Local Government in Scotland Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Local Government in Scotland Bill.
Section 1—Local authorities' duty to secure best value
Amendment 1 is grouped with amendment 2.
Amendment 1 seeks to implement recommendation 10 of the Equal Opportunities Committee's stage 1 report on the Local Government in Scotland Bill. For the benefit of anybody who has not read that report—although I am sure that everybody reads all the committee's reports—that recommendation says:
"The Committee recommend formal recording of the employment practices of partners/suppliers/contractors in order to examine the potential to establish criteria which local authorities can take into consideration before deciding to enter into or continue contracts."
In our stage 1 report, the committee noted that that does not set a precedent because the Greater London Authority states that, in
"the purchase of goods, services and facilities",
it will
"not use agencies or companies who do not share our values on equality of opportunity and diversity."
When I moved an almost identical amendment in the Local Government Committee at stage 2, the Executive responded by saying that it was prescriptive and would be ultra vires. The Equal Opportunities Committee has taken that response into account, even though we did not necessarily agree with it, and we have changed one word: in amendment 1, "shall" has been changed to "may". We feel that the amendment does not now represent a prohibition or regulation, but is an intra vires encouragement.
Amendment 2 also seeks to implement recommendation 10 of the Equal Opportunities Committee's stage 1 report. The committee feels that if public money is spent on public services, local authorities, when spending that money, should not be forced to bring their standards down to the lowest common denominator in order to compete to deliver those services. Amendment 2 seeks to ensure that local authorities take reasonable steps to ensure that the high standards that they set in their equal opportunities policies are reflected favourably in the equal opportunities policies of organisations that are contracted to do work on their behalf.
The Equal Opportunities Committee, like the Local Government Committee, is aware of the manner in which the previous compulsory competitive tendering regime, under which local authorities were forced to operate on an uneven playing field, resulted in staff terms and conditions of service being the major casualties. The Equal Opportunities Committee considered that amendment 2 does not represent a prohibition or a regulation.
I move amendment 1 on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee.
I support amendments 1 and 2, which were lodged by Kate Maclean on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee. It is worth noting that the amendments secured the unanimous support of the committee and were viewed as a way of raising standards of employment throughout Scotland. The amendments use best practice in the public sector to try to raise standards in the private sector. After all, the Parliament should be about raising standards and ensuring that equal opportunities policies are not just for some but for all. That is why I hope that the Parliament will support the amendments. However, it is a pity that "shall" has had to be replaced with "may". I think that we should be prescriptive when it comes to equal opportunities policies. However, now that "shall" has been changed to "may", local authorities that wish to pursue and enforce equal opportunities policies when engaging with private contractors would be allowed to take the contractors' policies into consideration. That would allow us to move completely away from the cheapest, shoddiest supply of goods under the previous CCT regime towards the best possible standards of practice in employment and the supply of services. I encourage the Parliament to support both amendments 1 and 2.
I will speak against amendment 1, not because I doubt the motivation of those who support it—I see where they are coming from—but for a particular reason: it could discriminate against specific providers.
Last year, I had the pleasure of visiting an organisation in Edinburgh called the Bethany Christian Trust, which is a faith-based provider of welfare. Many members will be aware of the trust and the work that it does, particularly among the homeless and people on the streets. It does a power of valuable work.
At the moment, the trust is discriminated against, as the City of Edinburgh Council will not allow it to be a contractor because it will not sign up to the council's equal opportunities policy. That is simply because Bethany—as one would expect for a Christian organisation—operates a Christian employment policy, which breaches the council's equal opportunities policy. That is a disgrace. We should prevent such things from happening in Scotland. Indeed, we should not go even further than the existing law provides for by saying that such discrimination as currently exists should be entrenched in law. Amendment 1 would further entrench that discrimination. The Bethany Christian Trust and similar organisations are already being discriminated against, and the Parliament should reject amendment 1.
I voted for a similar amendment at stage 2, and I congratulate the Equal Opportunities Committee on lodging amendment 1 at stage 3. I do not want to get into an argument with Murdo Fraser, but I find his tone and the content of what he said absolutely disgusting. He said that the organisations that do not have equal opportunities policies are now being discriminated against. We have fought for many years to secure equal opportunities in this country, yet equality of opportunity is still not spread throughout the work force. The bill provides us with an ideal opportunity to introduce proper legislation that ensures that people are not discriminated against—whoever they may be—and that equal opportunities prevail throughout local government. I hope that the Parliament will lead the way for once and I urge members to support amendments 1 and 2.
I have reservations about amendments 1 and 2. Would the conditions that they would impose be too onerous for small companies? Murdo Fraser has already provided one illustration of that. Some large international companies belong to major groups that exist in parts of the world where there is no equality for many people. Could the amendments be used against a major company that follows the main equal opportunities rules in the United Kingdom, but which is the head office for Asian, South American or African companies? I would like the member to respond to that point in her summing up.
I have listened carefully to Kate Maclean speak on this subject on at least two occasions, at stage 2 and today, and I have spoken to her about it in private. She and most other members know that the Executive is keen to advance the cause of equalities wherever that is feasible. Indeed, the Equal Opportunities Committee has supported the bill for what it does in that regard. Equalities are now central to the provisions of the bill. We share the objectives that Kate Maclean and Tommy Sheridan outlined, but we differ about how we may achieve them. Unfortunately, I continue to have problems with the amendments that Kate Maclean proposes, even though, as revised, they no longer place a binding requirement on local authorities. As she indicated, "shall" has been changed to "may".
Amendments 1 and 2 are concerned with contractors' policies to promote—rather than to observe—UK-wide equal opportunities requirements that are set by the UK Government. It is not clear what the amendments mean in legal terms or what their full implications may be. The amendments take us into uncertain territory in an area of law in which it is potentially difficult for the Parliament to legislate, given the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. If we agree to the amendments, which relate to an area in which our legislative competence is constrained, when we are uncertain of their effect, we could create difficulties for local authorities in practice.
It is clear that local authorities that take the amendments seriously might feel pressed to require contractual partners to pursue policies and meet standards that go as far as the standards that authorities set for themselves. Murdo Fraser mentioned a particular difficulty arising from one such interpretation. The amendments would also encourage authorities to discriminate against contractors whose behaviour may be perfectly legal but which are unable to match or surpass the standards of the authority. As John Young indicated, that might be especially difficult for smaller organisations.
The amendments encourage authorities to impose binding requirements on others or to require standards of behaviour that go beyond what the authority expects of itself. Such requirements and standards may exceed those that have been set in statute by the UK Government.
Because we listened to what Kate Maclean and the Equal Opportunities Committee have said, we have lodged an amendment, which we will deal with later, to empower ministers to issue guidance to local authorities on contractual matters. We believe that it offers a more flexible and powerful route than that suggested by amendments 1 and 2. Our amendment could bring about the practical effects that are sought, without any of the legal or interpretation questions that Kate Maclean's amendments raise.
We have already undertaken to encourage good practice by helping to develop and issue guidance and voluntary codes.
I want to ensure that there is absolute clarity on this issue. Is the minister suggesting that if the Parliament were to agree to amendments 1 and 2, it would be acting ultra vires? Is he saying that it would be illegal for the Parliament to agree to the amendments?
I am making the point that, ultimately, this is not a matter for ministers or the Parliament. The amendments take us into uncertain territory, because of the complications that arise from the way in which equal opportunities are dealt with in the Scotland Act 1998.
I give an undertaking to use the new powers that we will seek later to issue guidance that addresses the issues that are raised by Kate Maclean's amendments. We need specific powers to do that.
To which amendment is the minister referring?
