Official Report 137KB pdf
Members will recall that we agreed to produce a report on the ethical standards in public life bill that would reflect the evidence that we have heard and would include the Official Report and the minutes of the meeting during which we considered the draft bill.
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any comments on the next part of the report?
We need to tighten up the bill with regard to the harassment of elected members and officers. The report suggests that members might be harassed for party political reasons, but every member has constituents who cause substantial difficulties. When I was a member of Glasgow City Council, members of a number of parties had problems with certain constituents who came to every surgery and pursued them relentlessly at their homes and places of work. It is important that the bill, as well as providing protection for the public, provides protection for elected members against certain members of the public.
Does your point relate to paragraph 8?
Yes. The paragraph says that:
Are members agreed that the point should be expanded?
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any more comments on the report?
With regard to paragraph 17, I think that there was a broad view that MSPs should be included in the legislation. I voiced that opinion a couple of times and I know that others have. I know that, although the minister pointed out the Executive's position, members of quangos and local authorities would be happier if it were clear that MSPs were included in the legislation. If that is not clear, it will look like we are saying "Do as we say, not as we do".
I feel that that should be explored further. There is some anxiety about the fact that legislation that applies to some does not apply to us. We have to think about the message that is sent by that. Perhaps the Standards Committee will consider the matter.
Could I clarify that point? Has the committee decided that the matter should be explored further or that MSPs should be included?
My view is that it should be explored with a view to including MSPs in the legislation.
Are members agreed on that point?
Members indicated agreement.
On paragraph 18, given the furore that there has been about section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, it is important that the Executive should define the word "promote". It means different things to different people.
If the teaching guidelines are to be reviewed, it is important to say that they should be seen prior to repeal of the section.
The other day in the chamber, Alex Salmond and Donald Dewar agreed that. That should make everybody feel better.
Last Tuesday, Frank McAveety indicated that that would be the situation. Obviously, we would like that to be clarified in writing as soon as possible, so that we can put this behind us and move forward.
Can I confirm that the committee is happy with the sentence as it stands, if we add in some comment to the effect that "The committee would like there to be consultation on proposed guidelines before the repeal"?
We would like there to be "consultation and proposed guidelines before the repeal".
The Official Report will reflect the position taken by committee members at our previous meeting, when we discussed this.
Members indicated agreement.
We have two choices. We can either bring another draft to a future meeting to be agreed, or we can delegate authority to the clerk and convener to tighten up what has been said. The report could then be progressed more speedily.
I am happy with that.
Could I have two seconds to check that the points that I wanted to make have been covered already? I am sorry, but the reason that I am late is that ScotRail cancelled my train.
The committee has directed the Executive's attention to the comments that Mr Marks made, but we have said that we do not agree with his view that the proposals are fundamentally flawed. However, we have asked the Executive to consider the specific points that he made.
In paragraph 15, the roles of the bodies involved need to be clarified, to ensure that there is no overlap between the different organisations.
The paragraph states that
We are concerned specifically with the roles of these organisations—what they will be doing. We need to be very clear about that.
How would you change the wording?
At the end of the paragraph I would say "and notes the potential for overlap and the need to be clear about the roles of the different organisations".
Are we allowed at this point to add things that we have not been able to discuss through evidence received or with the minister? Is it possible to consider other parts of the bill at this stage?
I would not have thought so. I think that this report should reflect what we have heard so far. It is an attempt to pull together what has been said at our previous meetings, rather than to introduce new issues. This is not the end of the story.
I am happy with that, because there are a number of issues that I would like to raise on which we have not yet been able to take evidence.
That is fine.
Do we agree to give authority to the clerk and the convener to produce a final draft and present it?
Members indicated agreement.