Good afternoon, comrades. We start this meeting with our first stage 2 debate of a bill. I shall take a minute to explain how we are going to proceed. I suspect that Donald Gorrie is the only member of this committee to have gone through the procedure before, at Westminster. Members of this committee who are also members of other committees may have gone through it, but we have not done so as a committee.
When a division is recorded, are abstentions recorded formally?
Yes.
I introduce the Deputy Minister for Local Government, Frank McAveety. He has come along with Ted Davison, Trudi Sharp, John McCluskie and John Paterson, who are all from his department. Frank will give us a presentation.
Section 1—Code of conduct for councillors
I call amendment 1, which is grouped for debate with amendments 2, 3 and 4.
I was worried when you said "presentation"—I thought that I was at some sort of Tupperware party.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Model code of conduct for members of devolved public bodies
I call amendment 35, in the name of Keith Harding, which is grouped for debate with amendments 36 to 43, also in the name of Keith Harding; and with amendments 6 and 7, in the name of the Minister for Communities.
All the amendments would leave out the word "model". The feeling is that if local government is covered by a standardised code of conduct for members, why should there not be a standardised version for devolved public bodies? That would contain the mandatory principles and rules to which different types of organisation would have to comply. It would bring greater standardisation to ensure public clarity and to ensure similar standards to those that are proposed for councillors. It would remove the overly bureaucratic procedure of a large number of codes being submitted to ministers for approval.
I ask Frank to respond to that.
I thank Keith Harding for his contribution; however, I am about to suggest that he should not press amendments 35 to 43. In the bill, we wanted to ensure that we moved from our inherited position, which was primarily about local government and elected members, to one that concerned public bodies in the wider sense.
Does anyone else wish to come in on this?
I have some sympathy with Keith Harding's desire for simplification—it is always a good thing to delete two sections and to have a nice, simple rule. However, we might have a single code for everyone, but local enterprise companies and some of the obscure groups that Kenny Gibson has dredged up might have different interests. The minister's argument for flexibility seems to be a good one. Will Keith explain why he thinks his idea is better?
I do not see why people in public life should not have the same code of conduct. In his evidence last week, the secretary of Scottish Enterprise admitted that that was not impractical. He would prefer that it did not happen, but it could be imposed on LECs as well as on Scottish Enterprise. That is what gave me this idea. I firmly believe that all people in public life should behave in the same manner. The code of conduct does not impact on articles and memorandums of association with companies and so on; it is about people's behaviour. The same code of conduct should apply to all bodies in public life.
As no one else wants to speak on the amendment, I shall put the question.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 35 disagreed to.
We move to amendment 36, which has been debated with amendment 35. Keith, will you move amendment 36?
Does amendment 36 not fall as a result of amendment 35 being disagreed to?
As amendments 36 to 41 are consequential on amendment 35 and do not make sense if amendment 35 is disagreed to, I suggest that Keith Harding withdraw them.
You can withdraw all the consequential amendments; do you wish to do that?
Yes.
You have to say that amendment 36 is not moved, and all the others can be withdrawn.
Amendment 36 not moved.
On a technicality, should we not agree that these amendments can be withdrawn?
Yes, I said that we should have agreed that they can be withdrawn. There is a bit of dispute about that. We learn as we go along.
Amendments 36 to 38 not moved.
Amendment 4 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.
Amendments 39 to 41 not moved.
We now come to amendment 75, which is grouped with amendments 64, 76, and 65 to 68.
What about amendments 6, 7, 42 and 43? Are they not marshalled with amendment 41?
They come later in the marshalled list. The amendments are in groupings. If you stick with the marshalled list, you will get there eventually.
This group of amendments relates to section 20, which makes special provision for the water industry commissioner for Scotland. Amendment 68 deals with the crossover effect for sanctions. It provides that, if a water industry commissioner is found to be in breach of his or her code and is also a member of a relevant devolved public body or is a councillor, the commission may disqualify the commissioner from those other public bodies or that office.
We have jumped to section 20, but I had thought that we were only going up to section 18.
We are working from the marshalled list and are grouping issues that are relevant to each other.
We cannot go back, but we can go forward.
We are not going forward and back on the marshalled list.
We are dealing with the bill section by section, but that does not prevent us going forward to tidy something up.
I think that there is confusion, convener, because you said that we would not go beyond section 18 and we have now done that.
If you look at your marshalled list, you will see that we are not going beyond section 18, but I take your point. I said that we were working from two papers, but members are essentially working from three. They will have to go back and forward. Frank McAveety has moved the amendment. Does anybody want to speak?