If I could find it immediately, I would indicate to which amendment I am referring. Kate Maclean and I have known each other for a long time. I hope that she will trust me when I say that we have definitely lodged an amendment that provides for the issuing of guidance to contractors in relation to the matters dealt with in the bill. I think that it is either amendment 59 or amendment 60, but I could be wrong about that. The amendment is there, we will come to it and I will explain it fully. It would give ministers the power to issue guidance to which local authorities would have to have regard before they laid contracts with contractors. That guidance would allow us to raise the matters that Kate Maclean addressed in her amendments 1 and 2. As I said, local authorities would be obliged to have regard to statutory guidance before they made those decisions. My helpful officials tell me that the relevant amendment is amendment 32.
The minister indicated that ministers could give guidance to local authorities. In essence, local authorities might decline to accept guidance that ministers give. Would it not be better to give local authorities direct instructions or orders, rather than guidance?
John Young rather contradicts his own point, as he asked us not to agree to amendment 1, but now he is hinting that we should. I am trying to make the point that the guidance is statutory and local authorities must have regard to it before they make a decision. They would have to be able to justify subsequently ignoring that guidance.
As I indicated, equal opportunities are complex matters for the Scottish Parliament to make provision for. I hope that the Parliament agrees with the comments that members of the Equal Opportunities Committee made earlier that the preparation of the bill has been exemplary from that point of view. On the basis of the Executive's amendment 32 on the issuing of guidance and the assurance that I have given the Parliament on using powers in relation to equal opportunities, I invite Kate Maclean to withdraw amendment 1.
I have found the amendment to which the minister referred. I am reassured by what he said about the guidance that the Scottish ministers would issue and about the fact that local authorities would have a duty to have regard to that guidance. I am prepared to withdraw amendment 1, but given that it is a committee amendment, any member of the committee who is not reassured by what the minister has said is entitled to ask to proceed with it. I obviously do not have time to discuss the matter with the committee, but I am quite happy to withdraw amendment 1 or for any member of the committee to pursue it.
Does Kate Maclean have the Parliament's agreement to withdraw her amendment 1? Anybody who objects should say so now.
I object.
In that case I will put the question. The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce JP (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
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)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr 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)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
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)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Are you able to confirm whether my console is working? I tried two other consoles and the light would not light up on either of them.
I confirm that we are having some difficulty with sound and with voting. The system is being checked. I ask the Parliament to accept the vote on amendment 1. I do not want to rerun the vote, as we must reach the end of group 5 by 15:28. If members are willing to accept the vote, I will push on. In the meantime, we will continue to check the consoles. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Section 10—Local authority contracts: relaxation of exclusion of non-commercial considerations
We move to group 2. Amendment 5 is in a group on its own.
Section 10 provides that local authorities should be free to take certain work-force matters into account, to the extent that they affect the local authority's obligations, which include obligations under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. Those regulations, which were made in 1981, have since been subject to occasional amendment. Therefore, it is not impossible that they will be updated some day—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am terribly sorry, but members sitting near me cannot hear anything. I am sitting right behind the minister and I cannot hear a word.
Let me consult for a minute. [Interruption.] Members in other parts of the chamber have expressed similar views. With the Parliament's agreement, I propose to suspend the meeting for 10 minutes, so that we can sort out the consoles. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Welcome back. There are still some problems with the microphones but we will do our best and press on.
I confirm that the result of the vote on amendment 1 was: For 27, Against 80, Abstentions 0. Amendment 1 therefore falls.
I propose to start again with group 2 of the amendments by calling amendment 5.
Section 10 will provide that local authorities should be free to take certain work-force matters into account to the extent that they affect the local authority's obligations. Those include obligations under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Those regulations have been subject to occasional amendment since 1981 and it is not impossible that some day they will be updated to the extent that they are renamed. Amendment 5 simply seeks to ensure that should that ever occur, local authorities would continue to have discretion under section 10 to refer to the replacement regulations.
I move amendment 5.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Section 11—Relaxation of restrictions on supply of goods and services etc by local authorities
Amendment 6 is grouped with amendments 49, 50, 7, 56, 9 and 10.
These amendments are intended to clarify and tidy existing provisions. They will not alter the policy intentions of those provisions.
Amendment 6 seeks to amend the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970—known as LAGSA—to remove the specific reference in that act to buildings maintenance. It follows from the insertion at stage 2 of new section 11A, which deals explicitly with local authority contracts for new-build construction and buildings maintenance. The reference in LAGSA is no longer needed or useful.
Amendments 9 and 10 are consequential to amendment 6. They would remove the definition given for buildings maintenance that is also made redundant.
Amendment 49 is intended to ensure that if local authorities benefit from dividend or profit-share income from a corporate body that is involved in relevant trading activities, that income should count as commercial services income of that authority where the statutory limits set by ministers in relation to such trading operations are concerned. Relevant trading activities are those which, if undertaken by the authority, would be counted towards the statutory limits.
Amendment 50 would insert definitions of "relevant dividend" and "relevant profit sharing agreement" to clarify the references in amendment 49.
Amendment 7 is a purely technical amendment to allow for the insertion of amendment 56.
Amendment 56 would amend section 1(2) of LAGSA so that local authorities are not bound to trade only with surplus capacity in goods or materials when that supply is conducive or incidental to an agreement to the supply of property or services, or where ministers have otherwise given consent for the surplus capacity restraint to be ignored.
I move amendment 6.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
I intend to call amendments 49, 50, 7, 56, 9 and 10 en bloc. If any member disagrees, they should shout, "Object" now.
Amendments 49, 50, 7, 56, 9 and 10 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
For the record, Presiding Officer, I think that you asked Kate Maclean to move amendment 2. I understood that she had already moved amendments 1 and 2 when she spoke to group 1.
The member moved amendment 1 only, Mr Sheridan, so that was perfectly within order.
Section 11A—Special provision for local authority contracts for construction of buildings or works
Amendment 11 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 11 is a simple technical amendment. It seeks to insert a standard caveat into the power to issue regulations under section 11A, so as to ensure that when we introduce regulations, we have sufficient flexibility to be able to make different provisions for different local authorities or groups of authorities if, after consultation, that is considered to be appropriate. Amendment 11 is intended simply to clarify and tidy an existing provision and does not in any way alter the clear policy intentions of that provision.
I move amendment 11.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Section 15—Publication by local authorities of information about finance and performance
Amendment 3 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 3 seeks to implement recommendation 9 of the Equal Opportunities Committee's stage 1 report on the Local Government in Scotland Bill. That recommendation says:
"The Committee recommend that local authorities conduct equal pay audits in line with Executive Agencies and NDPBs."
The Equal Opportunities Committee was aware of the commitment by the Scottish Executive to extend equal opportunities to all local authority functions carried out under the best-value regime and to work under community planning. We also noted that all Scottish non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies have been requested to conduct an equal pay review by April 2003. In the light of that, the Equal Opportunities Committee felt that the absence from the local government sector—which is a major employer in Scotland—of a requirement to complete an equal pay audit was a serious issue.
In the 30 years or so since the Equal Pay Act 1970, we still find ourselves in a position in which there is an average 18 per cent disparity between men's and women's pay. That act is not working, and we feel that such an audit in a major area of employment in Scotland would be useful.
I move amendment 3 on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee.
I support amendment 3, which was lodged by Kate Maclean on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I hope that the entire chamber will agree that equal pay is about equal rights. For far too long, legislation has been in place that has not delivered equal pay. The problem is that we sometimes do not even know the extent of the problem. Equal pay audits and reviews are necessary because once we know the extent of the problem, we can do something about it.
We have to know about the problem within local government, because action has to be taken so that equal pay becomes a fact of life for workers. Rather than leaving equal pay as just an idea, a phrase and an aspiration, we should be turning it into reality. I hope that amendment 3 is non-controversial. It was unanimously supported by the Equal Opportunities Committee and I hope that the Parliament will support it.
Amendment 3 is another that is similar to an amendment that we considered carefully at stage 2, and our basic view of the issue has not changed. The majority of the Local Government Committee supported the position that the Executive set out at stage 2. I repeat that the Executive is keen to advance the cause of equalities wherever feasible and that Kate Maclean's Equal Opportunities Committee has been supportive of what the bill does to that end.
