MSPs have been told to demonstrate the “utmost transparency” when they declare any  shareholdings after a complaint against a fomer Tory politician.

Holyrood’s standards committee said the approach was needed “to ensure that their integrity and propriety cannot be called into question”. 

The cross-party group also announced it was revising the guidance on registering shares to provide MSPs with “more clarity” about what is required of them.

The developments followed a complaint against Alison Harris, who was a Tory list MSP for Central Scotland from 2016 to 2021.

Ms Harris declared shareholdings in two property companies in her parliamentary register of interests, saying their “market value” was £1 per share.

A Mr Joe Lo complained this was not the true maket value of the shares in one firm, the Georgian Finance Company Ltd, in which Ms Harris had a 66.7 per cent holding. 

The company currently has issued share capital of 10,000 shares at £1 each, but shareholder reserves of more than £500,0000, or around £50 per share.

The Scottish Parliament’s Code of Conduct says MSPs must register shares greater than 1% of the total nominal value of the issued share capital of a firm, or shares worth more than half their salary.

The matter was investigated by the Ethical Standards Commissioner for Scotland who reported to the committee that there may have been a breach of the code of conduct.

However the committee disagreed with some of the findings in fact and rejected the Commissioner’s conclusion.

In a statement this morning, committee convener Martin Whitfield said there was a question mark over how a definitive “market value” of shares could ever be calculated, and so no the committee could not “reach an incontrovertible conclusion” on possible wrongdoing.

He said: “The Committee was cognisant that the Code of Conduct for MSPs does not provide a definition of market value, nor does it prescribe any methodology for ascertaining the value of shares. 

“However, the Code does state that ‘on detailed financial and commercial matters, a member may wish to seek advice from other relevant professionals’. 

“Alison Harris indicated in her representations to the Committee that she had sought the professional opinion of the Company’s accountant as to the market value of the shareholding which she interpreted as being nil due to her being unable to freely sell her shares.

“In relation to the Commissioner’s conclusion, the Committee does not agree that there are sufficient grounds to conclude that there has been a breach of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the Code of Conduct.

“Alison Harris registered an interest in shares on the basis that she held more than 1% of the nominal value of the issued share capital of the company. 

“She did not, additionally, register these shares on the basis of the market value exceeding 50% of a member’s salary at the start of the relevant parliamentary session because she ascertained the value of the shares to have a market value of £1.

“While the Committee recognises that a fair observer might reasonably consider the market value to be higher, there were conflicting expert views on the market value of the shares. 

“In addition, the Committee could not draw on either a definition of market value or a prescribed method for reaching a market valuation within the Code to reach an incontrovertible conclusion that the market value of the shares exceeded the threshold. 

“For these reasons, the Committee does not consider it is in a position to reach the conclusion that a breach of either the Act or the Code has taken place.”

Mr Whitfield, the Labour MSP for East Lothian, said the case had highlighted an area of ambiguity in the code of conduct.

He went on: “The Committee recognises that there are many types of shareholdings, particularly in relation to private limited companies, and that in some circumstances ascertaining a market value for shares can be complex. 

“For this reason, it intends to consider this matter further with a view to revising the Guidance on the Code of Conduct for MSPs to provide more clarity to members on the registration requirements and greater transparency to the public on members’ interests.

“In conclusion, while the Committee does not consider there are sufficient grounds to consider that the Code of Conduct has been breached in relation to this complaint, it would remind all members that they should approach the registration of their financial interests in the spirit of the utmost transparency to ensure that their integrity and propriety cannot be called into question.”