Sorry, convener, but I want to clarify the situation. The written advice given to us asked us to concentrate on the bill up to section 18. Quite frankly, I do not think that this issue will come to a hill of beans, but I hope that amendments have not been moved to anything controversial after section 18.
I want to help members, because I think that I understand. The minister has been asked to speak to the amendments relating to amendment 75, but if those amend sections of the bill after section 18, we will not vote on them today. Members will still have the opportunity to move amendments to later sections, as long as those amendments are competent, and to vote on any controversial amendments.
That is right. That is what I was going to say.
Can the debate on the amendments to sections after section 18 be resumed, or is this the only debate on them? Will amendments 65, 66 and so on simply be moved formally and voted on at the next meeting?
I am checking that. I do not know the answer.
According to what Bristow Muldoon said, an amendment could subsequently be moved on the same issue. We could get in a bit of a muddle if we can debate one and not the other.
We cannot have another debate, but I think that the proposer can make a short statement when the amendment is moved before members vote. Members must pay attention now, as this is when the debates are happening.
So, today will be the only debate on amendments 65, 66 and so on?
Yes. This will be the only debate on that group of amendments.
Amendment 75 agreed to.
We move to amendment 5. I ask Frank McAveety to speak to and move the amendment.
Section 2 deals with the model code of conduct for devolved public bodies. Amendment 5 provides a definition of the word "business" in relation to devolved public bodies, to broaden the scope of the term to achieve parity with the definition of "council business" in section 1(7). Amendment 5 provides that
Does anyone want to speak?
As I understand it, if somebody is a member of, for example, an enterprise board and is put on the board of a new company, his activities on the board of the new company are covered by this bill. Is there any sphere in which that could conflict with his duties under the companies acts?
The thinking behind the amendment was to widen the scope and recognise that people operate across different public bodies. I have no example to contradict or provide information about the member's argument in relation to the companies acts, but I am happy to get that information for him for the next meeting.
I am on the same side of the argument as the minister, but I wonder whether there might be a snag that we have not thought about.
We will clarify that for the member.
This may answer Donald Gorrie's question. My understanding is that section 2 refers only to someone who is a representative or nominee of a devolved public body. People are not nominated to local enterprise companies; they are invited on to the board by the organisation. That is the distinction.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3—Codes of conduct for members of devolved public bodies
I ask Frank McAveety to move amendment 6, already debated with amendment 35.
All amendment 6 does is to correct a drafting error in section 3(2)(b), which deals with codes of conduct for members of devolved public bodies.
Does anybody want to question or speak to that amendment?
This may be a frivolous remark, but the concept of a model members' code is an attractive one, which we should pursue. I do not know who round this table would qualify, but somebody might.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment 7 has already been debated with amendment 35, so cannot be debated again. I ask the minister to move the amendment.
Amendment 7 amends section 3(7) to make it clear that the members' code applies from the date fixed, rather than only on that date. It clarifies the situation.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 42 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4—Revisal etc of members' codes
Amendment 43 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5—Duties of councils and devolved public bodies
We move to amendment 44, which is on its own. I ask Sylvia Jackson to speak to and move the amendment.
Amendment 44, which amends section 5(1) on page 3, line 32 of the bill, seeks clarification that prior to the issuing of any guidance to councils by the standards commission—to assist councils in fulfilling their duty to promote and assist councillors in observing the councillors' code on the highest standards of conduct—councils and professional associations such as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and General Managers and the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland will be given the opportunity to contribute their expertise during the preparation of the guidance.
I thank Sylvia Jackson for her amendment. As the bill is currently drafted, the commission will be able to consult relevant bodies such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the professional bodies when it prepares draft guidance. I am pleased to take this opportunity to confirm that the Executive expects the commission to prepare guidance on good practice in areas such as councils' and public bodies' duty to assist members to uphold the code. We would expect the commission, when it draws up such guidance, to consult bodies with an interest in those issues.
Convener, I am happy with that answer. How do I now proceed?
You have already moved the amendment, so you will need to withdraw it.
Amendment 44, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
After section 5
I call amendment 45, which is on its own.
We have discussed several times, in the committee and with the minister, the position of each council having a standards committee. The minister expressed approval of the idea of councils having standards committees, as some of them do. The committee felt that it would be helpful if the bill specifically mentioned standards committees and it was not just assumed that they might exist.