As Kate Maclean said, the Equal Pay Act 1970 gives employees the right to equal pay and local authorities are bound by it. One way to check that employees have equal pay for jobs of equal value is to undertake an equal pay review, but that is not the only way. Councils can undertake an equal pay audit—Tommy Sheridan used the terms "pay audit" and "pay review" interchangeably, although the amendment refers only to a pay review—or a pay comparability study. A local authority might choose to deal with the whole authority at one time, to deal with the matter departmentally or to approach it in another way.
The Executive has no hesitation in recommending equal pay reviews as good practice, but amendment 3 would constrain other approaches that local authorities might wish to take to achieve the same outcomes. As Kate Maclean said, we all know that there is still inequality in pay between men and women. We all want to work towards eradicating the pay gap between men's and women's earnings.
Much of the bill is about trusting local government more to do the right things by local communities, within a clear framework. Amendment 3 is out of keeping with the thrust of that approach, because it would place a specific instruction in the bill, despite the general principle that it is local authorities' responsibility to determine how they meet their statutory obligations. Employers are under no statutory requirement to undertake equal pay reviews as a means of meeting their statutory equal opportunity obligations. I have already proposed that we should promote equal pay reviews explicitly in our guidance to support best value. I also gave the commitment, which I repeat, to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Equal Opportunities Commission in developing that guidance. As I said I would at stage 2, I raised the issue briefly with COSLA before Christmas and I was reassured that it is similarly happy to work with us on providing supportive guidance.
On the basis of the assurance that I just gave to advance matters flexibly through guidance, I ask Kate Maclean to withdraw the amendment.
Given the minister's assurances, which he also gave to the Local Government Committee at stage 2, I am prepared to withdraw amendment 3, but obviously, any member of the Equal Opportunities Committee could pursue it.
Does Kate Maclean have the Parliament's agreement to withdraw amendment 3?
No.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
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)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr 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)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
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)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Section 16—Community planning
Tricia Marwick indicated that she wanted to raise a point of order about the problems that we are having with the consoles. We continue to have problems with them, but I intend to press on.
We move to group 6, which concerns community planning and young persons. Amendment 57 is grouped with amendment 58.
I was asked to lodge amendments 57 and 58 by an organisation called YouthLink Scotland. The amendments seek to ensure that local authorities consult young people and youth bodies when fulfilling their duties under section 16 to "initiate … maintain and facilitate" community planning.
The bill fails to recognise the significant contribution that young people and youth work bodies can make to the community planning process. Young people are the current and future users of the local authority services that are to be planned and provided through the community planning process.
In addition, youth work bodies play a significant role in promoting the interests of young people. Amendment 57 reflects the role of young people and youth work bodies by requiring local authorities to consult and co-operate with them as an integral part of the community planning process.
Amendment 57 is important because the definition of community bodies that is contained in section 16(4) does not naturally embrace young people. I understand that, in a reply to YouthLink earlier this year, the minister took the view that a reference to youth organisations should not be included in the bill and that such references would be best dealt with by guidance.
If the minister makes an explicit commitment that youth organisations will be referred to in guidance, as well as an undertaking to refer specifically to the need for local authorities to consult young people and youth groups, those organisations will be satisfied. If he does that, I will not press amendments 57 and 58.
I move amendment 57.
It is important not only that the minister gives an assurance that guidance will be given to empower local authorities to consult people but that he insists that authorities consult all sorts of bodies.
I accept the legalistic argument, which always annoys me but seems to be the case, that to mention youth somehow excludes elderly people, disabled people or some other group. However, if that is a legally correct argument, I will go along with Tricia Marwick. It is important that the minister gives an absolute guarantee that young people, who are often ignored—if they are under 18, they are not regarded as real people—and the organisations that represent them are thoroughly consulted. The local authorities must consult them. If the minister can give the chamber that assurance, I am happy.
I voice my support for amendment 57. A great deal of concern exists in Scotland about apathy and lack of participation in politics. We may not need the provision to be included in the bill, but the minister could give the chamber an assurance that the matter will be covered in guidance. Members of the Scottish Parliament should be doing all that we can to ensure that youth organisations are brought into consultation processes so that more and more young people become involved in the political and democratic process. We must also assure young people that they have a role to play and that they can take part in the process.
It is right that the issue should be highlighted at this stage. It is important that young people are considered in the community planning process. The Local Government Committee considered the issue as part of the renewing local democracy inquiry that we have been undertaking over the past few months.
I am concerned about the principle of whether individual groups of people should be included in the bill. The Local Government Committee considered the issue as part of our stage 1 inquiry into the bill. The committee came to the conclusion that it was better not to name specific groups, including community councils, in the bill. That was because it is difficult to know when to stop once such an attempt at listing is begun. Donald Gorrie referred to elderly people and physically handicapped people; he could also have mentioned people with mental health problems or, for that matter, three-legged sheep. Where do we draw the line when we start to list those who should be consulted in the community planning process?
It is much better to include such matters in guidance, as guidance does not have to provide an exhaustive list—it merely states those who should be consulted and does not exclude those who are not included from being consulted. The bill could state that only those who are mentioned in the bill should be consulted. I hope that the minister will give an assurance that young persons and youth work bodies will be specifically included in guidance. If he were to do that, I would be grateful if Tricia Marwick would withdraw her amendment—that would be the right way forward.
We agree with the spirit of amendment 57. Young people and youth work bodies already make a valuable contribution to the planning and provision of services and their involvement in youth fora and their active citizenship should be an integral part of the community planning process in the future. Indeed, there are many examples from throughout Scotland in which young people are being actively encouraged to participate in local decision-making processes in ways that we have never previously seen. We expect that engagement to be enhanced in the future.
To that end, I give an explicit assurance that young people and youth work bodies will be specifically mentioned in guidance associated with the bill in the way that Tricia Marwick, Donald Gorrie and Iain Smith request. That will complement our community learning and development guidance that is currently in draft, which specifically addresses young people as a key target. We do not believe that there is a justification for specifically mentioning them in the bill, which amendment 57 suggests. That is backed up by consultation with the community planning task force.
Community planning is a broad, overarching process and to begin to list the many specific community interests would be unworkable. At worst, it could lead to the problem of an exclusive list, which Donald Gorrie described, whereby interests that are not mentioned are excluded from the consultative processes that are set up by local authorities to ensure wide participation in community planning. Indeed, given the stage to which the bill has progressed, if we were to agree today that young people should be mentioned in the bill, but not older people, disabled people or environmentalists and so on, that could give the impression that Parliament thought that their interests and those of many others were less important than those of young people. That is clearly not our intention. We believe that it is proper and correct to use the guidance that the bill provides for to expand on key interests and key bodies. The committee accepted that approach during the passage of the bill.
I reiterate that explicit reference to young people and youth work bodies will be included in guidance and I understand that YouthLink Scotland would regard that as significant progress in its interests. In light of my assurances, I trust that Tricia Marwick will withdraw amendment 57 and not move amendment 58.
I thank the minister for his helpful reply. I am satisfied that there will be explicit and specific reference to young people in the guidance and I am sure that that will go a long way towards ensuring that the concerns of the young people of Scotland, the organisations with which they are involved and those who represent young people will be taken seriously in the community planning process in the future. Therefore, I will not press amendments 57 and 58.
Amendment 57, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 58 not moved.
Section 18—Reports and information
Amendment 12 is grouped with amendment 13.
Amendments 12 and 13 reflect our further thinking about the drafting of section 18, which relates to reporting on community planning. The bill as it is drafted would require a report on what had been done by way of community planning to include information about improvement that is attributable to community planning. The section as it is drafted might pose difficulties in relation to the requirement to attribute improvement to community planning.
The word "attributable" has particular connotations in audit circles that differ from the connotations of the ordinary use of the word. On reflection, therefore, we considered that the requirement to attribute improvement to community planning was an unnecessary complication that could inhibit the reporting of outcomes.
