Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill
On resuming—
I welcome Frank McAveety, the Deputy Minister for Local Government, who is here to give evidence on the draft ethical standards in public life etc (Scotland) bill. I also welcome Trudi Sharp and Joanne McDougall, who are civil servants who work with Frank in this area.
Minister, you have in front of you a list of points from the previous meetings at which we took evidence on this bill. We have heard from the Accounts Commission, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the health boards general management group, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland and the local government ombudsman. I draw your attention to a letter from the ombudsman in which he emphasises a number of the points that he made in his submission and extends them.
The points from those initial meetings were pulled together and you have copies of them, minister. It would be helpful if you could address them. I intend that we then open the meeting to committee members to ask questions. It would be helpful if those points were covered, but obviously there is no restriction in any real sense on other areas that members may wish to explore with the minister. We will use the same procedure as before. I ask the minister to begin.
Would you like me to respond to the questions that were raised? That would enable an open debate afterwards.
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to expand on the principles behind this bill. It aims to ensure that the public have the utmost confidence in those of us who are elected to office. It is important that we deal with this issue. I welcome the fact that the bill's scope has been expanded from the original concept into other areas of public life. This morning, I met COSLA. That was one of the key issues we reassured it on. The initial perception of the bill was that it concerned only local government, but it is important that the bill sends out a message about public service in general.
I would like to address several areas, but if members feel that it is appropriate to stop at a particular point I am happy, following guidance from the convener, to do that if it would be helpful. I will try to give detailed responses to the points that have been raised.
My instinct is to ask you to go through the points unless any issues are raised. My concern is that we might focus on a couple of issues and not address all of them.
I know how incredibly tedious this can become, but I will do my best.
The first key question is whether a procedure for appealing the commission's decisions is needed. We argue that the bill should provide for cases to be considered much more fairly and efficiently than has, perhaps, been the case to date. It will include independent investigation and adjudication in particular, but with the benefit of hearings and, where appropriate, representation by lawyers or others.
Whether the code has been breached, which the commission will deal with, is relatively straightforward. The commission has to operate within the framework of administrative law and, if it fails to do so, judicial review procedures will kick in. That is our broad thinking on whether we feel it is appropriate to have an appeals procedure.
COSLA raised the issue of greater consistency of treatment, and of parallel treatment, of elected members and those who are involved in non-departmental public bodies. That is also one of the committee's key questions. We want to address the fact that they are different organisational creatures. While we should have a broad framework of operation, we should also recognise their different nature and structure. The key difference is that one group is elected by the public whereas members of NDPBs are appointed. It is important to reflect that; it is also important to have an intervention strategy that is appropriate to the different levels.
Those who make public appointments are judged to be ultimately responsible for the role that members of NDPBs play—we are accountable for ministerial appointments. We need to address that issue effectively. Most appointments to the bodies that the bill proposes to cover are made by ministers or by the Crown on ministers' advice and, in making such appointments, we are delegating some of our duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the Executive considers it appropriate that the appointing body or person should decide the sanctions that should apply to appointees whose conduct falls below the standard expected of those in public office.
The fourth question was whether the scope of the bill should be extended to other bodies, such as local enterprise companies, college councils of further education colleges and university governing bodies. The Executive examined that proposal in detail, but felt regulations already exist to describe the intervention to be taken if members of those bodies err in terms of public standards.
For example, LECs are subject to a strict regime under company law, which clearly sets out their duties and responsibilities and provides for sanctions if they fail in those duties. Further education college boards are autonomous and independent and their members are not appointed or directly elected. Again, there are rules within which they operate.
We considered a host of other organisations, such as housing associations and advisory NDPBs, in respect of which there are further distinctions. For example, housing associations have a fairly strong regulatory framework—supported by legislation—should intervention be required by the behaviour of representative members. On advisory NDPBs, we genuinely thought that since such minimal use of public funds is involved, including them in the bill would be a disproportionate response, given their scale and number and their relationship to the direct control of budgets.
