Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. For dealing with amendments, members should have the usual papers: the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. Members know about the division bell, so I shall not read out anything more about that.
Section 1—Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights
Group 1 is on the appointment of a commissioner/establishment of a commission. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1 to 4, 6 to 26, 30 to 34, 36 to 96, 98, 100 to 104, 106 to 128, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139 to 150, 152, 153, 156 and 158 to 174. I draw members' attention to the pre-emptions that are printed on the groupings paper.
The Executive amendments in group 1 will implement the commitment that we gave at stage 1 to create a commission instead of a commissioner.
The bill as introduced was framed in terms that would create an office of the Scottish commissioner for human rights. That followed the model that the Parliament adopted in previous cases, such as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill.
During stage 1, it became clear that the Justice 1 Committee and others had concerns about the potential difficulties involved in entrusting a single person with the task that was to be given to the proposed commissioner for human rights. Having considered those concerns, and as part of a wider strategy, the Executive agreed to revert to the original concept of a commission.
Let me pause for a moment to say, by way of providing some context, that the general architecture and the accountability and administrative framework have been substantially strengthened following the stage 1 discussions and the committee's suggestions. The commission will now operate within the context of a strategic plan. We have also changed the commission's accountability to Parliament on budgetary and locational issues, which will be much more closely tied to the powers of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
Amendment 1 will replace the current section 1(1) with a new subsection that will establish
"a body corporate to be known as the Scottish Commission for Human Rights".
Having considered the issues that the committee raised at stage 1 and the concerns that have been raised in wider contexts, such as the recent Procedures Committee and Finance Committee inquiries into commissioners more generally, we propose significant improvements to the architecture of the original proposals. Several of the amendments are consequential on the change of wording from "Commissioner" to "Commission".
Amendment 100 will amend schedule 1 by inserting a new paragraph to provide that the commission will have a chair and up to four other members. Like the existing commissioners, the chair will be appointed by Her Majesty, on the nomination of the Parliament, with the other members being appointed by the parliamentary corporation. There is a saving in that procedure. All the members could be full or part time, but a likely outcome is that the chair will be full time and the other members will be part time. The change could, therefore, result in administrative cost savings, compared with our original estimates.
In light of the views expressed in the Parliament at stage 1, what consideration did the minister give to amalgamating this office with one of the other offices that Parliament has already established and thereby simplifying some of the architecture of the commissioner and ombudsman sector for which Parliament has legislated in the past and for which it may legislate again this afternoon?
As Mr Swinney is aware, that suggestion was the subject of discussion at stage 2 and was rejected. We will deal with the issue later.
We are all aware that a number of issues arise from both the governance and management arrangements and from the architecture and structures of commissions and commissioners. One key point is whether there is a place for a distinct focus at commissioner level on the issues involved. In my view, there is a need for a clear focus on human rights through the establishment of a Scottish human rights commission. Notwithstanding that, there is considerable scope for the commission to share common and back-room services with other bodies and to consider the option of co-location. As Mr Swinney is aware, a lot of attention has been given to those matters during consideration of the bill—far more than was the case during the appointment of other commissioners.
There are further minor amendments to the arrangements. A provision in schedule 1, as introduced, prohibited the commissioner and deputy commissioners from holding any other office or employment without the consent of the parliamentary corporation. That provision was removed at stage 2, to avoid any implication that members of the commission ought to be full time.
Amendment 117 will allow the commission, with the approval of the parliamentary corporation, to make arrangements for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities to, or in respect of, any person who has ceased to be a member of the commission. That reflects the status of the commission as a body corporate with employees.
The remaining Executive amendments in the group will make changes consequential to the move from a commissioner to a commission. For example, they will change the references in various parts of the bill. Although it looks as if there is a large number of amendments in the group, they all relate to the same issue.
Amendments 3 and 4, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, revisit the issue on which John Swinney touched. What they propose was discussed at length and rejected at stage 2 by the Justice 1 Committee. Essentially, the amendments would make the Scottish commission for human rights and the Scottish public services ombudsman one organisation, by requiring the commissioner to be the same person as the ombudsman and the deputy commissioners to be appointed only from among those people who are already deputy ombudsmen.
I cannot support the proposal and will repeat some of the arguments that were made before the committee at stage 2. At present, the ombudsman is a full-time appointment, and the expectation is that the chair of the human rights commission will also be full time. There is a significant contradiction between requiring the ombudsman to take on the significant extra responsibilities that are envisaged for the chair of the human rights commission and expecting her to continue to perform her ombudsman duties on a full-time basis.
More important, it would be inconsistent with the principle of establishing a new post to stipulate that it could be filled only by the holder of another post. The Parliament should be able to reach a view before taking a decision, rather than it being laid down in advance who must be appointed. That will allow the substantial difference between the ombudsman's role and that of the commission, on which I have touched and which the ombudsman has recognised, to be taken into account. It will also be more in accordance with the principles that govern public appointments, which are aimed at ensuring the accessibility of all public appointments and encouraging as wide and diverse a range of applicants as possible, so that the best person for the post, based on merit—and, not least in this case, on experience—is appointed. Similar issues arise in respect of the deputy commissioners, to whom amendment 4 relates. I do not want to explore those issues further, because the same arguments apply.
More fundamentally, it remains our view that there is a significant gap that only the creation of a separate human rights body can fill effectively. In that context, it is worth noting that a report that Amnesty International published recently concluded that there was still a widespread lack of focus on human rights among Scottish public authorities and called for more to be done to secure awareness and compliance. If only one report had made those points, that would have been one thing. However, reports by organisations as varied as the better regulation task force, the National Audit Office, the British Institute of Human Rights and the Executive itself reached similar conclusions.
It is also worth noting that, at stage 1, the Scottish public services ombudsman herself welcomed the bill and expressed a preference for the creation of a freestanding human rights body over any expansion of her remit. In doing so, she noted the substantial difference between her role, which is reactive and focused on individual complaints, and the role of the proposed SCHR, which is proactive and aimed at addressing more general issues. We do not believe that there is a significant overlap between the two bodies.
That is not to say, of course, that the commission and the ombudsman's office should neither work closely together on issues of mutual interest nor explore opportunities for sharing support services and other resources. Indeed, we have taken significant practical steps to facilitate the possibility of sharing resources among different bodies by discussing the matter with the ombudsman, her staff, the SPCB and the United Kingdom team with responsibility for establishing the Great Britain commission for equality and human rights. Indeed, that reflects our general approach to public bodies.
Is the minister able to cite any cases of human rights abuse in Scotland for which no legal remedy could be found in the existing Scottish legal framework?
I will highlight one matter that might be appropriate in that regard, although I should point out that we do not know what cases will arise in future and that, of course, many people already take such cases through the courts.
A human rights analysis undertaken by Professor Alan Miller at the request of Carstairs state hospital led to very significant improvements in the institution's practices and policies that better safeguarded the inmates' human rights—which I trust Bill Aitken accepts are important. It also led to improved public practice at the hospital and, bearing in mind the challenges that might have been made to the previous regime, resulted in possible cost savings.
I stress the point about location because, given that both the UK Government and the Executive are establishing new bodies, the SPCB should fully investigate the possibility of co-locating both organisations if, as I hope, the bill is passed this evening.
The key point is that Parliament must have the discretion to decide who should be appointed as commissioners or members of the proposed human rights commission on the basis of their suitability for those roles. As a result, I hope that the Parliament will see fit to reject amendments 3 and 4, even though I understand the point that lies behind them. I also hope that, given the strengthened financial and administrative framework, members will support the new changes that we are seeking to make to the commission.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 3 seeks to confer the functions that the bill establishes for a Scottish human rights commissioner on the Scottish public services ombudsman by extending his or her role to include human rights promotion and awareness-raising. The Justice 1 Committee identified that narrow gap in existing service provision during its stage 1 consideration of the bill.
The Law Society of Scotland has confirmed that the ombudsman satisfies the criterion set out in clause 7(4) of the Equality Act 2006, which refers to a person
"established by Act of the Scottish Parliament"
whose principal functions would be the same as those of the commission for equality and human rights south of the border. The problem is that no one in Scotland has had a human rights promotion and awareness-raising function, although that does not mean to say that the promotion or protection of human rights has been ignored or neglected here—indeed, far from it. Pre-devolution, Scotland had a very good record of dealing informally with human rights issues. Post-devolution, with the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law, courts must take account of human rights issues and, under the Parliament's standing orders, every single bill must be examined for ECHR compatibility.
In addition, post-devolution, numerous commissioners have been created to deal with matters that range from health to freedom of information. All the commissioners also have responsibility for human rights in the areas that fall under their remits. On top of that, non-governmental organisations and HM prisons inspectorate for Scotland all have a human rights role.
Can the member elaborate on her statement that those other commissioners have a human rights role? By that, I do not mean something incidental but something central and intrinsic to their role.
The minister has only to look at the work of the commissioner for children and young people. She is certainly not slow in promoting human rights or highlighting any aspect of her remit in which she thinks human rights are being adversely affected.
The gap is a narrow one, so the minister's response, which is to create a commission or a commissioner, is in our view disproportionate. The minister's proposal certainly does not provide a value-for-money solution, as it will cost £1 million per annum. That money could and should be used to give voluntary organisations the funds to carry on in the role that they perform very well, with their expertise and experience in promoting and protecting human rights and, crucially, in taking up individual cases. The bill does not give power to either a commission or a commissioner to take up individual cases.
On top of that, I believe that by giving the role to the Scottish public services ombudsman, unnecessary duplication and overlap would be avoided. There would be a one-stop shop, which the public could readily access and use to address their concerns about human rights. Such a role would certainly complement the Scottish public services ombudsman's current role, which is to investigate maladministration. Human rights are a huge aspect of that role.