Amendments 12 and 13 continue to emphasise improvement in outcomes, which is what matters to service users, and will make the reporting processes clearer to those who will need to work with them.
I move amendment 12.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 19A—Establishment of corporate bodies to co-ordinate and further community planning etc
Amendment 14 is grouped with amendments 18, 30, 33, 34 and 37 to 39.
These amendments are concerned with clarifying parliamentary procedures for various sections of the bill and respond principally to comments made by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which considered the bill.
Amendment 14 concerns the provision that would allow community planning partnerships to become bodies corporate. The amendment introduces an affirmative resolution procedure for the order-making power, which is in line with the view of the Local Government Committee on the matter.
Amendment 18 is an entirely technical amendment. The Subordinate Legislation Committee was of the view that the order-making powers available to the Scottish ministers under section 25A, to extend or further extend the life of the proposed rate relief scheme, should be subject to affirmative resolution procedures. The new order-making powers will be to extend a time period set out in primary legislation. The Executive is content to accept the view of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, hence the need for amendment 18.
Amendment 30 is a technical amendment. It provides for the negative resolution procedure to be applied to any further statutory instrument should there be a need to extend the one-year period of suspension, as outlined in section 29. The amendment will ensure the smooth implementation of the job-sizing exercise in the unlikely event of delays to the timetable required as part of the teachers' recent settlement. The amendment makes sensible provisions for an event that we nonetheless hope and believe will not occur.
Amendments 33 and 34 are also technical. The section in the bill that deals with local authorities' power to invest money, which was added at stage 2, includes a power to amend, disapply or repeal by order any enactment that relates to the issue. The Subordinate Legislation Committee was concerned to ensure that the levels of parliamentary scrutiny were commensurate with such a power, especially when used to amend primary legislation. It was felt that the affirmative resolution procedure would be more appropriate and we are happy to accept that, hence the amendments.
Amendments 37 to 39 have also been lodged in response to comments from the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The Scottish ministers' power to repeal or suspend section 30C is removed in favour of the power to suspend the effect of subsection (1) only—that is, the duty placed on local authorities to make grants. That ensures that only a specific subsection of the section may be suspended or repealed by regulations and that any such suspension or repeal will be subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament, by affirmative procedure.
I move amendment 14.
I speak as the deputy convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I am not sure whether I am technically allowed to speak on this particular point.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered at its previous two meetings the provision at section 25H for imposition of capital expenditure limits. The provision gives Scottish ministers substantial power to set by order the maximum amounts that local authorities allocate to capital expenditure. As the bill is drafted, ministers may make such orders administratively rather than by statutory instrument subject to parliamentary procedure.
Margo MacDonald, the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, who is unable to be in the chamber, asked me to say that the committee asked the Executive whether it would be appropriate for an order that would apply generally to all councils to be dealt with in that way. The Executive replied that it does not envisage that the section would be relied on other than in exceptional circumstances, when the need was pressing, and that it had provided instead for a report to be made to the Parliament after the event. Two views were expressed in the committee. The first was that in such exceptional circumstances the exercise of ministerial power would in any case be likely to be controversial, so it should be considered by the Parliament in the form of a negative or an affirmative instrument. Other members of the committee felt that the use of the power would be bound to be so controversial and high profile that the court of public opinion would provide sufficient safeguard.
Margo MacDonald asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the Parliament, in order that the issue of parliamentary scrutiny for this sort of imposition would be considered when members were considering the overall provisions of the bill.
I hear the point that Ian Jenkins has made. I was aware that he was going to make it—I was, thankfully, given notice of that.
As I indicated in my comments on the group of amendments, we tried to respond positively to the Subordinate Legislation Committee wherever we could. We have brought in a reporting procedure in relation to the powers to which Ian Jenkins referred. It is not quite the reporting procedure that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has suggested, but it is nonetheless an indication that we are trying to move in the direction in which it was seeking us to move and in the direction that members of the Local Government Committee sought us to move. I hope that that reassures Ian Jenkins that we are taking those matters seriously.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Section 23—Limits on power under section 21
We move to group 9, on complying with codes and guidance.
At stage 2, we introduced measures into the bill relating to local authority involvement with corporate bodies, such as companies. Those measures were intended to ensure that such involvement falls full square within the accountability framework for local government without interfering unduly in such companies' own affairs or the statutory framework within which they operate.
We want to extend the grounds on which we would expect local authorities to follow relevant codes of practice in their involvement with corporate bodies. We have in mind the Accounts Commission's and COSLA's "Code of Guidance on Funding External Bodies and Following the Public Pound". At stage 2, we provided for that in relation to involvement that is justified by the power to advance well-being, but local authorities can involve themselves with corporate bodies using powers other than that one. We see no reason why the requirement to follow the relevant codes of practice should be limited to the power to advance well-being. Amendments 15 and 31 ensure that whatever the statutory basis for doing so, any involvement with a corporate body will be governed by the appropriate codes of practice.
Amendment 32 is intended to ensure that the Scottish ministers can issue advice to local authorities on good practice in the negotiation of contracts with other service providers. I referred to that earlier in the debate with Kate Maclean. We also have in mind issuing guidance on the handling of work force issues, including the treatment of the work force and of new recruits throughout the life of the contract. That issue is sometimes called the two-tier work force issue. Local authorities will be obliged to have regard to such guidance and must expect to defend publicly any decision to ignore it.
A significant reason for lodging amendment 32 is the successful outcome of the negotiations on the protocol to end the two-tier work force in all future public-private partnership projects in Scotland, which was announced on 11 November. Discussions with the unions on that front had been undertaken on the grounds that, if they were successful, we were prepared to consider whether there was more we could do to extend good practice across the full range of contracts that local government enters into. Amendment 32 should help us to deliver on that understanding.
I move amendment 15.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Group 10 deals with local authority charges.
We have become concerned that the wording of the bill leaves room for misinterpretation of our intentions. The bill as drafted does not make it clear enough that fire authorities may not charge for fire intervention, which means putting out fires. Since stage 2, we have considered the drafting of section 23 carefully and have concluded that the wording "in case of fire" might be misinterpreted to imply fire prevention activities and not firefighting when fire occurs. That is not our intention and to remove any doubt we believe that it would be better expressed as "when fire occurs".
I move amendment 16.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Section 7—Enforcement directions
Group 11 is on enforcement directions.
Amendment 17 is a result of further consideration in our efforts to ensure consistency and accuracy throughout the bill. We made it clear at stage 2 that we intended to ensure that an enforcement direction issued by the Scottish ministers under section 7 might be a direction that is intended to remedy a failure to comply not only with the duties in section 1, which relates to best value, but with those in section 15, which is on reporting on performance, section 16, which is on community planning and section 18, which is on reporting on community planning.
Although section 6 was amended to that effect at stage 2, a corresponding amendment to section 7 was omitted. Amendment 17 rectifies the matter.
I move amendment 17.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Section 23A—Scrutiny of local authorities, police and fire functions
Group 12 deals with scrutiny of local authorities' police and fire functions. Amendment 51 is grouped with amendments 52 and 53.
Amendments 51 and 52 are purely technical amendments and have the effect of applying section 23A to joint police and joint fire boards as well as to unitary police and fire authorities. The amendments bring joint police and joint fire boards fully into line with unitary authorities.
Amendment 53 extends the scrutiny of both unitary and joint boards to cover their use of the power to advance well-being.
I move amendment 51.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Amendments 52 and 53 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 25A—Rate relief on former agricultural premises etc
Amendment 18 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
After section 25E
Amendment 54 is grouped on its own.
In November, I announced that the Scottish Executive had published a consultation paper seeking views on the removal or reduction of the current 50 per cent discount on council tax for second and long-term empty homes. The Scottish Executive agreed to consult on the issue as part of its response to the Local Government Committee's report on its inquiry into local government finance. The specific recommendation was that
"in the interests of equity, the full Council Tax should be levied on second homes."