This morning, COSLA also raised the interim suspension—that idea that action should be used sparingly and within strict time limits. I have experience—although not personally—of having to deal with such matters and I accept that investigations should be carried out expeditiously. It is not fair to the individual concerned, never mind the institution, to drag out an investigation for too long. We must deal with that issue.
The draft bill quite clearly sets out a six-month maximum interim suspension, although it could be extended if issues of concern still required to be addressed. We will ensure that we deal with that point effectively, without creating a hindrance, as some folk can spin situations out and, technically, a deadline could be imposed without the central issue ever being dealt with.
Members have raised the issue of the suspension of a member leading to the loss of a majority. That would, of course, depend on the political circumstances in an area. I argue that the existence of a standards bill—and of a standards committee—will make people reflect much more carefully on the impact of an individual's conduct on the wider organisation.
Alleged breaches of the code will be the subject of independent investigation and adjudication. The benefit of that, which answers a potential concern, is that there may well be no local political axe to grind. COSLA presented the scenario today that malevolent claims could be made, which would require some sort of investigation and, as a result, take someone away from political activity, which may or may not be advantageous, depending on the circumstances. That is a fair point, on which we need to reflect more carefully before we arrive at a final bill for Parliament's consideration.
The seventh point refers to how legislation will relate to
"Executive and non Executive directors, for example of Health Boards".
The bill will cover members who are not employees or ex officio members. Employee members will continue to be covered by employment law in general and by their terms and conditions. The code could, of course, be applied to such members by varying their terms and conditions of employment, or by ex officio members agreeing to abide by it.
The bill will also provide that ministers may confer additional functions on the commission, relating to the conduct of employees and other members. That power could be used to allow the commission to carry out an ad hoc inquiry, for example, into the conduct of an employee member.
The eighth point concerns the removal of the power of surcharge. Respondents to the consultation paper were supportive of the repeal of the surcharge criteria, provided something much more effective was put in its place. I agree with that. In other parts of the UK, the local government bill will remove surcharge, but it is important, for effective intervention, that the opportunity exists to introduce something more effective than surcharge, which is perhaps unwieldy.
The ninth point asks why the chief investigating officer will be appointed by ministers rather than by the commission. To return to an earlier point, it is important to separate investigation and adjudication. If the CIO were appointed by the commission, that could undermine the commission's visible independence. An issue of transparency is involved, on which we want to deliver.
The 10th point states:
"It is considered that the Standards Commission should investigate only complaints made in writing."
That is a legitimate point, but on further inquiry the system might be less effective should only written complaints be investigated. That could be a barrier; a number of folk who could reveal information might find it difficult to do so in writing, because of local circumstances. How we handle the issue will be a matter of judgment. The investigation will provide an opportunity to go through things much more accurately.
The CIO will have discretion to decide what matters to investigate and whether to abandon an investigation. That should allow the CIO to deal with unfounded allegations. For example, staff in many organisations currently have the opportunity to raise matters confidentially without anything being written down, in particular in cases of bullying at work. We need to take such issues on board and I hope that the CIO would exercise appropriate discretion in such cases.
The next point concerns who takes decisions on sanctions. Should it be the council or the NDPB, or would political issues make it difficult for a council to make such decisions? We need to have further discussion on that point, as it raises genuine concerns. I think that the person responsible for appointment should be responsible for imposing sanction. For public bodies, the Executive intends that the commission will make its recommendation to the relevant appointing body, which in most cases will be ministers.
The position is different for councillors, who are appointed by the electorate; it is not realistic to hold a referendum on sanctions. We believe that the independent commission will be best placed to impose sanctions on councillors. Again, COSLA raised that issue with us today. The benefit of the independent commission is that it will separate the matter out from local political issues. At the moment, people sometimes agree that sanctions should be undertaken but are careful, or even nervous—politically—about that decision. The commission will provide an opportunity for the decision to be much more independent.
We also agreed with COSLA this morning that the flexibility of continuing with local standards committees, if appropriate, was worth pursuing. We think that that would help to improve the general public's awareness and create a culture of mutual understanding of behaviour and conduct under the Nolan principles.