I would like the amendment to be withdrawn, on two grounds. I do not think that the problem is the principle of the existence of local standards committees; I think that they should be encouraged where possible. However, I am not convinced that this is the appropriate place in the bill for consideration of that.
This is one of these difficult situations, when I agree with both the speakers who have gone before. Donald Gorrie is right. The committee said that we wanted uniformity and we wanted standards committees to be established wherever it was possible to do so. However, I am concerned that the amendment—I know that it is probably not Donald's intention and it might just be my reading of it—crosses over into the remit of the commissioner. I do not think that that is what we intended to happen. I am concerned that we might create a problem as this goes against the intention of the bill.
I take the opposite view from Michael McMahon. His statement about what we are seeking is correct, but I do not see a conflict. I thought that the committee was of the view that a filtering system might be quite good—that, if a local standards committee was set up and took action, there would be no need for national action to be taken. That would be a better procedure, whereby any conflicts or wrongdoing would be nipped in the bud. The best place for that to happen would be in a local standards committee, if one were set up. I do not recognise a conflict, minister.
I agree with the points that Michael McMahon raised. As it stands, the proposed amendment could complicate what is being put in place, and could result in conflict between the local standards committee and the standards commission. In reference to Gil Paterson's last point, I do not think that either body could take the same action, as a local standards committee would not have the range of powers that the standards commission will have, for example, to suspend or to remove someone from office. There could be a danger of double jeopardy being introduced, with someone being tried by a local standards committee and then by the standards commission.
I have two points to make. First, as Bristow Muldoon has said, it is important that we make clear what the committee has previously agreed on. Secondly, the main issue that we are talking about is the protocol. If it could be included in the bill, and if we could think a bit more about it, that would be useful.
I do not think that not supporting the protocol would preclude having local standards committees that operate effectively. However, one of the problems of writing the protocol into the bill may be the fact that a councillor's relationship with the standards commission would be different if their authority did not have a standards committee. There would be no consistency between different local authorities, even if they were experiencing the same problems and difficulties.
Minister, do you want to add anything before I ask Donald Gorrie to close?
First, the underlying principle of the bill was to establish a national standards commission, for which we had broad approval. It is important to enshrine that principle in legislation as the bill process progresses. Secondly, in principle, we are not opposed to the encouragement of local authorities to set up local standards committees. That recommendation may be included on page 3 of the bill, under section 5 (1), which states:
If local standards committees were set up, they would destroy the purity of the system that is represented by the national commissioner and the commission. If the minister accepts that local standards committees are to be welcomed, he must realise that their relationship to that national structure must be set down. I understand his point about flexibility. However, it must be stated where those committees fit into the system, as should the protocol of their relationship to the standards commission, whether in the bill or not.
Minister, could you please respond to that.
Briefly. I would be happy to return to the committee with a protocol and guidance, and I hope to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that will satisfy Donald Gorrie. If I can do that, that will be a singular achievement in my life. [Laughter.]
I am not that difficult.
Donald, would you like to withdraw the amendment?
I shall withdraw the amendment and wait to see what the minister produces. If he does not produce something satisfactory, I shall resume the attack.
Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 6—Register of interests
Amendment 46, in the name of Dr Sylvia Jackson, will be debated on its own.
Amendment 46 is similar to the previous amendment. It requires that, prior to any regulations and guidance being issued concerning registers of interests, the appropriate associations of the councils and relevant professional associations be consulted.
My response is similar to my response to the previous amendment. I would like to return to the matter at stage 3. If Dr Jackson withdraws the amendment, I shall come back with some clarification.
If the minister is giving me an assurance, as he gave previously, that the legislation will require that the appropriate associations of the councils and professional associations be consulted, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
The nod was a yes.
Can you say yes, minister. The official report cannot record a nod.
Yes.
Amendment 46, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7—Standards Commission for Scotland
Amendment 8 is grouped with amendments 9 and 10.
Amendments 8, 9 and 10 relate to the power of ministers contained in section 7(2)(b) to confer additional functions on the commission by directions. At stage 1, the Subordinate Legislation Committee questioned the scope of those direction-making powers and noted that no formal procedure for the giving of directions was set out in section 7. The committee considered that, in line with similar provisions in other recent legislation, the power should be exercisable by secondary legislation.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 47 is grouped with amendments 48, 50 and 51.
Amendments 47 and 48 ensure that the standards commission is independently appointed after approval by the Scottish Parliament and not by the minister alone. That would ensure fairness in terms of political representation. Appointment in that way confers independence and impartiality, thus ensuring compliance with European convention on human rights legislation.