The consultation is on-going and will end on 20 February.
As I have said previously, I am sympathetic to the case for change in such circumstances. Second homes can have a significant impact—both good and bad—on the nature and sustainability of local communities. The arguments for and against change will all be explored in the on-going consultation process. I want to ensure that careful consideration is given to all views before a final decision is made on changes to the existing arrangements.
However, any change will require primary legislation. The provision of the regulation-making powers in amendment 54 will allow the Scottish Executive to introduce any changes at the earliest opportunity. It will mean that if we decide to change the discounts with respect to empty dwellings, we will not have to wait for the next suitable legislative vehicle. Let me be clear: the acceptance of amendment 54 does not commit the Executive to any particular course of action or to any action at all. It does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the consultation exercise. The regulation-making powers are deliberately flexible and will allow for a number of outcomes. The powers will simply not be used if it is decided not to change the discounts with respect to empty dwellings. Scottish ministers are required to consult before making any regulations using the powers introduced by the amendment, and all such regulations will be subject to affirmative procedures. The amendment simply provides for future change if that is the recommendation of the consultation, and it seems a sensible measure to take in the bill.
I move amendment 54.
Far be it from me to welcome additional work for the Local Government Committee. However, I certainly welcome the spirit in which the amendment is moved by the Executive, seeking to make provision to enable it to abolish the discount for second homes if the consultation comes out in favour of that. That is to be welcomed. For some time, the Liberal Democrats have been arguing that there should be no automatic discount for second homes, but that it should be a matter for local government to decide what is right in its area. That recommendation was made in the Local Government Committee's lengthy report on local government finance, and it is to be welcomed if something of that lengthy report is to be implemented.
Amendment 54 agreed to.
On a point of order. According to the timetable that we have adopted for this afternoon, various groups of amendments must be dealt with an hour and five minutes after proceedings began. When did the proceedings begin? There is some confusion. We did not start right away and there was a 10-minute suspension. If we have to deal with all the amendments by two hours after the proceedings began, at what time will that be?
The proceedings started after all the points of order, and we have taken into account about 14 minutes for the suspension when the sound system failed. That has pushed the deadline back, and I am informed that it will be approximately 5.30, according to our latest count.
Section 25F—Integrated waste
management plans
We move to group 14, on the modification of waste management plans. Amendment 19 is grouped on its own.
Amendment 19 is intended simply to tidy up a textual drafting error. The sentence to be omitted does not mean anything and its removal will have no effect on section 25F.
I move amendment 19.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Section 25G—Capital expenditure limits
We move to group 15, on capital expenditure regulations. Amendment 20 is grouped with amendments 21 and 27.
Amendments 20 and 21 are purely technical amendments that simply clarify the capital expenditure provisions that we introduced at stage 2. They are intended specifically to ensure that the power for ministers to issue regulations on capital finance is flexible enough to cover all the issues that, after consultation, are considered appropriate. Discussions about specifics are likely to continue over the coming year.
Amendment 27 will ensure that there is full consultation on any capital expenditure regulations before they are issued.
I move amendment 20.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
After section 25I
We move to group 16, on the power to pay off loans. Amendment 22 is grouped with amendments 23, 24 and 26.
Amendments 23, 24 and 26 propose minor drafting changes as a consequence of amendment 22. The primary purpose of amendment 22 is to enable the Executive to fulfil its commitment to repay the housing debt of those councils that transfer their housing stock into community ownership. A similar amendment was disagreed by the Local Government Committee at stage 2 because the committee was concerned about a lack of accountability to Parliament and about the fact that the powers would be wider than simply dealing with debt associated with housing transfers. To some extent, Ian Jenkins covered those points in his earlier intervention.
To address the concerns about accountability, the reintroduced amendment contains a statutory requirement for ministers to provide a report to Parliament each time that payments are made under the powers. It is envisaged that the use of the powers will be restricted to the repayment of debt associated with housing transfers. However, it seems sensible to use this legislative opportunity to include a more general provision that would enable the repayment of other local authority debt should the need ever arise. I stress that we have no particular application in mind, but simply envisage that certain circumstances might arise in future for which it would be sensible to have the powers. There have been examples in which the proposed powers would have eased the administration of debt repayment, for example the movement some years ago of water services from council control to a new structure.
It is highly unlikely that the proposed powers would be exercised in any circumstances in which Parliament had not been involved in deciding on a significant policy change, such as stock transfer or the changes that took place in water services, and we do not regard the proposal as a vehicle for repaying debt of any kind other than capital debt as determined in the terms of amendment 22. As mentioned, to enable appropriate scrutiny, the Parliament will receive a report on any payments that are made under the proposed powers.
Amendment 22 is a revised amendment that tries to meet the Local Government Committee's concerns about a similar amendment at stage 2.
I move amendment 22.
I thank the minister for his clarification, because I have asked numerous questions about amendment 22. The amendment does not mention stock transfer, but the minister has explained that he thinks that it is prudent to refer to general debt rather than just stock transfer debt. I am a little concerned that we might not know what the debt is, but the minister has confirmed that any payment will be brought to the attention of Parliament. Will the minister clarify whether that will be done by affirmative instrument, which would allow a parliamentary debate about any debt that the Executive might write off?
I dealt with that point, I think, when I dealt with Ian Jenkins's points earlier. The committee asked us to provide an opportunity for scrutiny in the event that we ever use the proposed powers. We have chosen to use a mechanism that is proposed elsewhere in the bill, which is that ministers will provide a report to the Parliament that will afford an opportunity for scrutiny. Parliament will then decide how to deal with the report. The affirmative procedure will not be used in the way that Sandra White suggests. There will simply be a report on the fact that we have used the proposed powers. Ministers' reasons for using the powers will then be able to be scrutinised in the usual way.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Section 25J—Provisions supplementary to sections 25G to 25I
Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
I return to the point raised by Mr McAllion and Mr Sheridan. We are making good speed and if we continue to do so, we will have about half an hour for group 22.
We now move to group 17, on definitions. Amendment 25 is grouped with amendments 29, 44, 45, 46, 60 and 61.
The amendments are simple, straightforward technical amendments that propose wording changes that are necessary for the definition of local authority for various sections of the bill.
I move amendment 25.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendments 26 and 27 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Before section 26
Amendment 28 is grouped with amendment 62.
Amendment 28 is designed to ensure that councillors who have been given paid time off by their employers to allow them to undertake council duties will not have to declare the value of any salary paid to them in respect of the time taken for those duties as if it were a political donation for the purposes of schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The amendment ensures that the provision applies retrospectively.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was never intended to apply to the receipt by a councillor of paid time off for carrying out his or her duty as a councillor. However it is considered that the act as currently drafted does have that effect, which is why we have lodged amendment 28. Its effect is retrospective to ensure that any paid time off which may have been granted to councillors since the 2000 act came into force on 16 February 2001 will no longer be considered as a political donation. The provision will relieve employers and employees of any reporting requirements which have arisen in respect of paid time off for council duties. It will require the Electoral Commission to remove any references to any such donations that have been entered in its register maintained under schedule 7 to the act. The provision will also confirm that any failure to comply with the requirements of schedule 7 in relation to payments of salary before the enactment of the amendment does not constitute an offence.
The provisions of the amendment reflect provisions introduced for the same purpose in the Local Government Bill that was introduced at Westminster on 25 November.
Amendment 62 is a technical amendment that ensures that subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new section come into force on royal assent.
I move amendment 28.
The computer informs me that Jamie McGrigor has indicated that he wishes to speak, but I see that Keith Harding has risen.
I used my own card, not Mr McGrigor's, so I do not know what the problem can be.
In that case, you can be Jamie McGrigor for the moment.
But I know absolutely nothing about nephrops.