The breadth of sanctions that were set out in the consultation paper was endorsed by respondents. The sanctions for members of public bodies cover a range of options, from censure to disqualification. We believe that that range is accurate and realistic in terms of the likely breaches of conduct.
COSLA raised the issue of the remits of the different agencies. The standards commission, the Accounts Commission and the local government ombudsman are different institutions. If it is set up, the standards commission will deal with ethical standards, the ombudsman will deal with matters of maladministration—over and above the conduct of elected representatives and appointed members of public bodies—and the Accounts Commission has intervention strategies for the failure to deal with financial matters appropriately. I would expect all three bodies and the police—who would deal with serious breaches of criminal law—to have a good working relationship. That is an area that we need to tighten up and I welcome comments and ideas.
The protection of employees and other public servants from excessive investigation is another problem that has arisen in local councils. I believe that we should deal with matters expeditiously, because that clears the air effectively. We should allow the chief investigating officer to proceed only when there is substantial evidence to support allegations that are worth pursuing.
Another question that COSLA raised today is whether the bill should be extended to MSPs—several councillors have referred to this in local discussions and I think that it is important to consider the statements made by ministers and members of the Local Government Committee. We believe that the bill, if it goes through, should be used as a template and an exemplar of expected good conduct in public service. However, the structure of the Parliament means that the Standards Committee is addressing the code of conduct for members of Parliament.
Discussions about the draft bill are taking place across the Executive, the Local Government Committee and the Standards Committee. The purpose of the bill is not to select a particular level of public service, but to serve as an exemplar for everyone in public service. I have made it clear to councillors in my constituency that I have the same expectations of the conduct of MSPs as I have of that of councillors. I hope that people understand that message. Some folk have tried to claim that a code of conduct that applies only to MSPs will differ markedly from a code that will apply to councillors. That is clearly not the case.
Those are the questions that have been raised with me in the past. They are fairly detailed. Trudi Sharp, who has been involved in the creation of and responses to the first consultation paper, can give you more detailed information. I hope that I have clarified the Executive's position and I am happy to answer any questions that I can.
Do you want to comment on any other aspects of the bill, or are you happy to move on to questions about these particular issues?
The questions that were raised concentrated on the ethical framework for elected members. The other part of the bill relates to the amendment of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. There is broad support across the Parliament for modification of the aspect of that section that we see as discriminatory and against the principle of toleration and understanding that we want in Scotland. In case it is misunderstood, I would like to reiterate that any repeal of section 2A will be contextualised within the changing framework and guidelines available for the 5 to 14 curriculum and for personal and social development in schools.
I am concerned that there have been criticisms and claims that this is about proselytisation. The bill is designed to ensure that there is a proper framework that will allow teachers to provide guidance and information to reassure youngsters and parents. Any consultation will involve not just local authorities and directors of information, but school boards and parents organisations. From day one, Wendy Alexander has said that about the proposal to repeal section 2A. We want to continue to discuss the issue, and in the past we have given organisations the opportunity to meet the ministerial team to raise concerns. There is strong support in the consultation, which closed on Friday, for the repeal of section 2A. In fact, three quarters of those consulted favoured repeal of the section and the introduction of guidelines making clear that this measure is about providing guidance and information, rather than about proselytisation.
Thank you. I am keen that when we question the minister we attempt to take on the whole of the bill. I hoped that we do not lose sight of any questions that we flagged up earlier.
I want to come in on the last point, as Mr McAveety has raised it. I understand through the press that a consultation process is taking place on section 2A. Can you confirm that any comments that are received will be taken on board by the Executive? You mentioned that three quarters of the councils that have responded are supportive of your line; three of them, two of which are Labour led, are not. It is also obvious from the huge mailbag that we are all receiving that the vast majority of parents are against repeal. I would like you to confirm that this will be a meaningful consultation and that you will take on board what people are saying.