The main advantages would be that complementary role and the fact that there would be a one-stop shop. The public services ombudsman already has, from her investigations of maladministration, a good idea of where gaps exist and where she would like to promote and raise awareness of human rights among local authorities and other public bodies. Crucially, our proposal would save a considerable part of the £1 million that has been earmarked to pay for a commission or a commissioner. The money would be much better used to fund voluntary organisations rather than pay for advertising or for the salaries, pensions, allowances, accommodation and so on of the proposed commission or commissioner.
I support the arguments that Margaret Mitchell has put forward. Those arguments must be carefully explored by Parliament before we establish another stand-alone commission to add to the number of commissioners for which the Parliament has already legislated.
I preface my remarks by saying that I have no doubt that human rights issues must be addressed and that awareness of human rights must be improved. However, I doubt whether, to make that happen, we need to establish a separate and discrete infrastructure in addition to the infrastructure for which Parliament has already legislated over the past few years.
I intervened on the minister to ask him what consideration had been given to the arguments against the proposition that Margaret Mitchell has put forward. The fact that an amendment is rejected at stage 2 does not render the argument futile. Rather, we must hear compelling arguments why it is necessary not to build on the existing infrastructure that we have established but to establish a stand-alone commission. With the greatest respect to the minister, I did not feel that in his response to my intervention he provided a compelling explanation of why the incorporation of the human rights remit and responsibilities within the functions of the Scottish public services ombudsman could not be done following the requisite changes that would make that possible.
Does the member recall that the issue of whether a Scottish human rights commission could be amalgamated with other bodies was included in the consultation on the proposals? That approach was considered as part of the preparatory work on the bill as well as more recently during stage 2 consideration.
I do not deny that, but I have heard no compelling reason why that route should not have been followed.
The remits of existing office-holders could be amended by the Parliament, if the Parliament deemed that to be the most appropriate way to proceed. As I said, human rights gaps exist and need to be addressed. We need to ensure that there are appropriate organisations that have the appropriate responsibilities to address such issues. Changes could be made, if the Parliament was minded to move in that direction.
The minister said that a purpose of the exercise is to secure greater awareness of human rights issues and greater compliance with human rights legislation. Of course we agree with that objective. However, I question whether we need to spend £1 million of public money on establishing another infrastructure to make that possible and practical.
In response to Bill Aitken's question about human rights issues that have been addressed, the minister cited the example of the state hospital, at Carstairs. Human rights at Carstairs needed to be addressed, but the issue was not addressed by a commissioner; indeed, it was dealt with before the proposal to have a human rights commissioner was made. Why do we need to establish a £1 million infrastructure, given that various processes of public policy allow us to address such issues? If there are gaps, let us allocate responsibilities and statutory duties to office-holders and give those people the appropriate resources to allow them to do the job, rather than expand and confuse the infrastructure of governance in Scotland. I hope that members will reflect on that point. The democratic Parliament of Scotland has a duty to ensure that we have a Government infrastructure that is simple, efficient and responsive and, most important, which does not duplicate what is going on in different corners of the public arena.
The issue could have been approached much more effectively, without incurring the cost to the public purse that is envisaged. We are repeatedly told that the spending situation will get tighter and hard choices will have to be made. This morning's debate on the budget review was all about the hard choices that we face. However, we do not seem to be making hard choices about how we allocate responsibility with resources, without increasing the burden on the public purse.
Is the member aware that the Executive has set aside £58 million to cope with the possibility of legal action on slopping out? Slopping out is a human rights issue that could have been successfully tackled by a commissioner. Prisoners are not popular people and they cannot rely on MSPs to make their case.
With the greatest respect to Mr Harvie—and to Mr Wallace—the issue could have been resolved years ago by Mr Wallace. A commissioner could not have directed Mr Wallace, when he was Minister for Justice, to end slopping out. A minister is an elected member of the Parliament and is, quite properly, accountable to the Parliament. Mr Wallace was entitled to decide to spend money not on ending slopping out but in another fashion—[Interruption.] If Mr McCabe, who was absent from this morning's debate, wants to intervene, he should get on his feet. I cannot hear what he is trying to say.
Perhaps Mr Swinney should take his own advice. Day after day in the chamber, he shouts like an uncontrollable child.
If that was meant to be an intervention worthy of Scotland's finance minister, Scotland's finance minister should think twice about his interventions.
To return to Mr Harvie's point, Mr Wallace was the democratically elected Minister for Justice and was entitled to take the decision that he took on slopping out, and the Parliament was entitled to hold him to account for that. The decision was completely within his powers. If he was still the Minister for Justice, no commissioner today could direct him on that matter. I would not approve of a commissioner who tried to do so, because the electorate must determine whether we take the necessary action. I reject Patrick Harvie's argument entirely.
Parliament has an opportunity to pause and reflect on the issues. We should not clutter up Scotland's infrastructure but take a sensible step forward—Margaret Mitchell's amendments and those of other members would help us in that respect. Parliament needs to pause and reflect on the issues before we commit to more public expenditure that could go to other matters. The minister's approach will not assist in the governance of Scotland or in addressing the human rights problems and concerns that our constituents bring to our attention.
As I said when the Parliament debated the bill previously in a substitute chamber, my starting point has always been that I was elected to the Parliament to represent people and to take seriously the issue of human rights, which I have done. I believe in the European convention on human rights and in many other rights that are not covered in that convention. I have always argued that every single elected member in the Parliament has a responsibility in relation to human rights and that that is our primary purpose.
Patrick Harvie and others have argued that, if we had had a human rights commissioner before now, we would not have slopping out in prisons today. I put it on the record that I utterly oppose slopping out in prisons—it is wrong and we are well on the way to ending it. However, if I thought for a minute that the human rights commission would think that its priority and that of the general public was to spend public money on taking cases to court, I would not support the proposals.
It is important to look carefully at the Executive's amendments, because they fit together. Importantly, the Executive has, I think, changed substantially the direction in which it is going. The bill was amended so that the duty of the commissioner—or the commission, depending on our decision later—will be to think not only about the obvious people who are in a position to lobby, but about those who are in more deprived communities and who are far more remote from the Parliament and commissions. Members should not forget that that duty is in the bill.
The question that we will determine this afternoon is whether any body should exercise a human rights function. Although the Justice 1 Committee did not endorse the bill's general principles and had divergent views on how the human rights function should be exercised, our view was that someone should have that statutory function. The proposals have changed from being for a commission to a commissioner at least four times, and we must make a decision once and for all today—that is for sure.
The Executive's proposals today are a wee bit different. The structure of the new body is important and we have before us the possibility of a commission that involves part-time people. That is important because, as a trade unionist, I believe that trade unions can make a significant contribution to human rights. The proposals would allow people from different backgrounds to be part of the structure and to contribute to the promotion of human rights.
Whatever members think on the issue, they should acknowledge that a lot of work has been done. Margaret Mitchell was right to lodge amendment 3, because it is legitimate for the Parliament to discuss whether the Scottish public services ombudsman is the right person to exercise the human rights function. I happen to think that the Executive's proposal to create a commission is the right way forward, although I attach some conditions to that. It is important that the rest of the debate fits in. I will not support the Executive amendments until we get further down the road of ensuring that the commission will be accountable for its finances. We need to know who will determine the location of the body—whether it is co-located with the public services ombudsman or the Great Britain commission. I do not believe that the decisions on those matters will interfere with the commission's independence.
Finally, it is important that, whatever body we set up to exercise the human rights function, that body—or person—should tell the Scottish Parliament what it intends to do with its £1 million. Were the Corporate Body to appoint such a body or person, it is only right that, for the five years covering the appointment, the Parliament should be told what the body or person will do with its time.
This is not just about supporting the amendments in the first group; it is about everything else that goes along with that. If we are going to have a body or person that exercises the human rights function, which is a promotional function, we have to get into the detail of how the process will work.
Even if members support amendment 3, which would give that function to the ombudsman, they still have to decide the detail of how the function will be exercised. One way or another, some decisions have to be taken. With those conditions, I support the Executive's amendments to section 1.
I very much hope that we will create a full commission for human rights. The opposition to that approach echoes the general but, I hope, minority opposition to the bill. A full commission might not be the cheapest option—although, in bandying around the figure of £1 million, we should remind ourselves that that is the annual cost of a small handful of MSPs—but it will be the best and the strongest option and will give the greatest value.
Patrick Harvie used the phrase "full commission". Is he suggesting that such a commission would be complete and would require no powers, or is he using the word "full" in a different sense?
I use the word "full" to differentiate a commission from a commissioner, but I very much agree that we should give the body the full set of teeth that it will require to promote and protect human rights. I regret that we are unlikely to do that, but I want the body established so that it can grow in its authority and—I hope—be given those teeth over the years.
Margaret Mitchell's amendments propose merging the proposed commission with the public services ombudsman, but the two organisations have fundamentally different ethos. Human rights are focused on the individual. Maladministration is focused on a public body that is executing some function. In focusing on maladministration, the public services ombudsman may encounter human rights issues, but that organisation's ethos is different from that of the proposed commission. Further, I disagree with the concept that there is a narrow gap. The human rights issues that the commission will engage in cover the full range of the Scottish Parliament's functions and devolved issues.
It has also been suggested that the other bodies that engage from time to time with human rights issues can fill the gap. Other bodies engaged with human rights issues have human rights responsibilities, but all public bodies have to comply with the law. It would be bizarre to suggest that we can muddle by without any organisations whose specific focus and remit is the justice system—we should say the same about human rights.