I would recommend rejection of the amendments lodged by Keith Harding, primarily on the single fact that we are awaiting the consultation on the public appointments. I think that it would be premature to introduce such provisions in this piece of legislation while we are waiting for the full Parliament to determine the outcome of that public consultation. The Parliament will determine how individuals are appointed to public bodies, whether through the present process, through a modification of that or through substantial change.
If the text in those amendments is not inserted, will the Executive insert it?
Yes. Within the existing procedures, which have so far been accepted by parliamentarians—there may be modifications and amendments, to be determined by the Parliament, after the consultation period—ministers can appoint bodies, and ministers are accountable to the Parliament for those decisions. Whether that process is to the satisfaction of everyone in this committee remains to be seen in the broader debate, but I genuinely think that the measures are premature while we are awaiting the results of a major consultation.
People feel strongly about transparency in appointments to public bodies. I would be very keen for there to be transparency and accountability, particularly from the perspective of equal opportunities. There would need to be consistency for the whole range of public bodies, and I would hope that, as one outcome of the consultation, public bodies would have a radical view of how to achieve that, starting with making definitions of ability and talent. Such definitions are at the root of the matter.
Any decision made by the Parliament on public appointments would have consequences for acts and other legislation that have been passed. In that context, the points in the amendments would be allowed for.
Keith Harding is trying to find the most open process, but our debates on public appointments may not conclude that that is the most open way to do things. However, I do not want to include in the bill now a provision that ensures that members of the standards commission have to be appointed, if that could not be changed later on.
I am happy to confirm that there will be flexibility should there be any modifications or changes or an overhaul of the public appointments system. The bill would have to be amended to reflect that.
It is not flexibility that I am looking for. The bill presumes that members of the commission would be appointed publicly and that the same rules would apply as apply to other public appointments.
It is for the Parliament to determine where those appointments fall. If that results in a change in public appointments in the area that we are discussing, that is fine.
On the basis of that assurance, I seek the committee's approval to withdraw amendment 47.
Amendment 47, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 48 not moved.
Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1<br />The Standards Commission for Scotland
I call the minister to speak to and move amendment 11, which is grouped with amendments 12, 13 and 14.
Schedule 1 covers the status, powers and arrangements for the setting up and administration of the standards commission for Scotland. The amendments in this group correct and clarify the existing text of the schedule. Amendments 11 and 12 correct drafting errors. Amendments 13 and 14 clarify and expand paragraph 3, which deals with the disqualification of persons from membership of the commission, and provide that any person disqualified from being a councillor should also be disqualified from being a member of the commission. Any person disqualified from being a member of a devolved public body or from being the water industry commissioner under the provisions of the legislation would also be disqualified from being a member of the commission.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendments 12 to 14 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.
I call Keith Harding to speak to and move amendment 49.
It is important that a right of appeal is available following consideration of a case by the standards commission. Amendment 49 requires the commission to establish that appeals mechanism. This is especially important for devolved public bodies, which will not have the option of conducting an independent internal investigation through a standards committee, as councils can. The detail of the appeals mechanism is for the commission to decide. However, should ministers wish to set up a specific mechanism for appeals, they should bring forward their own amendments.
I have made commitments in prior discussions with the committee that I want to introduce an appeals mechanism. As far as the appropriate locus of that is concerned, whether it is with the commission or elsewhere, I would err on the side of its not being with the commission itself, as there might be a conflict of interests. However, I shall certainly introduce an appeals procedure to address the concerns raised by members.
I support there being an appeals mechanism and I note the minister's intention to introduce one. However, it would not be appropriate to establish an appeals mechanism as Keith Harding suggests, following the paragraph on why people might be disqualified from being members of the commission. It should follow systematically from the action that the organisation could take. It would be far more appropriate that, if such an appeals section were to be inserted, it should be inserted after section 18 of the bill.
Is the minister promising us a section in the bill about appeals, or would it figure separately in the regulations?
It will be in the bill.
On the basis of that assurance, I seek the approval of the committee to withdraw amendment 49.
Amendment 49, by agreement, withdrawn.
I call the minister to speak to and move amendment 15.
Amendment 15 provides revised drafting of paragraph 11 and clarifies that ministers will provide the expenditure of the commission.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8—Appointment of Chief Investigating Officer and staff
Amendments 50 and 51 not moved.
We now come to amendment 16.
Amendment 16 corrects a drafting error in the text of section 8(4), which deals with the appointment of the chief investigating officer's staff.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Section 11—Conduct of Chief Investigating Officer's investigations
We now come to amendment 52, which is grouped with amendment 53.