The responses to the consultation went much wider than local authorities. The consultation has taken on board individual responses as much as it has institutional and local authority responses. We have said from day one that the repeal is about toleration and the removal of discrimination. Since the announcement in Parliament, we have also said that we will engage in consultation with local authorities and school boards on the issue of guidance, to ensure that this is not about the promotion of any particular lifestyle, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It is important to stress that. We want to ensure that there are appropriate guidance and frameworks.
I have been concerned about the some of the language that has been deployed in the debate over the past few days. As someone who has been involved in teaching for a long time—particularly denominational teaching—I have been concerned to ensure that we engage in a rational debate about ensuring that the information is suitable for the age group that is being dealt with. Ministers have given that guarantee repeatedly. This consultation is not the place for condemning particular lifestyles. That is a separate matter that people can address themselves. It is a pity that some folk have focused on that rather than the core issue of ensuring that there is guidance and a framework that allows us to engage with teenagers in schools.
I am a bit confused about the chief investigating officer. If I understand you correctly, you feel that the Executive should appoint him or her because the commission is in some way party to the proceedings and therefore biased. I did not find that very impressive, so I would be grateful if you could clarify that.
The argument is that if the chief investigating officer is appointed by the commission, their autonomy and independence may be compromised. It is of key importance that the chief investigating officer should be able to consider matters as impartially as possible. The dilemma we face is as follows. First, if this were left to local authorities, it could get caught up in complications arising from the political composition of councils, as well as the personal enmities that can flash at local authority level as much as at Scottish Parliament level.
Secondly, we want to ensure that there is a separation of investigation and adjudication. Responses to the first stage of the consultation process suggested that people broadly supported that, and that is reflected in the bill.
Mr Marks was not enthusiastic about that proposition. He alleged that the fact that people involved in the Executive could appoint judges could mean that we fall foul of European law. The appointments would be suspect. If the Executive appoints the chief investigating officer, he is not independent.
I am unaware of any correspondence from Mr Marks that has been sent to me or to the Minister for Communities. I will check whether we have received anything. It is difficult for me to comment without having seen the substance of his allegations in detail. I am, however, happy to take that on board.
On the issue of appointments, the thinking behind the idea was that the Executive should appoint the CIO, who would deal with the investigation and then report back.
The suggestion came in a follow-up from Mr Marks to his visit to the committee.
I want to raise one other issue.
Very briefly, please, Donald.
Will the standard of proof required by this quasi-legal process be the same as for the courts?
My adviser has just helpfully whispered to me that the standard of proof required will be the same as for civil proceedings.
A lot of people want to come in, so members will need to be disciplined about asking supplementaries.
Will the minister clarify what would happen if a political majority could be affected by a suspension? Is it possible that a series of political changes could be made while someone was suspended pending an inquiry, only for that person later to be proved innocent? The person would have been the subject of a wrongful investigation. Are such issues covered in the bill?
I do not have a simple answer to that. It is a possibility. One of the ways in which we can ensure that members deal with their conduct is to ensure that the opportunity does not arise. COSLA has legitimately raised the same point with us. The logical counter-argument is that no action should be taken in a hung council in case there was a loss of majority, which would be a recipe for inaction.
COSLA has made a couple of helpful suggestions today and I hope that they will be pursued, because there are concerns about when suspensions should be used and their impact. I accept what you say. Difficult budget decisions could be taken by a local authority, reversed immediately and then changed again two months later because the person against whom serious allegations had been made was vindicated.
I do not have the wisdom of Solomon. The situation you describe could arise; I thank you for raising that classic Lanarkshire scenario.
I hope that you do not mind, convener, but I have two related points to raise.
I do not mind as long as you make them speedily.
The first was raised by the Forum of Private Business and relates to an incident involving the area tourist board. If the minister is not familiar with the case I can pass the details to him. It relates not only to the extension to the groups that are covered by the bill—we have already spoken about local enterprise companies—but to the criteria that will be covered and, later, the codes of conduct that will be developed.