Margaret Mitchell used the phrase "one-stop shop". The proposed commission will not be a one-stop shop if we merge it with the public services ombudsman, because the ombudsman has a role in maladministration in relation to individual cases. Regrettably, the proposed commission will only have a role in promotion. If we go down the route of Margaret Mitchell's amendments, there will come a point when an individual may be given the response, "No, I'm sorry, there's no maladministration here. This is a human rights issue. I have to put the phone down on you now because I have no responsibility for individual cases."
Would the member rather create a commission or a commissioner that cannot take up individual cases, in the hope that it may one day have the ability to do so—although perhaps it never will—or would he rather use the money that is available to fund voluntary organisations that do sterling work in promoting and protecting human rights for many vulnerable people in our society?
I happily join Margaret Mitchell in commending the voluntary sector for the work that it does, but it is wrong to turn up our noses at the proposed commission simply because it will be given only one of the two important functions. I want the commission to have both functions, but it is getting one of them today and that is better than nothing.
I agree with Pauline McNeill that many people would not agree that slopping out should be a priority for the commission. I am reminded of the statement—I cannot remember who said it—that the problem with human freedom is that we spend our lives defending scoundrels because oppressive laws are used first against scoundrels. If oppression is to be stopped, it must be stopped at the beginning. It is not appropriate to say that, because a group is unpopular, it should not be a priority and its human rights can have second-best status.
Is the member seriously suggesting that, if we go down the proposed route and appoint a human rights commission, it will somehow be able to direct ministers on how to spend public money? That is the only way in which a human rights commission could have ended slopping out.
I take that point. John Swinney made the same point earlier. I do not propose that the commission should be able to direct ministers, but it should be able to make life uncomfortable for politicians in the Government and the Parliament. If we believe—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry. I have taken a lot of interventions.
Members from across the political spectrum believe that the European convention on human rights is part of the moral fabric of a modern society. If we believe that the treatment of people, no matter who they are, must not slip below a certain minimum standard, we should be willing to establish a strong, independent and focused human rights commission. I hope that members will vote to do that today.
A human rights commission was not required in order for me, in September 2002, to announce the biggest-ever investment in refurbishing and building new prisons. That programme has been carried on and enhanced by Cathy Jamieson.
Life was made difficult for me when I produced the plans for reforming the prison estate, not least by Christine Grahame and the Justice 1 Committee. When they were quibbling over whether the programme should be private, private-public or public build, I remember saying to a colleague, "It is interesting that none of these people ever mentioned the need to end slopping out earlier." I take some of Mr Swinney's criticisms with a pinch of salt.
I remind Mr Swinney that, in a Conservative party debate on the European convention on human rights in March 2000, Michael Matheson, who was the SNP's deputy justice spokesman at the time, said:
"a massive vacuum has been left in relation to human rights in Scotland and that vacuum must be filled. The most effective way of achieving that would be by establishing a human rights commission in Scotland."
Linda Fabiani said:
"If the European convention on human rights is to be properly incorporated into Scots law, Scotland needs its own human rights commission in the form described in the Scottish National party amendment."
I could quote Ms Cunningham too.
I anticipated that the member would do that.
If Mr Wallace cares to think carefully about that debate, he will remember that the SNP was talking about a human rights commission that would have subsumed the various other human rights bodies that are now in place. The human rights commission that we were discussing is nothing like the one that is being discussed now.
Roseanna Cunningham said:
"The SNP wants a commission which would fulfil a wide range of functions. It should promote good practice, and public authorities and private bodies would be covered by human rights legislation."—[Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol 5, c 328, 333 and 318.]
That is very much in line with what we are proposing today.
Patrick Harvie said that the difference between the proposed human rights commission and the ombudsman is that the ombudsman takes up individual cases—that is correct—and the only function of the commission would be to promote awareness. To be fair, however, the commission's functions will go much further than that. It will provide information, guidance and education but it will also have a responsibility to monitor laws, policies and practices and the power to conduct inquiries. Its role goes a good bit further than simply promoting awareness.
I am sure that Jim Wallace will agree that the commission's functions in relation to individual cases are limited, but I hope that he will also reinforce the point that, because of its specific focus on human rights, it is more important for the commission to work closely with the UK commission than with the Scottish public services ombudsman.
I entirely agree, and I think that Patrick Harvie's comment answers one of the points that Pauline McNeill made about whether the human rights commission could take up an individual case. As I understand the bill, it could not do that and I endorse the point that it must range much more widely than the Scottish public services ombudsman does. That is why I think that Margaret Mitchell's point is misguided, particularly if the Scottish public services ombudsman says that she does not want those responsibilities. It is a full-time job, and to add it to her existing functions would overload the ombudsman, who would probably end up doing neither job as well as it could be done.
Margaret Mitchell said that the money could be given to some of the groups that promote human rights. Most of the groups that promote human rights whose representatives I have met are 100 per cent behind the proposals and want the commission. To pray them in aid—or to pray financial support to them in aid—of opposing the proposal is therefore somewhat disingenuous.
Is it Mr Wallace's contention, therefore, that the various voluntary organisations to which I referred would not welcome a substantial share of £1 million to continue their effective work?
I have never yet come across a voluntary organisation that would not accept money, but those organisations believe that what they are in business to do would be substantially enhanced by the bill being passed, not by its being watered down or defeated.
When the consultation was produced early in 2003, the Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee had proposed the establishment of a children's commissioner and had published a bill to bring that about. At that stage, the question whether children should be excluded from the human rights commission work was considered, but it was accepted that they should not be excluded. However, the consultation paper stated that the human rights commission should
"establish workable practical arrangements with a Commissioner for Children and Young People",
and that that process
"should include considering whether there is scope for co-location and sharing resources."
The idea of sharing resources was consulted upon and indicated as a preferred option at an early stage. At that stage, of course, the UK Government had not taken its proposals for a human rights commission as far as it has done now. If there were to be some co-location, it would make a lot of sense to work alongside and collocate with the new UK body.
It is a misunderstanding or a misreading of the situation on Bill Aitken's part to say that it is only about specific pieces of litigation. I see the matter as going far wider than litigation, to encompass awareness and promotion of the culture. That is one of the most important things about what is proposed, so it goes further than individual cases. It is also wrong to bask in the idea that everything in the garden is rosy, as Margaret Mitchell seemed to suggest. Many members will have seen the report on Scottish public authorities that was published in September this year by Amnesty International in Scotland. It stated:
"Amnesty International agrees with the Justice 1 Committee that a Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights must ‘… successfully deliver a core promotional and awareness raising role which will embed an awareness of human rights in the provision of services by all public authorities in Scotland.'
However this survey has demonstrated that over half the public authorities surveyed do not understand what compliance with the Human Rights Act means."
There is a gap to be filled. Awareness needs to be raised and education is required, so the idea of a commission—the original consultations were on a commission, rather than a commissioner—is to be welcomed. The Information Commissioner for the UK has highlighted the problems associated with closed-circuit television, and yesterday the person who pioneered DNA sampling for the police raised issues about that. There are numerous human rights issues to consider and we would benefit from having a commission. The commission should, as a matter of fundamental importance, deliver good value for money, and its independence will be vital. The minister's amendments will go a long way towards delivering what surveys show many people in this country want in order to safeguard and promote our human rights.
I congratulate the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People on producing what is probably the most heavily populated group at stage 3, with about 150 amendments in it. Would that such cerebral fecundity had been an attribute of the Minister for Justice in his intervention on my colleague, Mr Swinney. Of course, it was not.
Finance minister.
I stand corrected—it was the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. He has the effect of puzzling us whenever he rises to his feet, and I am not immune.
I am reminded of the wonderful BBC series, "First Minister"—
"Yes, Minister".
Yes, "Yes, Minister" and then "Yes, Prime Minister". The first episode had Jim Hacker meeting his civil servants and asking about a freedom of information bill, only to find that the civil servants had prepared for it. Later in the programme, we hear discussion between civil servants and the view is expressed that the bill is dangerous. However, Sir Humphrey is able to assure his boss at the Cabinet Office that they always get the difficult things out in the title of a bill so that they do not have to talk about them in the detail. In many ways, the bill does that too: it says that it is a Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill, but it actually delivers something considerably less.
Some interesting and strange arguments have been deployed today. In rebutting the proposition that was put forward from the Conservative benches, the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People said that it would not be appropriate to extend the powers of the public services ombudsman, although this morning we heard Jeremy Purvis articulating precisely the argument that it was appropriate to extend the powers of the Parliament. A bit of consistency would be appropriate.
We need to look more closely at the detail of what the bill says. What can the commission actually do? It can
"(a) consult, (b) act jointly with, (c) co-operate with, or (d) assist".
That is fine, and when we put it in parallel with the public services ombudsman, the inquiries that can be done focus on Scottish public authorities in general, Scottish public authorities in particular, and any particular kind of Scottish public service authority—precisely the area of activity of the public services ombudsman. There is clearly a parallel set of responsibilities in the public services ombudsman that justify serious consideration of the amendments that were lodged by Margaret Mitchell.
The question has been asked whether a minister can be directed by the commissioner. Of course, they cannot.
The real problem with the bill is that it focuses on corporate bodies. It leaves my constituents—and those of every member in the chamber—continuing to be puzzled about why they cannot go to someone's door to seek redress or answer in relation to their rights. The bill does not create such a person. I suspect that if it did, there would be support across the chamber to a much greater extent than there will be at 6 o'clock tonight. The focus on the corporate is unhelpful; the neglect of the individual is not useful.
The bill will certainly do no harm, but it shows little sign that it will do any realistic good that justifies any price tag—whatever it might be—that we put on it.