We are not against amendment 28 in principle, but we have some concerns. In the climate of openness and transparency, the move seems to be a retrograde one and we wonder what public scrutiny there will be of what amounts to a political donation. Will it appear in any register of interests?
On a connected point, will the minister clarify the situation regarding those of us whose staff will be given paid leave during the forthcoming elections? Will they fall into the same category?
I had not intended to speak on this amendment as it seemed to be a straightforward issue of correcting an error in the law, but I will speak as it has been challenged.
The amendment simply attempts to get the law back to what it should be. We want to encourage employers to give paid time off to employees who are public representatives. The act was not intended to result in a situation in which, if an employer gives Tavish Scott time off to be a councillor in Shetland Islands Council, they will have to declare that as a donation to the Liberal Democrats, irrespective of whether the employer supports the Liberal Democrats. That would be nonsense. The amendment will correct an error that was made by the Electoral Commission, which might be getting a bit more power than it needs.
I agree with the point that Iain Smith has just made.
I will not enter into the realms of what happens to parliamentary staff during the election—life is hard enough without trying to interpret those rules. The amendment is simply designed to rectify an unintended consequence of a piece of legislation. It was never intended that employers and employees would have to declare the value of their time off while attending council meetings as if it were a political donation. We want to ensure that no one falls foul of the law because of an unintended interpretation of it.
On the point about a register of interests, I would have thought that it was normal practice for any elected representative who is in employment to declare that in the register of interests. The guidance that is generally given is that it is far better to declare more rather than less. It would be open to members to declare the value of time off work if they chose to do so.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Section 27A—Power to provide funds for speed cameras etc
Amendment 29 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Suspension of requirement to advertise principal teacher posts
Amendment 30 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
After section 29
Amendments 31 and 32 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 30B—Power of local authorities to invest money
Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 35 is grouped with amendments 41 to 43.
Amendments 35 and 41 to 43 are purely technical and act simply to reorder sections of the bill to improve their flow.
I move amendment 35.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Section 30C—Power to provide funds for private water supplies
Amendment 36 is grouped with amendments 4 and 40.
Amendment 36 simply amends the definition of private water supply. We have considered the definition carefully and, on reflection, think it appropriate to give the wider definition that is now provided. The breadth of the general definition will ensure that a grant can be paid in respect of those water supplies that we consider should qualify for an improvement grant under the proposed scheme. Our consideration will take account of a consultation exercise that is to be undertaken in relation to new private water supplies grant regulations.
We believe that it is appropriate to introduce amendment 40 to ensure that we pay for expenditure that is "reasonably incurred" by local authorities. Amendments 36 and 40 signal not only the Executive's commitment to drinking-water issues but its recognition of the expenditure that will be required by local authorities administering the grant scheme.
The Executive also supports amendment 4, lodged by Tricia Marwick. During stage 2, the Executive gave a commitment to consider how local authority expenditure relating to the grant scheme could best be provided. We accepted that the most appropriate legislative mechanism to provide funding would be to place a duty on the Scottish ministers to pay grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure reasonably incurred on the grant scheme. As that is the purpose of amendment 4, the Executive supports it.
I move amendment 36.
I am grateful to the Executive for supporting amendment 4. As Peter Peacock said, I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, because it seemed to me that it is a matter of principle that, where the Government of the day places a duty on local authorities, that duty should be followed by a requirement that the Government provide the money for the duty to be carried out. That is right and proper.
Amendment 4 is a simple matter of changing "may" to "shall" in section 30C(6). I acknowledge the Executive's willingness to listen on amendment 4 and hope that, when we come to later amendments, it will show the same willingness.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendments 37 to 39 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Tricia Marwick]—and agreed to.
Amendments 40 and 41 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 30D—Establishment of further local authority funds other than general fund: setting of council tax
Amendment 42 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 30E—Power to charge for vacant places on school buses etc
Amendment 43 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
After section 31
Amendment 55 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 55 provides a power to make orders containing such ancillary provision as is necessary for the purposes of the bill. It is essentially a technical amendment, which will allow us to respond to any further issues related to the effects of the bill where subordinate legislation would be an appropriate way to deal with those issues. That is a sensible measure in view of the number of miscellaneous items concerned, and it will give added flexibility to deal with any unexpected effects of the bill.
The amendment follows similar provisions that have been made in a number of other acts of the Scottish Parliament, and so follows precedent. Any proposal at any time to make changes to primary legislation will, of course, be subject to the affirmative procedure in the Parliament.
I move amendment 55.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Section 33—Repeals and consequential amendments
We now come to the final group, which is on repeals. Amendment 59 is in a group on its own.
The purpose of amendment 59 is to remove outdated requirements under the Fire Services Act 1947. The change for the fire service will be broadly in line with the similar provisions that were made for the police some time ago and it will bring the fire service broadly into line with other local services that are dealt with at a local level. In particular, the amendment will remove provisions for the fire authorities to have to seek and get ministerial consent for what are now regarded as operational matters that are properly under the direct control of chief fire officers and their locally accountable fire boards. Those provisions relate to any decisions to close a fire station or to reduce staff or equipment.
The amendment will ensure that chief officers can deploy their resources efficiently without any of the constraints that are currently exercised by ministers. It will effectively remove detailed control by ministers over establishment levels, as such control is archaic. Fire authorities will still be expected to consult local communities on any changes to local provision. We will use powers to issue guidance to formalise best practice in such matters, ensuring full local consultation on any such moves on the part of fire boards. Fire boards and councils will be obliged to have regard to the guidance that we would issue, which will help to increase local democratic accountability in these matters.
The amendment will ensure that the deployment of resources is a matter for local management. The Executive consulted on the issues that the amendment covers last summer in our policy paper "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future". That paper was fully debated by Parliament in May 2002. We highlighted the existing very prescriptive and long-standing standards of fire cover and we recommended changes to the Fire Services Act 1947 to provide for a more flexible framework for fire authorities and fire brigades.
The policy intention behind the amendment is supported by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association. The amendment is also consistent with the principles of delegated responsibility and effective management, which are at the heart of the independent review into the reform of the fire service as set out in Professor Bain's recent report.
The amendment follows from the First Minister's announcement in the Parliament on 19 December that, in line with the Bain report's recommendations, an early legislative opportunity would be sought to repeal section 19 of the 1947 act. That question was raised by Tricia Marwick earlier.
Will the minister enlighten us on how far Executive thinking goes on the matter? The Executive has an analogous power in relation to the closure of schools, notably rural schools that are some distance from the nearest school and Roman Catholic schools—in those cases, the closure of a school requires the approval of ministers. Is the principle that we are discussing now not entirely similar? What does the minister think about the potential closure of rural fire stations that are located some considerable distance away from other rural fire stations? In such cases, should not ministers have precisely the same powers as they have in relation to schools?
The essence of what we are trying to achieve through amendment 59 is a further delegation of power and responsibility to a local level, which is consistent with the delegation of powers to the Parliament and with the rest of the bill, which seeks to free up local authorities in a variety of ways. As Alasdair Morgan knows, local authorities have full discretion at the local level to deal with questions of school provision, except in very limited circumstances.
As I was saying, we highlighted the existing, very prescriptive and long-standing standards of fire cover and we recommended changes to the 1947 act in order to provide for a more flexible framework for fire authorities and fire brigades. As I also said, the intention behind the amendment is supported by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association.
The minister makes great play of the fact that the amendment is supported by a range of organisations, including the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association. However, why have the firemen and firewomen, who deliver the service on the ground, not been properly consulted on the proposed changes or on the amendment? Why are they so ferociously opposed to the repeal of the act in this fashion? No one denies that the act needs to be amended or replaced, but the Executive is arguing for repeal. Why has the minister not negotiated the matter with the relevant trade union?
I am pleased to receive Tommy Sheridan's support for the proposed changes to the 1947 act. As I indicated, the matter was subject to consultation in the report "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future", which set out the issues. I know that the Scottish Socialist Party did not respond to that consultation.