The second issue, which was raised by the Commission for Racial Equality, is not only the absence of explicit measures in the bill to address issues of discrimination and equality, but the process that will be used to draw up the codes of conduct. That may come later, in which case you can tell us about it, but how will groups such as the CRE be able to have an input?
I defer to Trudi on the detail of that.
Trudi Sharp (Scottish Executive Development Department):
The bill would allow ministers to introduce a code for local government through secondary legislation, so the matter would have to come before the Parliament again. The draft bill recognises the importance of ensuring that what is in the code of conduct—as it will be such an important document—is well thought out and widely consulted on. The draft bill allows ministers to invite COSLA to produce a first draft of that code and to consult whomever else they think might be appropriate. I cannot speak for ministers—
Except in this circumstance.
I am sure that ministers would want to consult widely with those who have an interest in this issue.
As the draft paper sets out, the differences probably render unworkable a single code for NDPBs. Ministers will bring a model code before the Parliament and there will be consultation on it. It will be for each body that is covered by the code to come up with a model code for its own circumstances, which will have to be approved by ministers.
That is reassuring.
I welcome some of the stuff you mentioned about discrimination and equality, as that has not figured fully in much of the consultation or the public debate.
For the record, I declare a registrable interest in this matter, as my wife is a local authority councillor. I want to ask Frank McAveety about the appeals mechanism—or the lack of one—and about the consistency of treatment.
Almost all the bodies that gave evidence to us raised their significant concern about there being no appeals mechanism. As there are many forms of disciplinary procedure in the workplace, it would be good practice to have an appeals mechanism of some form. You mentioned a judicial review acting in that capacity, but as you are aware, a judicial review is a potentially very expensive road. We may need to be confident of success before we go down that road. Can you expand on that?
One of the issues that was raised in the context of consistent treatment of councillors and members of public bodies was the idea that the commission's decision in relation to councillors would be mandatory. Effectively, a sanction, such as disqualification for five years, would be imposed. For appointees to other public bodies—quangos, et cetera—it is suggested that there would be a recommendation to the minister. If the impartiality of the commission is to be upheld and there is to be consistent treatment of both types of person, why should there not be a mandatory requirement for a sanction to be placed on appointees to public bodies, rather than a recommendation to the minister?
The first issue is something on which we are happy to take further guidance. The legal advice was that it was best to have left it, and that the independent investigation would no longer require the appeals stuff. Two things came from COSLA today, which were taken on board. The first is the financial issue. A judicial review is an expensive business, and sheriff courts might be a more appropriate place to engage in that kind of process. There are a lot of issues that we want to consider further, and we have indicated to COSLA that we are happy to do so.
You mentioned the issue of the distinction between bodies. The question concerns the philosophy that underpins them rather than the mechanics, as each body is different. It is to enter a minefield to try to separate them. Starting from the point that it is important to have high standards in public life—which no one disputes—the problem is how to enforce and police that, given the nature of the organisations and institutions that have arrived at the present stage in history through different evolutionary stages, legislation and legal situations. The matter is much more complex. A noble aim is sometimes caught up in technicalities.
The philosophy underpinning sanctions should be that they should be quite punitive in the most extreme cases and should apply across the board. How they are implemented might vary slightly, but the principle is that a councillor should not be judged any differently from a person on an appointed body for an offence of the same severity. We are trying to win over the public's view on the philosophical framework, so that we can assure it that those of us who hold public office conduct ourselves to high standards.
Another point that Trudi Sharp touched on is the model code. Much work has to be done to frame and shape the model code to reflect nuances.
I intended to address the matter of ministers not implementing the commission's recommendations, but I thank Trudi for reminding me to do that. It would be an exceptionally brave—or reckless—minister who would allow for one level of sanction in one case, but decide not to implement it in another. There should be consistency of approach to punishment, but it might have to vary according to circumstances.
I welcome the comprehensive response that you have given to most questions. I am pretty sure that everyone in this Parliament will be proud of this bill as it progresses. I fully support what you said about restoring confidence in public life.
