Official Report 130KB pdf
I will move to the first agenda item, which is a consideration of paper LG/00/6/1 on the ethical standards in public life bill. The paper sets out proposals for the management of stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, and the paper's annexe contains proposals on dividing up evidence among the three committees. The conveners of this committee, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee met to divide up the evidence, and it was decided that, as the lead committee, we should receive all the written evidence. It is correct that we should hear as much evidence as we can on the issue.
At the meeting in Glasgow—although you were absent, convener—we decided that we were not going to consider section 2A separately from the rest of the bill, given that it is the tail wagging the dog and that 95 per cent of the publicity seems to have focused on the issue already. The rest of the bill seems almost an add-on when the reverse should be the case.
Although I accept your comments, our evidence so far shows that there is no difficulty with section 28. People who have contacted us already have said that it should be repealed. Although I accept the comment that the media has pushed the issue to the top of the agenda, if we cross-examine as many people as possible, we will have evidence to back up our decisions. Our discussion on the issue must be as wide as possible.
At the meeting in Glasgow, we agreed that our witnesses would be talking about the whole bill, although they might have specific comments about section 2A. The Commission for Racial Equality suggested that an equality perspective had not been sought at the initial stages of the legislation. Although such organisations will have a legitimate view on the whole bill, it is up to them if they want to concentrate on section 2A. We do not want to resist taking evidence, but witnesses will have to scrutinise the whole bill, as it will have huge implications.
The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers did not participate at the pre-legislative stage, because it did not have enough time to prepare. At the time, I wrote it rather a sharp letter, and will now be giving evidence. Glasgow City Council has said that it would like to give evidence about its standards committee. The Scottish Council for Single Homeless will also be commenting on the bill. Johann Lamont is right: now that we are moving into stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, the issue is much wider than section 28.
I have two points. Although you said a moment ago that all the evidence pointed to a repeal of section 2A, the committee added a proviso about proposed teaching guidelines. At the Glasgow meeting, we discussed slight additions and changes to the draft report. Has a final report been produced? If so, I do not think that I have a copy. That would be quite useful.
I am sorry. I am not clear about what you are saying.
We slightly amended the draft report on this bill at the Glasgow meeting. I do not think that we have received the updated version.
The final version of the report has been published and is currently on the web. Copies are also available from the document supply centre.
My second point concerns opening out the list of witnesses. At the Glasgow meeting, we had a lot of discussion about the letter from Frederick Marks. He talked about the relationship between the Scottish Executive and the commissioner of the standards commission. Is that the correct terminology?
Chief investigating officer of the standards commission.
Quite a few issues were raised concerning the standards commission. Members will remember that that letter came in later.
It is covered in the final report. An issue was raised, but we did not agree with Mr Marks that the whole bill was flawed.
I am just trying to highlight aspects that do not relate to section 2A but on which we may wish to take evidence. We were certainly discussing the question of who appoints the chief investigating officer and the members of the standards commission. Another matter was the letter that we received from the Forum of Private Business on area tourist boards and the question of whether the code should include honesty among the criteria. I am suggesting people from whom we may want to hear evidence again.
Members will see in the annexe how we have divided the organisations among the three committees. We can add to the list of organisations if members wish to hear from anybody else. We certainly have time to do that.
We can certainly ask organisations to expand on their views in writing.
Witnesses can give us written or oral evidence.
It is important that SOLACE, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless do not give evidence only on section 2A.
No, they will not. I probably phrased it badly. Glasgow City Council asked if it could come before the committee to give us an overview of how its standards committee functions, and I am happy that it should do so.
I think that Frank McAveety addressed that question when he gave evidence to this committee.
He addressed that question because a number of us asked about it specifically.
It was not my understanding that we would come to an agreement on a position. I thought that we would raise questions about whether MSPs should be included. I was not aware that the committee was supposed to reach a firm conclusion. I am happy for us to continue to pursue the inquiry. I suggest that we invite the convener of the Standards Committee to give a view on the control of the standards of MSPs.
Yes, I think that that is what Barry Winetrobe was suggesting. We said that it seemed like a good idea, but in a report that would sound rather vague. Barry is suggesting that we tighten it up a bit. There are ways in which we can do that. Do members think that we should invite someone to the committee to speak on the matter and then make a definitive decision?
Yes.
Yes.
In that case, whom do members want to invite?
Mike Rumbles and David Steel.
Are there any objections to that?
I do not have any particular objection. However, the convener of the Standards Committee has the job of monitoring standards as long as the Parliament considers that that is an appropriate job for the Parliament. It is not for the Standards Committee or its convener to refuse to consider other options. If we were to change the position, the decision would be a political one. I am interested in the political argument about why the power should lie with the Standards Committee rather than with an external body.
The convener of the Standards Committee must be able to express a view on the matter, although I accept much of what Johann Lamont has said.
We could write to him.
We could ask what the Standards Committee thought about the matter. However, that is not the same as establishing the political arguments for and against a standards committee.
I was not suggesting that Mike Rumbles would have any sort of veto on the decisions of the Local Government Committee. However, given that he has had early experience of drawing up a code of conduct and considering the ethical standards of MSPs, I thought that he should have input.
He would be able to suggest what safeguards there should be if there was no external body.
Will we stick with Mike Rumbles and David Steel? Members are agreed. Do members also agree with the proposals that have been made and the comments on the stage 1 scrutiny of the ethical standards bill?