Some peculiar and contradictory arguments have been made across the chamber. Stewart Stevenson makes a number of good and interesting speeches, but I am not sure that that was one of them, particularly with his rather bizarre allusion to the powers of the Parliament.
Let us be clear about what the human rights commission will do. Bill Aitken set us off on a wrong track by talking about individual remedies. The bill does not propose a commission that will provide individual remedies, as anyone who took the trouble to read the bill would agree. The bill is specifically about improving the promotional arrangements for human rights in Scotland; it also deals with the other aspects that Jim Wallace listed in his excellent speech.
The bill is important because there is a gap that needs to be filled if we are to get better standards of human rights. However, the commission will not solve all the world's problems, as some members have suggested.
Exaggerated statements have been made, notably by Patrick Harvie, on slopping out, which continues to be a matter of great political controversy. John Swinney was right to say that no member would expect any commissioner to give directions to ministers about how to deal with such matters. It is not the intention—nor is it likely—that the commission would have a decisive role to play in bringing such issues to public attention or in pursuing them.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have only four minutes, so I cannot take interventions.
As Patrick Harvie rightly said, there is a range of issues across the gamut of the Parliament's activities on which the commission will be able to adopt a helpful approach to improving standards. The bill focuses on the corporate level. As the various reports that have been done—including that by the Justice 1 Committee—identify, that is where the gap lies. The issue of human rights is complex; expertise is required to deal with it. We cannot always follow it through in all its manifestations without professional input. The new commission will be able to provide such advice and assistance.
John Swinney talked about the need to pause for consideration. No bill in the Parliament's history has had more pause for consideration than the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill, which began its parliamentary progress in 2000. It has been the subject of two consultations, both of which supported the general principles of the direction of travel and explained clearly what the proposal would mean. It is interesting how many members have suddenly discovered, at a late stage in the Parliament's consideration of the bill, what the various difficulties might be.
Roseanna Cunningham has engaged in some imaginative rewriting of the SNP's position.
Will the minister give way?
No, I cannot.
The Conservatives are putting forward the proposition that there is no place for a commission for human rights, but in a parliamentary debate David McLetchie said:
"I would welcome the establishment of a human rights commission or similar body to act as a point of reference or guidance on a consultancy basis. That is the most effective way of providing advice to public authorities."
That is misinformation.
It is not misinformation; it is a direct quotation from a parliamentary debate.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made similar comments. He said:
"Public authorities in Scotland need a body to which they can refer for expert guidance on action to iron out any difficulties that the incorporation of the European convention on human rights may impose … it is not inconceivable that public authorities will also have them. That is why we need a Scottish human rights commission".—[Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol 5, c 307, 350.]
The Executive's amendments are important structurally. The central issue is having a commission rather than a commissioner. That will provide the strategy for making progress on human rights issues. I hope that the Parliament will support our proposal.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. There will be a five-minute suspension while the division bell is sounded.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 75, Against 37, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 73, Against 39, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Group 2 is on parliamentary approval prior to appointment of the commissioner or the member to chair the commission. Amendment 5, in the name of Des McNulty, is grouped with amendment 100A.
Earlier this week, during a lecture in the University of Glasgow on the lessons of devolution, Jim Wallace said:
"If things have changed in 2006, since a partnership agreement commitment made in 2003, then it makes no sense to press on regardless."
That comment is particularly relevant to the bill. The proposal to establish a combined United Kingdom commission for equality and human rights, with an office in Glasgow, gave us an opportunity to create a one-stop shop to deal with all human rights matters—a solution that would have been more cost effective and, undoubtedly, simpler for the public to understand and access.
In September, the cross-party Finance Committee unanimously recommended that there should be a moratorium on the creation of new commissions. We were prompted by concerns over accountability, overlapping remits and the burgeoning expense of the bodies and felt that, unless it can be demonstrated that there are responsibilities that cannot be picked up by an existing body, no new commission should be established. In this instance, not only could the powers of the existing commission for equality and human rights easily have been extended but there was another alternative. As the Scottish public services ombudsman accepted in evidence to the Justice 1 Committee at stage 1, it would be possible for her office to discharge the responsibilities that were intended for the Scottish human rights commissioner. She accepted that she could undertake the advocacy responsibilities in relation to human rights. She also highlighted concerns about overlaps and duplication should a separate body be created—concerns that the Executive has ignored.
It is not too late for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to be asked to explore options that will allow us to simplify the delivery of the advocacy of human rights, which is the purpose of the bill. My amendment will enable us to save substantial sums of public money that would otherwise be irresponsibly wasted. Before spelling out how that might be achieved, I would like to highlight some process issues that I believe should give every member of the Parliament cause for concern.
We should point out that ministers have flipped and flopped repeatedly over the issue of whether there should be a commission or a commissioner. We are being faced at stage 3 with 164 Executive amendments—not around 150, as Stewart Stevenson said—which were lodged by the minister only last Friday. Although they are repetitious, their effect at this late stage is to significantly change the nature of the bill.
Has Mr McNulty noticed that many of the amendments that the Government has lodged at stage 3 were defeated at stage 2 in the committee? Does that not render redundant some of the arguments that were made by the minister in the previous debate?
Mr Swinney is absolutely right. I was going to point out that similar amendments were defeated at stage 2, when the minister lost not only key votes on his own amendments but, I would argue, all the arguments on my amendments. Mr Brown repeated his performance today, although I thought that it was marginally better than his performance at stage 2. We should also remind ourselves that that performance was preceded by the Justice 1 Committee's refusal to endorse the principles of the bill at stage 1. There has been a catalogue of problems, which should give us pause for thought.
Many members will not have seen the financial note that was sent out by the minister only on Tuesday, which shows that less than a quarter of the money that we are being asked to authorise today will be spent on functional costs and the work of the commission. The remainder will be required to pay support staff—many of whom would probably not have been required if the task had been given either to the ombudsman or to the commission for equality and human rights—and, of course, the inflated salaries of the members of the commission. It is an ill wind that does not benefit lawyers. Those costs might not be a huge element of the Executive's budget, but they represent a heavy price to the people of Scotland for the stubbornness of the minister and his political colleagues.
The Parliament has no revising chamber, which makes it all the more important that we exercise due diligence in legislating. Since 2003, there have been material changes that mean that the case for a new commission has been invalidated. The Executive has had many chances to change tack. Had the minister acted sensibly, the Parliament would have come out of this with some credit. However, the wise words of Jim Wallace, to which I have referred, have not been heeded by his colleagues. They have insisted on pressing ahead despite the growing recognition of most members that the bill is poor legislation. We have arrived at this point by a process that I believe is as embarrassing for this Parliament as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was for Westminster.
Patrick Harvie managed to compound that embarrassment last night by appearing to claim that opposition to the bill would lead to dictatorship. I am sure that others will be as irritated as I am by sanctimonious claims that anyone who questions the proposition that there should be a stand-alone body is somehow opposed to human rights. The reverse is true. It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, both to uphold human rights and to spend public money wisely. Even at this late stage, amendment 5 is a lifeline that could allow us to achieve both objectives.
In conclusion, I return to another point that Mr Wallace made in his lecture. He referred to a conversation with Donald Dewar in which he suggested that it would have been a good thing if the Executive had lost more votes in the chamber, as the rejection of legislation that was inadequate would have sent a powerful signal. He did not recount Donald's reply, but I hope that members will send the right signal by supporting the amendment in my name.
I move amendment 5.
I am indebted to Des McNulty for the trouble to which he went in reading from the speech that Jim Wallace gave at the University of Glasgow. I had not managed to get round to reading it. It puts into context the criticism that Mr Wallace made of the SNP for reflecting that, after six years of devolution and all the legislation establishing numerous commissioners and ombudsmen, this is the moment for us to say no and to pause. Mr Wallace should perhaps be more consistent in what he says from one day to another about the lessons for political parties to learn.
I support unreservedly what Des McNulty has said in representing the opinions of the Finance Committee today. The committee—I would say unanimously, but for the exception of Mark Ballard—has become increasingly concerned about the spiralling costs of ombudsmen and the congestion and duplication that are entering their areas of responsibility. This is the moment at which Parliament can take the option that Des McNulty has offered us and reflect on the duplication and overlap of duties that have been created. The bill has had a tortuous parliamentary journey because it is not a piece of legislation with which members are comfortable or in which they have confidence.
We need to think again about the bill. I urge members to support amendment 5 to ensure that we deliver good legislation for the people of Scotland.
I support the amendments in the name of Des McNulty, which make sense, and I am grateful to him for highlighting the inconsistencies in Jim Wallace's comments during the debate.
In voting for the creation of a commission, the Scottish Parliament has ignored the recommendation that was made by the Finance Committee. An alternative and better approach would have involved the Scottish public services ombudsman. The option that we now have simply means that, instead of a vast amount of the money that is available going to help people to fight individual cases or to promote human rights effectively, it will go on salaries, pensions and allowances, which is a shame and a disgrace.
I want to respond to Des McNulty. I categorically did not suggest that not voting for the bill would lead to a dictatorship. Des McNulty's comments were an absurd overreaction to what I said, which was that some arguments that have been deployed against the provisions in the bill were more familiar from countries that are emerging from dictatorship, where Governments have behaved as though no one should hold them to account.
Des McNulty suggested that the Great Britain commission should be given the powers in question, but not even the UK Government supports that position. The Westminster legislation includes a specific prohibition on that commission dealing with devolved issues.
Amendment 5 would, in practice, close the door on the Scottish commission co-locating with the Great Britain commission by delaying its creation. The amendment therefore defeats the arguments that Des McNulty has made relating to cost savings. Let us get on, pass the bill, create the commission, save money by preventing future costly court cases and promote a human rights culture.