On standards committees in local authorities, you and I will have fond recollections of the Glasgow model. Should that model, which took the politics out of issues by having a rotating chair and no political majority on the committee, be replicated by other local authorities, or should they be left to construct their own standards committees?
Underpinning the bill is the belief that there should be a national standards commission. Local authorities should have flexibility in how they set up a local standards committee. The composition and nature of that committee is best left to local authorities. To ensure that the public believes in the decisions of the standards committee, it should not have a majority of members from the party that dominates the authority. Even in councils that do not have significant party representation, it is important to ensure that membership of the standards committee broadly reflects the views of the local authority. Committees without party majorities, or with a majority of opposition members, offer benefits to members. In particular, they give discipline and a challenge to those of us who have enjoyed majority control for a long time
Two things are needed to underpin the operation of any standards committee. The first is a willingness not to examine issues on a party political basis. That is hard in many parts of Scotland because of the partisan nature of politics.
Secondly, and much more complex, is the confidentiality that is required on the issues that are dealt with by a standards committee. There have probably been technical breaches of confidentiality in terms of information that has been allowed to emerge; information that is discussed in a closed session can lead to public comments. People need to work on upholding confidentiality, as many members feel that by appearing before any standards committees they are identified as members who have erred.
Members need to be reassured about that. Tragic situations could develop where—heaven forbid—malevolent people could put someone before a standards committee and then issue a press release to say that it is terrible that they have been investigated by the committee. A lot of the stuff in my own city was dealt with in the press in that manner, but the people involved were vindicated when the final decision was made by a standards committee that had a majority of opposition members.
I also find that officers have to do a lot of work to ensure that information is collated in such a way that it is transparent how decisions are made. To be fair, many folk in councils are examining ways of using such models to deal with local circumstances. It would be helpful to address issues of conduct locally; however, larger alleged breaches might require the chief investigating officer to investigate. There needs to be flexibility within that.
It is obviously unfortunate that one well-meaning section of the bill appears to have dominated most of the media coverage. For the record, minister, I want to reassure you that my party will be supporting the Executive on the repeal of section 2A, just in case anyone thinks that anyone is wobbling on the issue. I have heard that people of all parties are wobbling on the issue; however, we are certainly not. Again, for the record more than anything else, will the Executive take the earliest opportunity to defuse some of the hysteria over the proposed repeal and provide parents with reassurance by issuing for consultation the teachers' guidelines that will be published following that repeal?
Wendy Alexander's statement to the Parliament and subsequent responses to oral and written questions have given an assurance that no legislation will be repealed until guidelines are in place. The nature of the consultation is central because they are educational guidelines. Sam Galbraith will be meeting the Scottish School Boards Association tomorrow to discuss that subject, and we will ensure that guidelines fall within the framework of existing guidelines.
It is important to reassure people, and existing guidelines are available if people require them. To be fair, papers have reported a number of criticisms about the alleged use of packs that might breach guidelines. I can reassure committee members that no local authority or school has utilised any such packs and existing guidelines have been used to reach a very firm decision that some of the subject matter in those packs is inappropriate for the school curriculum. That is a testimony to both the existing guidelines and the ability of local education authorities and teachers to make such judgments in an informed way. The public's concerns on this issue will be addressed, and I welcome Kenny Gibson's remarks that the issue is not about proselytisation, but about genuinely informing the public and ensuring that youngsters are dealt with appropriately. The removal of section 2A is more about tolerance than discrimination in Scotland.
I will take Colin Campbell and Gil Paterson next and then will ask a question myself to close the session.
My contribution will startlingly short, because Bristow Muldoon has already asked my questions. For the record, I shared Bristow's concerns. Perhaps that will reinforce the point so that it adds up in the minister's brain.
On the issue of interim suspension, will councillors who are suspended also have the meagre resources that they receive from their council duties suspended at the same time?
COSLA and others have already raised concerns about whether conveners or people who receive special responsibility payments and who are suspended can still carry out those duties. Local authorities and COSLA have been discussing how interim suspension should operate. Some people have said that a distinction can be drawn between an executive-type councillor and a councillor with just ward duties, and that perhaps suspension should cover both positions.