The Fire Brigades Union did.
It did, but it did not raise concerns about the part of the report to which the amendment relates. The FBU focused on the question of public-private partnerships.
The amendment is consistent with the principles of delegated responsibility and effective management, which are at the heart of the report of the independent Bain review.
I took part in the debate on the report "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future", which referred to attempts to achieve capital returns from the use and sale of fire service property. Like many members, I objected to that at the time. However, the document did not mention repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. That is the issue that we are addressing at the moment.
Some scaremongering is taking place. Members are trying to suggest that the amendment is part of a centrally driven effort to reduce fire services. That is not the case. The amendment is consistent with the rest of the bill, which is about freeing up local authorities and fire boards to do what they believe is correct at a local level. That is consistent with the principles that the Executive has pursued.
As I indicated, the amendment follows up on the First Minister's announcement to the Parliament on 19 December that, in line with the Bain recommendations, we would seek an early legislative opportunity to repeal section 19. The amendment is consistent with provisions that are being introduced in England and Wales through the Local Government Bill.
Given that the idea of repeal appears to have arisen after the publication of the Bain report, can the minister tell the chamber whether there is a reference to repeal of section 19 in the pathfinder report that the Executive has consistently suppressed?
I make it clear that we did not decide to proceed with repeal of section 19 until we saw that the Bain report confirmed the proposals on which the Executive had consulted and which had been debated in the Parliament. The matter was debated in relation to the Local Government Bill for England and Wales, which had its second reading at Westminster yesterday.
I know that members from all parties would like to make a number of points. I am happy to stop speaking now and to pick up other issues when I wind up in the debate.
I move amendment 59.
Will the minister answer the question that I asked?
Order. There is plenty of time for debate. Under the timetabling motion—allowing time for the broadcasting time-out—we have until 17:04 for this debate. Speeches of four and a half to five minutes are permitted.
Today, the minister has repeated the assertion that consultation on the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 has taken place. The assertion is without any basis in truth.
I refer the minister to the consultation document "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future", which he has mentioned. I am prepared to give way to him if he can point me to a specific reference in that document to the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. No such reference exists. Page 18 of the document contains a recommendation from the Executive that the 1947 act be amended. Paragraph 121 on page 40 states:
"In paragraph 13 the need for legislative change has been discussed. We would welcome specific or general suggestions about those areas which require reform or a new statutory basis."
Will the member give way to me?
I want to finish the point that I am making first. The assertion that the minister has made and that the First Minister made in the chamber on 19 December is not true. The consultation document contained no specific recommendation for the repeal of section 19. Indeed, the Executive was not even clear in its own mind what kind of legislative changes it wanted. That is why it was asking for specific or general recommendations from the people who were being consulted.
Despite the fact that there has been a consultation, the minister has yet to publish the consultation report, which means that no one in the chamber has read the findings of the consultation process.
It is a matter for the Parliament that the Bain report has not been made available to members. The minister advised us that copies would be made available to us. On the day that we received the letter telling us that, I requested a copy from the Scottish Parliament information centre. I understand that only yesterday six hard copies were placed in SPICe. I was the seventh person to request a copy, so the report was not available to me, although I have a copy from the web. If that is the level of consultation that we are talking about, it is simply not good enough.
I ask the member to explain why she did not make an approach either to members of the Executive or to committee members when in response to her question on 19 December the First Minister said:
"Today I can confirm that, in line with one of the recommendations of the Bain report, we will be looking for an early legislative opportunity to repeal section 19 and related provisions in Scotland."
In that reply, the First Minister also said:
"In our consultation paper, which we published earlier this year, we considered repealing section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947".—[Official Report, 19 December 2002;
c 16607.]
That was at best misleading the Parliament, because, as I and other members have explained, there was no specific reference whatever to this proposal to repeal section 19 of the 1947 act.
Amendment 59 is sleekit, it is underhand and it strikes at the heart of the democracy of this new Parliament. To slip in an amendment that will deny any scrutiny of the proposals is to legislate by diktat. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the closure of fire stations and a reduction in the number of firefighters and appliances. It will take away the right of communities to be consulted about those changes. I see the minister shaking his head when I suggest that the amendment will do that specifically.
I will quote the Bain report and the reasons that it gives for recommending the repeal of section 19 of the 1947 act. In case the minister still has any doubts, I will tell him that Bain said that the Government must repeal section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, because, under that provision, a fire authority in Great Britain may not close a fire station or reduce appliances or firefighter posts without consent. Bain said that that is not consistent with the delegation of responsibility and effective management, which is why he believes that the repeal of section 19 of the 1947 act is needed.
What the minister has been saying today is simply not true. The Executive has taken the most contentious of all the Bain recommendations and is now trying to bludgeon it through the Parliament without allowing for any scrutiny. Delicate negotiations are going on with the Fire Brigades Union and the employers to end the present dispute. This shabby sleight of hand will inflame that situation and the responsibility for that rests squarely with the Executive and the Government.
The consultation paper said that the most significant thing to happen to the fire service in Scotland was the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, because the Parliament has responsibility for all matters concerning the Scottish fire service. I wondered why the Executive was slipping in amendment 59, but it became clear last night that, because something similar was happening at Westminster, the Executive had been telt to lodge amendment 59.
I urge the minister to withdraw the amendment. If he insists on pressing it, I urge members of all parties to combine to defeat it, to allow the Parliament the time for scrutiny that the proposal deserves and to ensure that, when fire stations are closed in future, communities will have the right to be consulted.
It is perfectly legitimate for the Executive to propose a policy of repealing section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and it is equally legitimate for members of the Parliament to be opposed to that policy. However, it is not legitimate for the Executive to seek to prevent the Parliament from exercising democratic scrutiny of the policy, which is what is happening this afternoon.
I am delighted that we will have more than the 15 minutes that the Executive originally scheduled for debating amendment 59. The Presiding Officer suggested an extra half an hour, so it looks as though we will have 45 minutes. That is better, but it is not much better. It remains the case that the Executive planners intended to allow just 15 minutes of debate to push through a highly controversial measure. No member of the Parliament can be happy at that prospect and no member should support such a move.
If the Executive has known since April that it intended to repeal section 19 of the 1947 act, why did not it lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2? Why was the Local Government Committee not allowed to consider amendments to amendment 59 and why was evidence not taken on the proposal? If the Executive believes that the Parliament should be open, transparent and accessible, as we all claim that we want it to be, why did not it support Mike Russell's motion without notice, which would have allowed the Local Government Committee to consider what is a controversial issue and to seek the views of outside bodies on the Executive's proposal? That is the intention behind the Parliament's set-up.
It is a matter of huge regret that at Westminster the Government has indicated its intention to repeal section 19 of the 1947 act. However, the fact that it did so on second reading of a bill means that members of Parliament at Westminster will have the chance, at the committee stage, to table counter-amendments. At the report stage, they will have another chance to table amendments and to have proper debate. There will be proper parliamentary scrutiny, to the extent that Westminster is capable of carrying out scrutiny. We will look shabby by comparison. The Scottish Parliament should reject the Executive's proposal and have nothing to do with it.
As a socialist, I am always in favour of decentralisation. I believe that socialists should take power in order to give it away. However, the Executive's proposal is not such a measure. As other members have indicated, the Executive has kept powers to call in various issues—planning issues, issues associated with the closure of schools and land-sale issues, for example—even though local government has responsibility for those areas. The Executive says that the ability to appeal to ministers against local government thinking should be maintained in some areas.
Amendment 59 would allow chief fire officers to close down, or to merge, fire stations without an appeal to ministers. The minister says that he will introduce guidelines that will allow proper consultation. However, if the financial decision that forces police and fire boards to close fire stations has already been taken, it will still be possible to consult, but it will not be possible to listen to what people say, as the financial reality will be that the boards will not be able to afford to keep the stations open and will therefore close them anyway.