I acknowledge the work of the Finance Committee, which has been led by Des McNulty. John Swinney and others have also taken a close interest in governance and accountability issues. I do not want to ignore all the debates that have taken place and all the arguments that have been made because valid points have been made in them. That is recognised by ministers, including the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, with whom I have already discussed the matter.
It is important to recognise that our public service reform agenda aims to accelerate the pace of reform and to secure improvements right across the public services. Improving accountability is important and it is right and proper that we closely scrutinise the activities of every body with public funds at its disposal. If there are gaps in accountability and governance arrangements, we will strongly support measures to address those. Indeed, we are currently working with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to consider opportunities for shared services and co-location, for example.
If the amendments in the group were agreed to, the Parliament would be required to appoint a person to compile a report on the costs of the commission and the scope for minimising overlaps with other bodies' remits. I think that we have dealt with such issues in other amendments.
Notwithstanding the minister's comments on the Government's public service reform agenda, does she acknowledge that, since devolution, the Government has presided over an expansion in the number of public sector bodies, commissioners and ombudsmen? The Finance Committee has made the entirely reasonable proposition that there should be a moratorium until we decide how effective our governance arrangements are. If the Government supports that proposition, we could progress on a much more unified basis than I suspect we would otherwise do.
I hear what Mr Swinney is saying and, as I said, I recognise the work that the Finance Committee has done, which we need to consider. The bodies and positions that we have created have been created for genuine reasons and with the best interests of the people of Scotland at heart. Members of the Scottish Parliament believed that creating a children's commissioner and a public services ombudsman, for example, represented a way of progressing an agenda that would deal with injustices and inequalities in society. It is acknowledged that, in the future, we will have to consider the range of commissioners, ombudsmen and organisations to ensure that we are still getting the best value for money and to ensure that public money is being spent wisely and is getting results.
As a result of concerns that were raised by the Justice 1 Committee, we have made a number of changes to the bill. The bill now requires the commission to consult on a strategic plan and then to publish it. The commission must also submit an annual budget proposal for Parliament's approval. Its annual accounts will be subject to the scrutiny of both the Parliament and the Auditor General for Scotland. It will be required to ensure that it does not unnecessarily duplicate the work of other statutory bodies. We have also lodged amendments that will require the commission to have regard to the desirability of sharing services in order to make the best use of resources.
The minister will be aware of a concern that I expressed at stage 2. In the past, the Parliament has been held hostage and has had no option but to approve further budgets for organisations such as Scottish Opera and Scottish Enterprise. Will the minister assure me that, as a result of the amendments that we are passing today, it will be clear that no budget will be able to overrun, leaving the Parliament with a bill for which it had not set a budget?
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will be responsible for appointing the commission. If the bill is passed, a clear message will go out from the Parliament that it expects the spirit of the bill, as well as the letter of the bill, to be adhered to. There is cross-party support for the idea that all public money should be spent wisely and only after careful scrutiny. Later, we will come to amendments in the name of Mary Mulligan that will give the corporate body more ability to scrutinise.
Karen Gillon makes a valid point. If a budget has to be approved in advance by the corporate body, it will be incumbent on any organisation that receives public money not to go outwith its budget.
I understand what Des McNulty is trying to achieve with amendments 5 and 100A, but I do not think that they are necessary to ensure full and careful scrutiny. It is unlikely that he will seek to withdraw his amendments, but I will still ask him to do so, based on the assurances that we have offered today and the other amendments that the Executive has lodged. I have also assured him about conversations that have already taken place with the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform.
As recently as Tuesday, new figures were produced that assumed that salaries and office costs connected to the bill would be paid on a part-year basis. However, the functional expenditure has not been adjusted accordingly. Even at this late stage, with the focus on finance, there is an elementary error—one of a number of errors—in the last-minute calculations of the minister.
Amendment 5 would require the SPCB to trim costs substantially where there are savings to be made, rather than pressing on regardless with a budget that does not stand up to scrutiny. Even if the amendment is defeated, I hope that the SPCB will still trim the costs, because that is its job and its obligation.
Not enough attention has been paid to crucial issues. Those issues relate not only to the human rights commissioner but to every other commissioner, because almost identical problems have arisen with every other commissioner. The Parliament must grow into its responsibilities. In elections, we have been given responsibilities by the people of Scotland. We should not give those responsibilities away lightly but should do so only when it is absolutely necessary. The case has not been fully made for Mr Brown's proposals.
The amendments in my name allow us a last-gasp opportunity to ask ourselves whether we have got this right before we drive ahead with the fixed model that the Executive has, politically speaking, continually sought to impose on us. The issue is for the Parliament as a whole to consider. As a responsible Parliament, we cannot have processes that lead to this kind of legislation being introduced in this kind of way, especially when the legislation aims to set up an independent commission that should have the support and endorsement of the whole Parliament. A key element should be that everyone buys into the creation of such bodies.
I do not believe that the way in which the bill has been introduced and the controls that are to be put in place are satisfactory. I say that with great sadness, because I think that we could have done better and I hope that we will do better in future. We will do better by being more fundamental in the way in which we look at these issues.
I will press amendment 5.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to.
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 73, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 2—General duty to promote human rights
Amendments 7 to 12 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Information, guidance, education etc
Amendments 13 to 19 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 4A— Monitoring of law, policies and practices
Amendments 20 to 22 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 14—Power to co-operate etc with others
Amendments 23 to 26 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Group 3 is on the activity of the commissioner and duplication of work by any other person. Amendment 27, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 27 is a probing amendment on the provision that requires the commissioner to
"seek to ensure, so far as practicable, that any activity undertaken by the Commissioner under this Act does not duplicate unnecessarily any activity undertaken by any other person".
Given that the Executive has asked Parliament to agree to amendments that will result in the creation of a commission rather than a commissioner, we should now be prepared to drill down into the detail of that. It is vital that the provision in section 14 exists, because there is no point in creating a commission for human rights if it will duplicate the work of anyone else. I emphasise that duplication should refer not just to the work of other bodies and commissions but to the work of the committees of the Parliament.
Amendment 27 seeks to remove the word "unnecessarily". I think that the provision is too loosely worded, because it would allow the commission itself to determine whether it is duplicating the work of someone else. I would prefer to delete the word "unnecessarily". I hope that ministers will endorse the message that the idea of duplication extends to the Parliament's committees. If a parliamentary committee were conducting an inquiry into an issue of human rights, I would be concerned if the commission for human rights took up the issue at the same time. We must set down clear lines of demarcation if we are to go down this road.
Although amendment 27 is a probing amendment, I look for strong assurances from ministers that the provision means that there should be no duplication. The message to any commission or commissioner in the future should be that they are expected to abide by that principle in relation both to other commissions and to the Scottish Parliament.
I move amendment 27.
It is rather unclear whether we should support or reject the amendment. An argument for rejecting it is that creating an absolute inhibition on duplicating work by deleting the word "unnecessarily" would slow down and make cautious a commission that, if we are to have one, must be outward looking and confident that it will not be open to legal challenge. I say that particularly because the phrase that is used is "any other enactment" rather than "any other enactment of the Scottish Parliament". Deleting the word "unnecessarily" might prevent the Scottish commission from looking at issues that the GB commission for equality and human rights is considering. There are potential difficulties in relation to that. I will listen to what the minister, as advised by her civil servants, has to say on the matter. Another speaker from the SNP may take a different view. That reflects the difficulties of considering at this late stage the deletion of one word in a provision that is an important fulcrum of the bill. At the moment, I am minded to oppose the amendment.
It is evident that SNP members, like members from other parties, are not all singing from the same hymn sheet today. I would be grateful if the minister would clarify what she envisages by the word "unnecessarily", which is not a terribly precise parliamentary term and is subject to enormous misinterpretation—even, dare I say it, duplication of opinion. We must be absolutely clear about what standards have been applied and what we envisage by the inclusion of the word in the bill. In the spirit of the debate, I am minded to support Pauline McNeill, because it is essential that we avoid duplication with functions that are performed by other bodies. I am concerned that the wording of the provision as it stands is not sufficiently clear to allow us to take an informed decision. I look forward to getting clarification that will assist us in the matter.
I am minded to support the amendment in Pauline McNeill's name. However, before committing myself to do so, I would welcome clarification of the point by the minister and an indication of whether the amendment would cause any unnecessary bother.
Robert Brown is the minister who will respond to the points that have been made.
Despite having many other magical abilities, I have not undergone a sex change.
I thank Pauline McNeill for raising the important issue of avoiding duplication, which is at the heart of the original provision in section 14. The Executive is strongly of the view that we do not want to see duplication of function between the bodies. Nevertheless, there are areas in which there will be commonality of interest. In an excellent contribution, in which he rightly referred to the issue as being at the fulcrum of the debate, Stewart Stevenson made the point that arrangements may be put in place for the Scottish commission to work in partnership with the GB commission, for example. I remind the chamber that the structure of the strategic plan arrangements is designed to ensure that the relationship between the Parliament and the commission is linked to the commission's work plan. That is an important backdrop to the debate.
There will be situations in which work by one body is done in co-operation with another, or in which one body contributes to the work of another. I take Pauline McNeill's point that parliamentary committees, which are democratic bodies, will be central in that connection. We certainly do not anticipate that the Scottish human rights commission will conduct a parallel inquiry without being invited to do so by the committee concerned.
It is essential that we deal with the issue of duplication but, as Stewart Stevenson pointed out, amendment 27 will make things too rigid and simply make it difficult for the commission to carry out its functions against the background of the strategic plan and its various agreements with other bodies on areas of activity. For example, removing the word "unnecessarily" would mean that, even if the commission thought that a certain activity was necessary to allow it to fulfil its functions, it would have to ensure that it did not carry it out. I realise that that point is somewhat on the fringe, but we in the Executive and many other people certainly feel that duplication must be avoided. Indeed, I hope that the message that comes out of this debate is that, under the arrangements that we seek to introduce, we do not expect the work of these bodies to overlap.
