Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 (Breach)

Speech delivered on Thu 4th Sep 2008

Today's short debate has a lot of political mileage behind it, to say the least. In speaking for the Liberal Democrats, I say that this ought to be a parliamentary debate informed and motivated by judgment, a sense of proportion and individual consideration. I agree very much with many of the comments in that regard by Jamie McGrigor. However, my personal view is that there is a presumption of support for the committee report, provided that the reasoning is sound, and a presumption that the member is acting properly unless the reasoning to the contrary is sound.

Liberal Democrats have a free vote today, which is proper.

Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab): Will the member give way?

Robert Brown: I am very sorry; not in a four-minute speech. We have a genuinely free vote, which is not the kind that leads miraculously to everyone in one party freely voting one way and everyone in the rival party freely voting the other.

I will say a brief word about my thoughts on the report. Much of it raises no contention, as has been said. It is agreed that Wendy Alexander received donations to her leadership campaign from several people and it is accepted that those donations were not registered in the register of interests in the time allowed. One of the defences is that they were not gifts because they were raised and received by the campaign team. The commissioner and the committee were entirely right to reject that argument, but I struggle to understand the committee's conclusion that the uncertainty that they say surrounded the interpretation of paragraph 6(1) of the schedule to the 2006 act is not something for which the member could be held responsible. If that is so, what is the offence?

The report then says that the circumstances gave the appearance of prejudice to a fair-minded and impartial observer. I am unhappy about that conclusion. The committee rightly held that the commissioner had made a judgment and not a finding of fact and I have struggled to find any evidence of the commissioner's basis for reaching that conclusion. The committee rightly considered and formed its own view, but apparently only on the basis of the size of the donations. I would have thought it necessary to consider all the background circumstances, which include the vital fact that all the donations came from known Labour Party supporters and donors. Would anyone really be surprised that the Labour Party's Advocate General for Scotland, or the appointee to general secretary of the Labour Party, or Mr Willie Haughey or GMB Scotland were among the donors? Would the non-registration of such donations really lead an informed member of the public to think that Wendy Alexander was prejudiced in her ability to take part in a disinterested manner in parliamentary proceedings? I am not entirely sure, but I tend to the view at present that the committee's reasoning is inadequate and flawed on that point in relation to most, if not all, the donors.

I do not accept the excuse about legal advice. We all know that the clerks can only advise and that the ultimate responsibility lies with us to satisfy ourselves. If in doubt, register. I do not accept, however, that that means that we should take separate legal advice. There is no doubt in my mind that Wendy Alexander would have been extremely wise to register the interests and avoid the problem.

Assuming that the chamber is satisfied-there are some question marks about that-that there was a breach of the rules, the registration issue carries a sense of being an afterthought. It is certainly a side product of the separate furore about the Electoral Commission and I suspect that it was also an afterthought by Wendy Alexander. The whole affair has contributed to her resignation as leader of the Labour Party. Some members take the view that pressing the matter to a conclusion has an aura of vindictiveness. On the other hand, Parliament and the public are entitled to expect full transparency in financial matters, but there is a case for drawing a line under this matter, which has produced so much grief for Wendy Alexander.

I offer my thoughts as impartially as I can manage and I intend to listen to the rest of the debate before deciding on my vote. I return to the point with which I began-it would be meet for members of the Parliament to rise to the occasion, to listen to the debate objectively and to try to form our own conclusions. If members have not even read the report, they should consider whether they ought to vote on the motion this evening.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below:

Related Link:

Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament (Scotland) Act.