Amendment 52 addresses a matter that we have discussed, and the minister has responded to some of our comments at previous committee meetings. However, I want to ensure that this will definitely be included in the bill. It is my view that investigations should be undertaken only in response to allegations of misconduct made in writing and signed by the complainant. Of course, I understand that all investigations would be handled in confidence, and I fully support that. However, there must be a name attached to a complaint, so that the likelihood of malicious complaints is reduced.
The amendments are based on experience, and I know that Kenny Gibson and others have raised the matter regularly in committee. In relation to malicious allegations, I hope that we will be able to put in place a system that will be thorough and rigorous in dealing with complaints. We all know that a hierarchy of complaints can emerge and that some individuals can pursue matters to incredible lengths.
I have a few questions for Kenny Gibson. I know exactly where he is coming from because we discussed the matter and I agree that the veracity of allegations should be pinned down. However, the amendment is too prescriptive because it does not allow for anything other than written complaints. I am concerned that that would preclude some people from voicing genuine concerns.
I am concerned about amendment 52 and the requirement to put complaints in writing. I understand Kenny Gibson's intention, which is to avoid individuals becoming subject to repeated, malevolent complaints. The standards commission will need to be very aware of that problem. However, as Frank McAveety has said, individuals might feel constrained from putting their name to something because of the position held by the person about whom they are making the complaint—even if they are assured that that is in confidence. The amendment strikes me as a sort of Watergate clause; Woodward and Bernstein might have found their job more difficult if they had had to rely on people giving evidence on the record. On balance, I do not think that we should pursue the amendment.
I was just envisaging exciting scenes in the Parliament's underground garage—just like the film.
The problem is that the amendments do not say anything along those lines; instead, they are both very specific. I think that it is reasonable in normal circumstances to expect a complaint to be made in writing and to be signed, but I acknowledge that there might be circumstances in which people are not prepared to do that. I do not accept the argument about illiteracy, as we can provide people in that situation with support. However, there might be instances in which it would unfortunate if an investigation could not be conducted—whether by Dustin Hoffman or someone else.
I wish that we had not started conjuring up images of Woodward and Bernstein in the Scottish Parliament, as I am having problems working out who would be Deep Throat.
I can see the committee going back on this issue. I thought that we were agreed on what we were trying to achieve. We recognise that councillors can be targeted and that much of the flak that they take is meant to damage them rather than to sort out something that they have done wrong. I do not have a problem with the first contact being anonymous or verbal, but a distinction has to be made between an inquiry and action. It is the action bit that worries me. I am concerned about action being taken when the complainant is not prepared to put down a marker and make a complaint formally. That could be a cowards charter. If someone is going to make a complaint that might a damage a person and their family, those who are investigating should be able to ask them to substantiate what they are saying. At the moment, I will restrict my comments to that issue.
Anyone who has experience of elected office will know that those who cause politicians the greatest grief do not lack the capacity to write. On the contrary, they write screeds about people—sometimes they even put things on Gestetner and post them up on lamp posts around George Square. Politicians do not have any legal protection. During my time in public office, I have had two stalkers. The issue is not a lack of writing skills on the part of complainants, but a lack of protection for elected members who are being victimised.
Amendment 52 is about balance. We need to protect the member of the public or the official who is making a complaint, but we also need to protect the individual about whom complaints are being made. Gil Paterson summed it up when he said that the section as it stands is a cowards charter. We are asking for people to stand up and be counted, in confidence. I do not think that that is too much to ask, although we need to be assured that everything will be kept in confidence.
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
This is the first time that we have had a serious vote.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
Amendment 53 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
As the minister has been trying to vote—he has been nodding at me to indicate that he has been voting on all these sections and amendments—we will take a five-minute comfort break at this point.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
Before we begin again, I will give the committee another couple of points of clarification. If you have decided not to move an amendment, please say "Not moved" when I call it—that is better than "Withdraw", apparently. If you wish to move an amendment, listen to the debate, and then withdraw it, you have the right to do that. When I call an amendment, move only the one that I call and do not move all the other ones in that group. We have to record each one individually—I think we have been doing that.
Section 14—Publication of reports
We now move to section 14. I call the minister to move amendment 17.
Section 14 deals with the manner of publication and distribution of reports. As those reports will be in the public domain, the amendment simply provides for the commission to distribute reports as it considers appropriate.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
Section 17—Findings of hearings
We now come to amendment 18, which is grouped with amendments 19, 20 and 54. I call the minister to move amendment 18.