With that reassurance, I hope that Pauline McNeill will withdraw amendment 27.
I wanted to probe the issue because I felt that the Parliament needed to be clear about what was meant in section 14. The provision is helpful because, normally, there should be no duplication in the commission's human rights work. In that respect, the strategic plan will help, because it will allow us to see the commission's forward plan.
I simply want to ensure that, in making any judgment on this provision, a future commission can read the Official Report and see clearly that the Parliament's will on this matter is that it does not expect any duplication to occur. I am pleased that the minister mentioned the committees of the Parliament, because it is an important point. I do not expect a future commission to carry out a parallel report on a human rights issue that the Parliament has already decided to explore. As I have received some clarity on this issue, I seek to withdraw amendment 27.
Amendment 27, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 14
Group 4 is on power to assist on claims or legal proceedings. Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
At stage 2, Robin Harper raised the issue of giving the proposed commission grant-making powers. I said at the time that I would look at the matter, because the wording in the bill was somewhat ambiguous. We have decided not to follow Robin Harper's suggestion for a specific outline of the commission's grant-making potential, because we feel that it was never intended that it would make such grants. However, after further examination of the matter, we decided to lodge amendment 28, which will make it clear that the commissioner should not be involved in individual casework. We reached that decision after the second consultation, and the strand has run through our work on the matter.
The cost of supporting individual cases can be very high and the experience of other jurisdictions, not least the Northern Ireland human rights commission, suggests that such an approach does not necessarily promote or raise awareness of human rights issues efficiently or effectively. Of course, existing mechanisms in Scots law allow individuals to defend their rights through the courts with, where appropriate, the help of legal aid and assistance. The commissioner should not provide financial assistance to individuals in one legal area.
There is no particular and explicit provision that allows the commission to support individual cases, but there is a risk that some of the more general powers could be interpreted together in a way that would suggest that such a power exists. As a result, amendment 28 seeks to make it clear that the commission has no such power. Instead of being saddled with meeting the costs of individual cases, it should direct its resources at broader promotional and awareness-raising work.
I accept that, in some cases, the commission's input might be useful. However, the bill already contains provisions to allow the commission to make focused interventions in civil cases in which human rights arise. That will be a more efficient and effective use of the commission's resources than would becoming entangled in individual litigation. As a result, I hope that Parliament will accept the logic behind amendment 28 and support it.
I move amendment 28.
I accept the clarification in amendment 28 that the SCHR has no power to provide direct assistance. However, will the minister confirm that the amendment will not prevent the SCHR from publishing general guidance on how human rights can be upheld, including information to that effect? For example, will it be able to provide to a victim of an alleged human rights breach by a public authority information on how to claim compensation in court by referring that person to, or sending them, such general guidance?
I echo Marlyn Glen's remarks. I look forward to hearing the minister's response. The commission should not be prevented from publishing hypothetical cases, for example, for the education of the general public.
We believe that, in time, the commission should have the power to involve itself in individual cases. However, we accept that that is clearly not the will of Parliament, so we are willing to accept the commission with its promotional role. Nevertheless, we urge all political parties, as time goes on and as the commission establishes itself in civic society, to look again at the role that it could be given in the future regarding individual cases.
In response to Marlyn Glen's valid point, although we are obviously not supporting the use of the powers with individual cases, there is a clear signposting role for the commission. Therefore, publication of advice and guidance on where people can get additional information and distribution of leaflets could come entirely under the commission's central function. We anticipate that it would wish to take on that sort of role.
I recognise Patrick Harvie's position on the matter but, as he acknowledged, it is not a position with which the Executive agrees. It will no doubt be the subject for debate on another day.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Group 5 is on consent for human rights action by the Great Britain commission for equality and human rights. Amendment 29, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 35.
My proposals cover an important aspect of this afternoon's debate—they deal with provisions in the UK Equality Act 2006 on the commission for equality and human rights. Section 7(4) of that act provides that, with the consent of the Scottish commissioner, the Great Britain commission may use the powers of judicial review on devolved issues.
Amendment 29 states how that consent may be exercised. Under the amendment, it cannot just be used for a devolved issue, and it should be contained in the strategic plan that must be presented to Parliament. Amendment 35 would require that any intention of the Scottish commission to grant consent to the GB commission be flagged up to the Scottish Parliament in advance in the strategic plan. The Justice 1 Committee asked for clarity on that point—indeed, it asked for clarity from stage 1. I feel that this has been a vital constitutional issue to deal with, but it has not been addressed since the matter was first raised.
The Justice 1 Committee also raised the matter with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Its response was that the provisions were never designed to be a back door by which the Scottish commissioner could use the power of judicial review, which will not be granted by the bill. There are several reasons for that. First, that would be contrary to the legal principles of Scots law, in that a victim who sues over or claims a breach of their human rights must do so themselves. We do not allow third parties to do that.
It is important that we clarify how the consent that can be given by the Scottish commission to the GB commission would be exercised. There is nothing in the bill that gives any direction to a Scottish commission as to the reasons or criteria according to which it would exercise the power. It seems odd that the GB commission can exercise the power of judicial review on a devolved issue upon the consent of the Scottish commissioner when it is accountable to Westminster, but not to this Parliament. I have a problem with that. In any case, the power should be used sparingly, which is, I believe, why it was put there. That is the position, as I understand it, of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
I seek clarity on the matter. There will, of course, be costs involved, but it is not clear who would pay the costs of a court case. I guess that it would be the GB commission, if it was exercising the powers—albeit that it would be doing so with the consent of the Scottish commission. However, that is not clear.
If an issue is significant enough to warrant a court case because there has been a breach of human rights, I see no reason why there should not be advance planning in that regard. The Scottish commission could indicate in the strategic plan that it presents to Parliament its intention to give consent to the GB commission on an issue to do with human rights. Given that any court action would be likely to consider issues that fall within the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament, I simply suggest that we should be told about that.
My proposal would in no way interfere with the independence of either commission. It would simply ensure that elected members were aware that action was being taken in respect of human rights.
In a briefing note on amendment 29, it is suggested that the inclusion of information in the strategic plan would be a problem, because the plan will be produced only every four years. However, the bill makes provision for the strategic plan to be amended. If the Scottish commission wanted to give consent to the GB commission on an important matter that involved a devolved issue, nothing would stop it from amending the plan to indicate its intention to act.
I want confirmation that the Scottish Parliament would be aware that consent had been given to the GB commission, which is responsible to Westminster, and that it is expected that the power be used sparingly. I hope that the minister will confirm that there is no intention to provide a back door to judicial review powers for the Scottish commission. I would like to see a memorandum of understanding that sets out roughly how consent is expected to be exercised. I hope that the SPCB would see that memorandum in advance, so that we could all be clear about how the consent would be used. That is what amendment 29 is about.
If I get the answers that I seek on the matters that I have identified, I might be prepared to seek to withdraw amendment 29.
I move amendment 29.
We support amendments 29 and 35. If amendment 29 is not agreed to, we will still support amendment 35.
The issue illustrates the considerable difficulties in which we find ourselves as different legislatures try to ensure that their systems work harmoniously. The Scottish Parliament's involvement in the proposals to establish the commission for equality and human rights, some of whose responsibilities will apply north of the border, was sufficiently minimal to create the difficulties that the Justice 1 Committee encountered when it visited London during the early stages of its consideration of the bill.
Under the Scotland Act 1998, it would have been possible for Westminster simply to have given us the powers that we would need to create an integrated and holistic environment for the consideration of equality and human rights. Such an approach would have offered a useful way forward and would have avoided the difficulties at the interface between the bill and the Westminster approach, which was being considered before our bill was introduced. Amendments 29 and 35 try to address those difficulties. We support them.
I also support amendments 29 and 35. I seek from the minister the assurances that Pauline McNeill seeks, particularly in relation to judicial review and the transparency of the process. I remain to be convinced by the minister that Parliament should not agree to the amendments, because the approach that Pauline McNeill proposes would provide transparency.
How would use of the power be intimated to Parliament if not through the process that amendments 29 and 35 would provide for? How could MSPs be held to account for decisions, in the way that the UK Parliament will hold the GB commissioners to account? There is ambiguity in that regard, so the minister must clearly set out his expectations. The e-mails that I received this morning from people who oppose amendments 29 and 35 suggest that the issue is far more serious than Parliament initially appreciated. I would welcome clarification from the minister.
I call the minister. We do not have very long, minister.
I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for lodging amendment 29, which raises important issues. The amendment to the Equality Bill that gave the GB commission power to raise cases at judicial review in relation to human rights issues was lodged at a late stage. It was not the UK Government's original intention to give the GB commission such a power. We are aware of the potential difficulties that the provision could pose, so we discussed with the UK Government at an early stage how best to address that. As a result of those discussions, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equality stated on the floor of the House of Commons that section 7 of the Equality Act 2006 should be read as requiring the CEHR to seek the consent of the Scottish commission before instituting legal proceedings on a devolved matter. I suppose that that is, at that end of the day, probably okay.
The issue then turns on the proposed memorandum of understanding, which is central. The UK Government and the Scottish Executive agreed at the outset that the GB commission and the Scottish commissioner or commission should enter into a memorandum of understanding that sets out their respective roles, to be supported by close on-going co-operation. There was common ground on the Scottish commission's taking the clear lead on promoting human rights on devolved policy matters, while the GB commission would act on reserved matters. One incidental issue with Pauline McNeill's amendment 29 is that it proceeds not on that basis, but on a geographical basis.