That is a sensitive area because someone could, for example, accept temporary suspension from a convenership, pending investigation, but want to exercise their rights as an elected member in relation to hearings and so on. Equally important is the issue of the nature and severity of the allegations. Discretion would come into play and I would not want to say that there is a fixed position on that at the moment. Some people are dependent on the allowance that they receive, and we should bear that in mind.
Should we draw a distinction between someone who relies on responsibility payments and someone who relies on a lower allowance as they have no responsibility payments?
Trudi, you must have received a number of responses on that matter.
The bill follows the existing statutory position on payments of basic and special responsibility allowances. To qualify for a special responsibility allowance, a member would have to attend meetings and so on. If they were suspended, it would follow that they would not qualify for the allowance. It will be interesting to see whether respondents to the review have views on the matter.
Richard Kerley is considering the issue of remuneration of councillors. That might have an impact on this area.
We have also asked for COSLA's view on the matter. The view of a council leader can differ greatly from that of an ordinary council member. We would take that into account before proceeding.
I understand that Highland Council has discussed section 2A. Has the council made a submission?
The responses have not come directly to me. Two local authorities have indicated opposition so far, to my knowledge: Argyll and Bute Council and Falkirk Council, whose policy and resources committee was empowered to respond on the council's behalf. I believe that Highland Council has sought further clarification but has not yet taken a position. I will get back to you on that, Jamie.
How about North Lanarkshire Council?
North Lanarkshire Council's leadership has referred the matter to the full council for consideration. I understand that there is a request for a free vote on the matter.
I have no doubt that the information will come into the public domain as the responses come in.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as my husband is a councillor. However, I made up the question that I am about to ask without his input.
I would welcome any efforts by your ministerial team in making the point that, although an issue is not obviously about equality, we should nevertheless go through the process of consulting organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality.
There is a long-term question about whether MSPs should come within the responsibilities of a standards commission. Anxiety is caused by the fact that some bodies would not be within its responsibilities. The feeling is that some people will be more policed than others and that, although we have the Standards Committee, no independent body scrutinises our behaviour. If MSPs are not accountable to an independent body, the Scottish Parliament might be seen to be opting out of the process of scrutiny. That would undermine its authority. Will you consider that issue again?
I have no influence over that; it is for Parliament to decide. As members of the Scottish Parliament, we should ensure that there is fairness, equity and parity of esteem for elected public members across Scotland. If the ethical standards bill is part of the standard for a system that could subsequently apply to MSPs, that is fine, but it is a matter for the Standards Committee and the Parliament. I will contribute to that debate when it is appropriate to do so.
There will be an opportunity to do that. I am trying to clarify whether the Executive will recommend that MSPs should be covered by the ethical standards bill.
I understand that it is a matter for the Standards Committee. There was a stushie before Christmas about whether the Executive or the Standards Committee would decide standards. The Standards Committee would send a clear message about that.
The Executive could put something into its bill that the Standards Committee could then resist. That would be different from the Standards Committee having to amend the bill.
I will allow my technical expert to give a technical answer to that.
The bill introduces a piece of legislation that the Parliament can decide whether to pass. Matters governing the conduct of the Parliament itself, however, are matters for the Parliament. I could write to the committee about this, but I do not think that it would be possible for there to be legislation governing the behaviour of the legislative body.
Thank you for attending this meeting and for taking time to go so thoroughly through the points that we raised. You clarified some of the key areas of concern that we identified. Unless you have further comments to make, I propose that we conclude this part of the meeting, although I am aware that you will continue to pursue some of the points that have been raised.
Thank you for that opportunity. It is helpful to hear the views of the committee, which shape and influence the bill. I want to hear about such issues as discrimination and the equalities agenda, as well as how the terminology of the bill can be refined. If members can assist in that process, I am happy to continue that dialogue between committee meetings if that would be helpful.
Thank you.