Section 17 deals with the written findings of the commission's hearings and the distribution of those findings. The purpose of amendment 18 is to enable the commission to give a copy of its findings to any person that it thinks fit. Where the person to whom the findings relate is also an ex-officio member or employee member of a devolved public body, a copy of the findings may be sent to that body.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.
Amendment 54 moved—[Dr Sylvia Jackson]—and agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18—Action on finding of contravention
We now come to amendment 21, which is grouped with amendment 55, in the name of Keith Harding, amendment 56, in the name of Sylvia Jackson, and amendments 22 to 30, in the name of the minister. I ask the minister to move amendment 21.
Amendments 21 to 30 deal with the sanctions available to the commission where it considers that a relevant code has been breached. In particular, they deal with the crossover effect of the sanctions. The standards commission will be able to impose sanctions on councillors, members of devolved public bodies and the water industry commissioner for Scotland.
Keith, do you wish to speak to your amendment 55?
Amendment 55 gives the standards commissioner an additional sanction, to allow all cases to be dealt with appropriately. It attempts to address the published views of the Local Government Committee following stage 1 consideration of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill.
Sylvia, do you wish to debate your amendment?
I am not moving it.
You do not have to say so right now.
I have sympathy with most of Keith Harding's amendment, apart from the part that mentions
Keith has yet to move his amendment—we will come to that at the appropriate time.
May I respond—
I will bring in Michael McMahon first and then I will let you respond, Keith.
Sorry, convener—I have nothing to add, as I was going to make the same point.
I am not asking for the commission to determine the leadership of a political group; I am emphasising that a leadership role carries a responsibility allowance. If an individual who perpetrates an offence has a leadership role, he would lose his special responsibility allowance. The same would apply to a provost or to the convener of a committee.
Perhaps the wording could be different, as whether being the leader of a political group carries a responsibility allowance varies from council to council. Often, the leader of a political group also holds another position, such as leader of the council, which attracts the responsibility allowance. Being leader of a group might not attract an allowance. Perhaps whether that is appropriate should be considered further. The views of local government should be sought before we make a final decision on this matter.
With respect, the leadership of a political group can carry a responsibility allowance—I have benefited in a meagre way from that as the leader of an opposition group.
There is a problem with the specific attention the amendment pays to the leaders of political groups. The leader of the majority group and the leader of the opposition may receive SRAs, but the leader of the third party would not necessarily receive an SRA. There might be difficulties if the situation were left open. The reference to "leadership" would permit someone who did not receive an SRA to be removed from the leadership of a political group. The amendment would allow a political decision to be made, but no financial sanction would be imposed.
The amendment says:
It says "or", not "only" if they receive an SRA. The punishment would be the removal of a person's political position rather than their SRA.
A political party that persisted in having as a leader someone who had been found guilty by the commission should bear the political consequences of that. People would have to judge it on that basis.
I want to emphasise that we should support a broader range of sanctions. The committee has expressed concern that the commission could lean towards a heavy penalty rather than a light one, as there would be no option other than admonishing the person or suspending them. I ask the minister to take that on board.
From the dialogue that we have had with COSLA and through letters that we have received, I know that there are concerns about this matter. I felt that COSLA was broadly comfortable with the sanctions, but I am happy to take the committee's suggestions on board and reconsider the matter, to come up with another option. We should consult COSLA on that, but I will get back to you on that as soon as I can.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 55 moved—[Mr Harding].
The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 55 disagreed to.
Amendment 56 not moved.
Amendments 22 to 30 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.
We now come to amendment 57, which is grouped with amendment 58, in the name of Sylvia Jackson.
Amendment 57 not moved.
Amendment 58 relates to guidance that should be given to councils when a councillor or officer is suspended. It seeks consultation with appropriate associations of councils and relevant professional associations in the issuing of that guidance.
I am not unsympathetic to what Dr Jackson says. There should be appropriate consultation with public bodies and I would like to indicate at stage 3 how we would give guidance on that. At that stage we can consider whether it would be appropriate to enshrine guidance in the bill or whether we should include it in the guidance notes the commissioner submits to local authorities and public bodies.
I take that as a reassurance that the appropriate associations and professional bodies will be consulted.
Yes. Absolutely.
Do you want to withdraw amendment 58?
No.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
We do not intend to go beyond section 18 today. Thank you very much for coming, minister. No doubt we will see you next week. I am sorry that I did not mention Donald Gorrie at the beginning.
Meeting closed at 16:09.