The GB commission is therefore not expected to take any action on devolved human rights matters, except when that might be appropriate in connection with its reserved human rights or equality activities. The clear understanding of the Scottish ministers is that any such action should be incidental to those main activities and should not impact materially on the responsibility of the Scottish ministers, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish justice system. The GB commission's Scotland office and Scotland committee will advise the GB commission about its activities in Scotland, including its liaison with the Scottish commission. The Scotland committee is to be chaired by a GB commission member who has special knowledge of Scotland and whose appointment will be agreed with the Scottish ministers. That is an element of reinforcement. The committee will be required to include information on its activities in Scotland in its annual report and to submit copies of that report to the Scottish Parliament. That is a joining of the links.
I need to have the issue clarified. Does the minister envisage that the power to go to judicial review could be used by the GB commission in Scotland on a Scotland-only issue? I understand that that is not supposed to be the power.
Absolutely not. As I was at pains to say, that could be done only incidentally to a more general matter.
The Scottish commission will be accountable to this Parliament for its activities, not least the giving of consent to such an action. The requirement for an explanation of that consent deals with the accountability and information issues. The method of conveying to Parliament the intention to give consent should be agreed in the protocol.
Those are important assurances, but I want to give a bit of further reassurance.
Quickly.
The Scottish Executive is, and will continue to be, involved closely in the work on the protocol. We will ensure that agreements are in place. Against that background, and given the technical deficiencies of amendment 29, I hope that Pauline McNeill will accept our reassurances and be prepared to seek to withdraw it.
Ms McNeill, I am afraid that there is no time for you to speak. I ask you simply to say whether you wish to press or withdraw amendment 29.
That is unfortunate, as the issue is crucial, Presiding Officer.
Yes—but I am bound by the timetable. Do you wish to press or withdraw?
Presiding Officer, will you accept a motion without notice to extend the time for this group by five minutes?
What have you got to lose, Presiding Officer?
The time on the next group is what I have to lose. I am not prepared to exercise that discretion. I ask Pauline McNeill to say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 29.
I seek to withdraw amendment 29.
Do members agree to Pauline McNeill withdrawing amendment 29?
No.
In that case, the question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
the result of the division is: For 32, Against 73, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Section 4B—Strategic plans
Amendments 30 to 34 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Amendment 35, in the name of Pauline McNeill, has already been debated. Ms McNeill, do you wish to move amendment 35?
No.
Amendment 35 moved—[Stewart Stevenson].
The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 35 disagreed to.
Amendments 36 to 40 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 5—Power to conduct inquiries
Amendments 41 to 48 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Restrictions as to scope of inquiry
Amendments 49 to 53 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Evidence
Amendments 54 to 59 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Places of detention: powers of entry, inspection and interview
Amendment 60 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Report of inquiry
Amendments 61 to 65 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 10—Confidentiality of information
Amendments 66 to 71 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 11—Power to intervene
Amendments 72 to 82 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 12—Annual report
Amendments 83 to 88 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 13—Publication of reports
Amendments 89 to 91 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 15—Protection from actions for defamation
Amendments 92 to 94 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Interpretation
Amendments 95 and 96 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
After section 18
Before I call amendment 97, in the name of Mary Mulligan, which is grouped with amendments 99, 129, 130, 133, 135, 138, 151, 154 and 155, I direct members' attention to the pre-emptions and point out in particular that amendments 129 and 130 are direct alternatives and that the second will therefore replace the first. The pre-emptions are given in the groupings document.
Will you explain that?
I do not have time.
Amendment 97 responds to a discussion that many members have had on co-location of the SCHR. The amendment would allow the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to determine the initial location of the commission's office. There are two reasons why co-location should be supported, the first of which is financial. There is an opportunity for co-location to lead to sharing of administrative costs, which will allow the majority of the budget to be spent on the true business of the commission. At this stage, I have to admit that I favour co-location with the GB body—the CEHR. The more important point on co-location is that it will provide a one-stop shop for people approaching either of the human rights bodies, which would benefit the public, help to overcome confusion about which commission covers which element of human rights and allow those bodies to complement each other and work closely together.
Amendment 97 deals with the practical difficulties of co-location that could arise due to the different timings of the establishment of the CEHR and the SCHR. It would allow the corporate body to fill that gap in timing and to ensure that Parliament's wishes were carried out.
I understand the proposal in Margaret Mitchell's amendment 129. The committee discussed the idea, but the practical reality is that the Scottish public services ombudsman is located here in Edinburgh and there is a commitment to locate the CEHR in Glasgow. We have to take a practical decision on where the SCHR should be located, if indeed it is to be co-located. On balance, there are more advantages to the SCHR being co-located with the CEHR, so I will not support amendment 129.
Amendment 99, in my name, is a procedural one that would exclude from the general provisions the new section that is proposed in amendment 97.
I move amendment 97.
Amendment 129 provides for the commission's office to be co-located with that of the Scottish public services ombudsman. That would offer value for money and end the uncertainty about where the commission's office will be located. Mary Mulligan's amendment 97 would not achieve that. I recommend my amendment 129 in the interests of providing value for money, ending uncertainty and encouraging co-operation and dialogue between the two bodies.
Amendment 135 stipulates that the commission's staff must be drawn from the staff who are employed by the Scottish public services ombudsman, who are experienced in dealing with complaints against public bodies, including complaints that have a human rights aspect. Again, value for money is paramount and there would be considerable savings on pensions, salaries, social security, advertising and allowances. The provision would encourage the two organisations to work closely together and to draw on the experience of the Scottish public services ombudsman's staff in handling complaints.
Amendment 130 would give the SPCB the power to determine the location of the commission's office. We have heard that there is a case for the commission to be co-located with either the Scottish public services ombudsman or the GB commission. At stage 1, the committee said that a decision should be made on either of those two options.
Amendment 130 would provide that the SPCB determine the commission's final location, whereas Mary Mulligan's amendment 97 would provide that the SPCB determine the commission's initial location. I am happy to agree to Mary Mulligan's amendment as long as the minister acknowledges that the SPCB will be required to give final approval if there is a change of location in the future. On that basis, I will not move amendment 130.
I welcome amendments 97 and 99, which were lodged by Mary Mulligan. They are sensible amendments that will allow the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to prepare for the establishment of the commission; in particular, they will allow the SPCB to discuss with the implementation team for the GB commission the possibility of co-locating the two bodies. There is a commitment to identify suitable premises for the Scottish office of the GB commission in early 2007, which is perhaps before members of the Scottish commission can be appointed. It would be disappointing if the opportunity to discuss co-location with the GB commission was lost because of the timing of the appointments process. Amendments 97 and 99 would allow the SPCB fully to consider the options and to provide support.
I understand the rationale behind Pauline McNeill's amendment 130 and her request for an undertaking on the commission's final location, but they are unnecessary. Paragraph 10(1) of schedule 1 states:
"The Commissioner's determination of the location of the Commissioner's office premises is subject to the approval of the Parliamentary corporation."
In effect, the commission will need the SPCB's approval if it wants to move from its initial location. Amendment 130, under which the SPCB would be responsible for deciding on the location, is therefore made redundant by Mary Mulligan's amendments 97 and 99.
Margaret Mitchell's amendments 129 and 135 take us back, as she said, to earlier arguments about the Scottish public services ombudsman and revisit an issue that we discussed at considerable length at stage 2. We have moved on in the decision-making process, but I will make an important point that has been lost. If the commission is co-located with the Scottish public services ombudsman—which is perfectly possible—we would have to identify whether there was space in the ombudsman's office, what the costs would be, what the arrangements would be, and whether there were implications for the ombudsman. That is not the kind of thing that Parliament should directly and immediately determine, and I believe that there are flaws in the argument that Margaret Mitchell has allowed herself to get into. Such matters ought to be decided by the SPCB, in accordance with need and in accordance with the statute that directs the SPCB. Margaret Mitchell's amendments would prevent the commission and Parliament from making other arrangements that might be more practical and efficient.
I turn to the Executive amendments. Amendment 133 will remove paragraph 10(2) of schedule 1, which is made redundant by amendment 138. The purpose of amendment 138 is—in response to views that were expressed during committee debates at stage 2—to allow the commission to share services with other organisations, and to require the commission to consider the desirability of entering into such arrangements. Amendment 138 will ensure that the commission will have proper regard to making the most efficient use of its resources, not just in terms of location but in exploring options for sharing premises, staff, services or other resources with other public bodies. Amendment 155 will insert a new subparagraph that will require the commission to include in its budget proposal a statement that it has complied with its duty, under amendment 138, to consider the options for sharing services. Amendments 151 and 154 are consequential amendments that will change the wording of paragraphs 13(2) and 13(3) of schedule 1 to include the phrase "use of resources".
The Executive's amendments are worthy amendments that will widen the direction and focus of the SPCB's powers in connection with the commission, and they respond to the concerns that were quite properly expressed by the Finance Committee, the Justice 1 Committee and others during the course of the bill's consideration. I recommend that they be accepted by Parliament.
I take it from the minister's speech that the Executive accepts amendments 97 and 99.
Robert Brown indicated agreement.
That is helpful. It makes the debate on the group much clearer, so I need not detain Parliament further.
Hear, hear.
I invite Mary Mulligan to wind up.
