is a recognition of the money and support that is made available to Governments. An equivalent amount of money is necessary for the Opposition to ensure the proper working of democracy. Amendment No. 130 is extremely vague. The Minister said that it will provide equivalent Short money. Does he mean that the existing Westminster formula will be replicated in the Scottish Parliament or does he envisage other provisions governing the allocation of Short money?

Mr. McLeish

I shall respond to the implication of that question: the allocation to the Scottish Parliament will certainly be no more generous, as a proportion of expenditure, than the allocation to Westminster. However, the real answer is that the matter is still being discussed. We have attempted to replicate what occurs at present. It is important to remember that it is assistance for the Opposition. It is possible that Conservative Members will participate in the Scottish Parliament, something that will add a new dimension to Scottish politics. Amendment No. 233 responds to a point raised during debates in another place and provides that Standing Orders will be required to make provision that the Presiding Officer and deputies do not represent the same political party. When the Presiding Officer represents a political party, at least one of his deputies will have to represent another party or be an independent. We think that it is reasonable to provide that small safeguard against domination of those key offices by a single party. The Government of Wales Act 1998 already includes a similar provision. Amendment No. 234 is a technical amendment that ensures that references to political parties in the Scotland Bill are consistent.

I think that these are good amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Gorrie

I seek some clarification from the Minister regarding amendment No. 130. The money is clearly intended to help the Opposition parties but, according to subsection (3), it could also help parties that are "members of the Scottish Executive or junior Scottish Ministers".

I assume that the amendment is meant to address the possibility of coalition government. I seek some clarification on that point as an Administration might involve one, two, three or even four parties—if there were some sort of rainbow coalition. Parties co-operating in that sort of Government would still need the apparatus of Whips, research staff and so on in order to clarify their position. Does amendment No. 130 take account of that situation? Have I understood subsection (3) correctly?

Mr. McLeish

That interpretation is largely correct. In the context of the Scottish Parliament—which will introduce proportionality for the first time—there may be coalition government. Therefore, we would not have a Government and a defined Opposition as we do in this place. We are considering the question of Short money and its being reasonably well and effectively dispersed. We must also consider the new nature of the Scottish Parliament under the new political structure. Therefore, the amendment provides some flexibility in relation to that point.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 22 agreed to.