Let us now pull things together. I am aware that it is late and my anxiety to get away is beginning to impinge on my ability to think, but we must consider what we are to do next. It has been suggested that the committee should write a report, which is rather different from the letters that we have written in the past.
We will be writing a formal committee report that will include all the submitted evidence as well as the Official Report of all our discussions and evidence-taking sessions. We must decide what we want to emphasise in that report to assist those who are to draft it. A draft report should be available by Thursday and will be approved at the meeting in Glasgow next Monday. I know that there are some technical issues to consider. We must also reflect on what the minister has said.
It would not be appropriate to do that right now. The clerk might have a different view, but we have covered quite a lot of ground. If we are going to put together a formal report to the Executive, we need a few more days to work on the nuts and bolts of it.
I was trying to get a sense from the members about the areas on which they think we should focus. However, I am conscious that it is late on in the meeting.
I would like to go away and think—you could retaliate by saying that I should have thought about it by now. However, if we come to this issue fresh on Monday in Glasgow, we might get a more coherent view. Speaking for myself, I am getting past it. [Laughter.]
Eugene Windsor (Committee Clerk):
The reason for the urgency was to try to tie in with the end of the Executive's consultation period on Friday. The meeting on Monday in Glasgow could give members the opportunity to consider it in more detail as part of that meeting. That is assuming we can get the Executive to agree to take a submission later, as part of the consultation period. It would give the Executive less time to get the committee's views into the revision of the draft bill.
We would not object to a draft; it is realistic for you to be able to pull together something, without us having to have a discussion just now. We have to take your judgment on that.
I suggest a compromise, which is that additional points that were made quite strongly by people on this committee might be added to the draft. That could be the basis for Monday. Eugene, would you be able to go through the Official Report quickly enough to do that?
To clarify, convener, is the member suggesting that, additional to the points that were made in the original letter, the letter is amended to reflect today's discussion?
Yes, but briefly.
Let us be honest, there are few areas of contention in this; it is more for clarification and fine-tuning. I do not see any major difficulty.
If any member has an issue that they want to ensure that the clerks know about, now is the time to raise it.
Surely it should have been raised by now.
So we agree that we will have a draft before us on Monday and that if, on reflection, people begin to feel strongly about something, it is incumbent upon them to raise it with the clerks before then, to ensure that we can consider it next Monday.
The official report has agreed to give this meeting priority, so the report will be available as soon as possible. Members should be able to see it tomorrow or the next day.
I am grateful for that.
To clarify, I agree with most of what has been said but, as I have made obvious, I have a problem with section 28. Do I have to say that at this stage, or do we debate such matters in Parliament when the bill is introduced?
Will the report reflect the variety of views on the committee? Will it acknowledge any minority views?
What has been discussed so far is effectively the view of the committee—I would imagine that, on that particular point, Keith Harding could add a note of dissent. If someone wants to express dissent on any aspect of the bill, they should be free to do so.
I was trying to clarify the language you used. Do we go to a vote, and then that is the view of the committee—
There is only one area on which I have a problem. If we just put a note of dissent, that would be it.
The guidelines on reports indicate that if there is any dissent, it should be noted.
When will there be an opportunity to do that?
We will discuss it on Monday.
Will the clerks include Mr Marks's view on this? I know that he thinks that he should have the job.
Mr Marks has submitted his views, Donald.
Perhaps we could get a response from him, because we do not want to get into the same stushie as we did over temporary sheriffs.
I do not think that we agree with Mr Marks's view that the bill is fundamentally flawed. We should distance ourselves from that view.
I agree, but he has a particular point about who appoints the CIO.
I am mindful of the time because I have to catch the 5.33 pm train.
I thank Colin Campbell for giving the feedback about the visit to Perth and Kinross Council while I was at the European Committee yesterday. In case Colin did not mention it, we saw an exceptional joint strategy for care for older people in Perth. If anyone is interested, I have material on it.
Thank you.
I thank the official report for making us a priority so that we can move this forward at our next meeting.
Meeting closed at 17:15.