Amendment 97 will allow for co-location—I said earlier that I favour co-location with the CEHR. However, whatever the option is, I am not sure why Margaret Mitchell thought that there were no savings to be made from co-location, regardless of where she thought it would be, and I am not sure why she is not supporting my amendment. There are problems in co-locating with the SPSO, the practical difficulty being that that body is already established. How could we fit another body into its offices? I hope that, given the reassurances that she has heard, Margaret Mitchell will find herself able to support my amendments.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Section 19—Short title, Crown application and commencement
Amendment 98 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Amendment 99 moved—[Mrs Mary Mulligan]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1—Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights
Amendment 100A, in the name of Des McNulty, has already been debated with amendment 5. Mr McNulty, do you wish to press amendment 100A?
No.
Amendment 100A moved—[Stewart Stevenson].
The question is, that amendment 100A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 100A disagreed to.
Amendments 100 to 104 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Group 7 is on commission finance and accountability issues. Amendment 105, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 157.
Both amendments are about overspend and financial accountability. Amendment 105 would amend schedule 1 so that it would be clear that the commission is independent of the Parliament, the Scottish Executive and the corporate body in exercising its powers, except when it overspends on its budget.
Amendment 157 deals with what would happen if the commission overspent its budget, and provides that, for the remainder of the financial year in question, the corporate body would be able to direct the commission to ensure that it remains within its budget.
In creating any commission, all members are concerned that if we lay down a budget and give a commission powers, we expect it, broadly speaking, to remain within that budget. I was concerned when I read in the last week or so that the commissions that we have already created have come back to the Parliament for sums of money totalling almost £6 million.
It would not interfere with the commission's independence if we took the view that if we give it a million pounds and it spends more than that, the corporate body should be able to issue directions to ensure that, apart from anything else, there is no liability. Again, I am looking for assurances.
I realise that there is a pretty great onus on the corporate body. I hope that its members understand that many MSPs' support is dependent on the corporate body having powers and financial control. That places an onus on the corporate body, but it is necessary. We are accountable for the money that we spend, and we need to tighten the system up as far as possible.
I hope to get some assurances from the minister, and it might be helpful to hear a contribution from a member of the corporate body to confirm that it accepts that the will of Parliament is that it should have such powers and should exercise them in the way that Parliament intends.
I move amendment 105.
It might be good news for Parliament generally.
I used to work for a gentleman called Peter Burt, who will shortly report to ministers on local government finance. When he was boss of a bank, he had an excellent saying about expenditure: "We have very deep pockets but very short arms."
Amendments 105 and 157 address precisely that issue. Although there might be £31 billion in the Scottish Executive budget and we are debating something with an approximate cost of £1 million, we have to be careful to draw legislation so that it does not give unfettered financial power to an external body to put its deep hand in our sometimes rather shallow pocket.
Pauline McNeill's approach in amendments 105 and 157 is useful and, if properly observed by the commission, will mean that it has the discipline not to exceed the budget that it is given. If it does exceed it, that will compromise its independence, which neither it nor we will want. I am minded to support the amendments.
I will certainly be supporting amendments 105 and 157.
It is important to remind ourselves what schedule 1 says. It says that the SCHR should prepare a budget; that if that budget changes it should prepare a revised budget; and that even if it exceeds that budget, the additional money can still be paid to it. At some point, the Parliament has to exercise some financial control. That has not been the case on a number of occasions: it has happened twice with Scottish Opera, once with Scottish Enterprise—I hope for the last time—and with the commissioners. On such occasions, the Parliament has been left with no option but to pay further moneys to bodies that have overspent their budgets. That is simply unacceptable.
Today, we have an opportunity to do something about that, to learn the lessons of the past and to make changes for the future. Amendments 105 and 157 offer a way forward, so I urge the ministers to accept them. We can have financial accountability without encroaching on the independence of commissioners. It is not the commissioners but we who will be judged by the Scottish people on how our budgets are used. We should not be held over a barrel by anyone, so I urge members to support amendments 105 and 157.
I will be brief. I take seriously the arguments on financial accountability that Pauline McNeill and Karen Gillon have made, but I hope that amendment 105 will be withdrawn. If we are talking about a serious proposal on financial accountability, I can think of no reason why the proposed commission for human rights should be treated any differently from the other bodies. We should consider a proposal on all the various commissions and commissioners separately from the bill.
The position that we are in now is different to the positions that we have been in in the past. We have the Finance Committee report and we are creating a new body, so let us get things right now, so that we do not have to make changes in the future. That is what amendments 105 and 157 are about; they are not about singling out a particular body. We need to learn the lessons of the past.
If the member is correct to say that changes will have to be made to existing bodies, those changes will have to be made anyway and it will not be any more complex to change the arrangements for the commission for human rights at the same time.
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has been put in a difficult position by legislation that the Parliament has passed. When the SPCB has sought to exercise legitimate financial constraints on the activities of ombudsmen and commissioners, it has, in effect, been accused of questioning and seeking to jeopardise their independence. The same accusation has been levelled at the Finance Committee when it has expressed similar reservations.
Although no one is questioning the commissioners' independence, no body can be given a blank cheque that allows it to do what it wants. Financial controls must be in place so that we, as elected members of the Parliament who are responsible for a proportion of the public finances of Scotland, can be answerable to our electorate for the decisions that we take. Pauline McNeill's amendments 105 and 157 are right for the bill. Karen Gillon was absolutely right—we are considering the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill, not a bill to set up a consolidated fund for ombudsmen. As the Finance Committee suggested, we should get things right in the bill before we start on the other bodies.
And another thing—we should also ensure that the Parliament sends the corporate body a clear message of encouragement that demonstrates that members welcome the direction in which it is travelling.
This is an important issue. I appreciate and agree with Pauline McNeill's concerns that the corporate body should be able to exercise proper control over the commission's use of public funds. In a former existence as a member of the corporate body, I had some dealings with such matters, which were not too far removed from the building in which we are sitting. I have more of an appreciation of some of the issues and pressures involved than do many other members.
The budget is the budget. No member would expect the commission or, indeed, any other body to go over its approved budget. The issue with the existing commissioners has been not so much their going over budgets as their making requests for budget increases in subsequent years which, although important, is a different issue.
Amendments 105 and 157 are not necessary to allow the corporate body to maintain oversight of the commission's spending. Paragraph 13 of schedule 1, to which Karen Gillon referred, already provides that the commission's annual budget will be subject to the corporate body's approval. Paragraph 13(4) states that the corporate body is not required to pay any expenses incurred by the commission that are not included in the approved annual budget, which is as it should be. That automatically gives the corporate body leverage over the activity of the commission in the unlikely event that it exceeds its budget. That is unlikely because we have a structure of accountable officers and financial procedures, which enable both the commission and the corporate body, which receives figures from the commission, to be aware of what is taking place.
I agree entirely that there is a need for mechanisms to ensure proper scrutiny and control of public funds, but they have to be proportionate. The current provisions give the corporate body the necessary degree of control over the commission's budget and expenditure, whereas Pauline McNeill's amendments 105 and 157 would give it considerable powers of direction over all aspects of the commission's activity. That might not be what is intended, but that is what the amendments would provide, even if the commission went fractionally over its annual budget allocation.
Given all that the minister has said, what is the point of paragraph 13(5) of schedule 1? In what circumstances would it be used and in what circumstances would the corporate body—without the provisions in Pauline McNeill's amendments—have the authority to say to a commission, "No, you cannot have that money," without being completely vilified in the press and accused of somehow undermining the independence of a parliamentary commission?
The issue is not the press but the power of the corporate body. Paragraph 13(4) states expressly that nothing in the bill requires the parliamentary corporation to pay any expenses incurred by the SCHR that exceed the budget. That is absolutely clear. Paragraph 13(5) provides for an exceptional procedure. I cannot envisage circumstances in which it is likely to be used, but it provides for circumstances that might arise.
Members should bear in mind the fact that the corporate body is the trustee of this Parliament. If it became necessary, the Parliament could dismiss the members of the corporate body and give directions to it on the way in which to operate its services. Ultimately, the Parliament has the whip hand. The corporate body acts in the interests of the Parliament. I say respectfully that the current arrangements allow it all necessary powers to do so. I hope that members will accept that on rereading schedule 1.
It is clear that members of the Parliament who will be supporting the bill expect that the corporate body will be able to take financial control where necessary without it being seen to be interfering in any way with the independence of the commission which, for me, is fundamental.
I agree with Patrick Harvie that the rules should apply to all commissions, but I also agree with Karen Gillon. I have learned lessons from the way in which I have voted in the past, and I will not act in the same way again. If I am to vote to pass the bill, I must have the assurance that financial control will be exercised through the corporate body, which represents the Parliament. I hope that the will of Parliament is noted.
The minister said that there are levers to ensure that where there is overspend we do not have to sign off the budget. If I were to withdraw amendment 105, I would have to put a bit of trust in that.
Parliament must pay attention. It must focus on the implementation of the commission and, beyond that, it must scrutinise not just the commission but every other body that we have created to ensure that they do what we intended them to do. If we are concerned about finances spiralling out of control, we should be able to do something about it without it being seen as in any way trying to interfere with a body's purpose, as Karen Gillon said.
On that basis, and on the balance of what I have heard, I seek Parliament's permission to withdraw amendment 105.
Do members agree to the member's request that amendment 105 be withdrawn?
No.
Therefore, the question is, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 71, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 105 disagreed to.
Amendments 106 to 128 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Amendments 129 and 130 not moved.
Amendments 131 to 134 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Amendment 135 moved—[Margaret Mitchell].
The question is, that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 71, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 135 disagreed to.
Amendments 136 to 156 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Does Pauline McNeill wish to move amendment 157?
No.
Amendment 157 moved—[Stewart Stevenson].
The question is, that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (Sol)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 69, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 157 disagreed to.
Amendments 158 to 163 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2
Inquiries: supplementary provision as to evidence
Amendments 164 to 174 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.