The power to close down, or to merge, fire stations is a central plank of the Bain recommendations. We are not simply debating local government powers. The issue goes to the heart of the present firefighters' dispute. It is about whether we have a fire service in this country that is safe, that meets the needs of the people and that is paid for through taxation, or whether we get a cut-price fire service that is easy on taxpayers but hard on the people whose lives are at risk in the evenings, when fire stations should be open and available to everyone.
In seeking to push through a highly controversial measure at the last minute, the Executive is in danger of throwing a bomb into a delicate and controversial dispute. The recommendations of the Bain committee seem almost to have been designed to be unacceptable to the firefighters. As they stand, they will never be accepted by the Fire Brigades Union. There is no possibility of a fair and just settlement that is acceptable to both sides if we go ahead with measures such as the proposal in amendment 59. If we agree to amendment 59, no one—particularly those on the side of the firefighters in their dispute—will trust the Executive again.
The new democracy that we seek to set up in this country cannot be tinkered with. If we begin to look shabby in comparison to Westminster, we will let down not only ourselves, but the Scottish people, who voted for the Parliament in a referendum and who put their faith in us. It is time that we responded to that faith by ensuring that we deal with matters democratically. We should deal with matters more democratically, not less democratically—as the Executive seeks to do by attempting to push through amendment 59—than Westminster does.
In her intervention on Tricia Marwick, Sylvia Jackson pointed out that the First Minister stated on 19 December that the Executive was considering the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. However, no one in the chamber expected that to happen through the Local Government in Scotland Bill with only 48 hours' notice.
We oppose amendment 59 not on its merits or otherwise but simply because we have been unable to take evidence on the proposal and to scrutinise it properly. Indeed, we are in danger of legislating on flawed policy. The key point is that we wish to consider the matter in the context of current circumstances. As a result, it is important that we speak to the various bodies involved, including councils, fire unions and firemasters. We oppose amendment 59 on that basis.
I hope that some back-bench Labour MSPs listened to that speech. The Tories have asked the Executive to be more considered about amendment 59, but not because they oppose it. In fact, I am sure that, after they listen to the evidence, they will support the amendment because it is about the right to manage, as the minister said.
Amendment 59 is about giving chief fire officers the ability to close and merge stations and to reduce staff without proper public scrutiny or appeal. As I said, I am sure that, after hearing various representations on the amendment, the Tories will be convinced and will support it, because ideologically they believe in such measures.
However, the Tories are opposing amendment 59 because of the Executive's completely underhand and devious methods. The Fire Brigades Union has referred to the amendment as a "ludicrous, backhanded manoeuvre". Furthermore, the chairman of the FBU in Scotland has said:
"I am stunned by the arrogance of the Scottish Executive … It is a scandal which beggars belief."
Members have mentioned the Executive's consultation document on the fire service in Scotland. On page 5, it says:
"The Executive recognises that as a third driver the key to strong quality local services remains a shared sense of direction amongst those who work within the fire service and those who are responsible for it".
Quite clearly, the chamber is faced with an amendment that has been sneaked in and will allow the closure of fire stations and a reduction in the number of fire service employees in the name of the right to manage. If the Executive has absolute confidence in amendment 59, it should subject it to proper scrutiny. If it thinks that the amendment is necessary, it should allow it to be re-examined in the proper place, which is the Local Government Committee. Members will then be able to hear evidence from representatives who oppose the provision.
Quite frankly, the deputy minister has misled Parliament today. Andy Kerr has also misled Parliament, because he has said several times that the Executive has consulted on the issue. However, when I asked where in the consultation document it says that section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 will be repealed, there was no answer. Mr Kerr later told us to look at a particular page that refers to the idea that the 1947 act needs to be amended. However, there is no mention of section 19. The FBU recognises that the 1947 act must be amended, because it is an old piece of legislation that needs to be updated. A risk-based fire service must be introduced. However, I repeat that the consultation document does not mention section 19.
The minister has misled Parliament and is about to show his utter contempt not just for the Parliament but for the FBU and the men and women who risk their lives daily to deliver our fire service. That is why I appeal to Parliament to reject amendment 59. If the amendment is to be reintroduced, let it be reintroduced properly and discussed, debated and scrutinised, not dealt with by a back-handed Executive manoeuvre.
A great deal of artificial indignation has been expressed about amendment 59. We need to consider what amendment 59 is about, not what people want to pretend it is about. The amendment is about giving more powers to local government and local fire boards. Locally elected people would have the final decisions. The amendment is about taking powers away from Scottish ministers. If John McAllion and Tommy Sheridan are right and it is true that the amendment is about ministers wanting to close fire stations and make firemen redundant, where is the protection from ministers who have that power now? They will still be able to do that. It is absolute nonsense to say that that is what the amendment is about.
Amendment 59 is about moving the fire service on to the footing that the police service has been on for years. It used to be that Scottish ministers had the final say in the establishment of the police service. That did us very little good in Fife, where our police establishment was stuck at a low level for donkey's years because Tory ministers at the time refused to increase it. It is not in the interests of local government, fire services or police services that Scottish ministers should have the final say.
I ask the SNP members who they think should be responsible for the fire service. Do they think that it should be locally elected councils and fire boards? Do they think that Scottish ministers should be responsible for the fire service? If the SNP wants a national fire service, it should argue for that. Who is best placed to determine the best level of fire service cover in an area? Is it locally elected councillors and members of fire boards or is it Scottish ministers? To be frank, I would prefer to trust locally elected councillors to even the good words of Peter Peacock or Hugh Henry. Who is more accountable to the local community for decisions about fire services and whether a fire station should be kept open? Is it locally elected councillors or is it Hugh Henry and Peter Peacock working at the centre? Locally elected councillors are clearly more accountable; I support any system that gives more power to local government.
I believe in local government, local democracy and local accountability. Amendment 59 seeks to deliver more local government, local accountability and local democracy and I support it.
It is clear that Iain Smith believes in the right of everyone to be consulted except the Scottish Parliament and the people who are involved in the issue. His was the most disgraceful speech today, apart from the minister's.
I do not want to use unparliamentary language, but the minister's response to Alasdair Morgan was not economical with the truth; it was contrary to the truth. Because he is a former Deputy Minister for Children and Education, he knows that there is a procedure through which school closures must in certain circumstances be referred outwith a local authority area. That was the answer he should have given to Alasdair Morgan, but he gave an answer that did not mention that, which was wrong of him.
It was equally wrong of the minister to lodge amendment 59 in the way that he did. There are two issues—timing and process. I concur with what Tommy Sheridan and John McAllion said. The issue might well require to be attended to, but the moment to attend to it is not in the middle of sensitive negotiations. To do so—I concur with my friend Tricia Marwick—is a deliberately provocative action. No doubt the Scottish Executive was told to take such action, so it has taken it, but it is extremely foolish to take such action at this time and it is more foolish to take that action by breaking the established procedures of the Parliament. That was doubly wrong and it will be doubly felt in Scotland by the FBU.
In the normal legislative process of the Parliament, the FBU expects, and has the right, to be consulted on such a change. As convener of the Public Petitions Committee, Mr McAllion was already receiving approaches from the FBU for the Parliament to consider the matter. Mr Peacock can still take the step of referring amendment 59 back to the Local Government Committee and allowing those who are directly involved to be consulted, as the Parliament must do, according to its procedures.
All that the minister has to do at the end of the debate is agree that amendment 59 and the amendments that are consequential on it should go back to the Local Government Committee for consultation. We would then be able to hear from the FBU, from the fire officers, from local authorities and from those who are deeply concerned about their safety. We can hear from people like Iain Smith, who want power to be closer to the people. We can hear from those people properly by scrutinising the amendments, but the minister seeks to prevent that scrutiny. There has been a failure in respect of timing and there has been a failure of process.
To add insult to injury, the argument that was presented by the minister and parroted by Sylvia Jackson is, in a sense, that if someone does not notice sleight of hand, they deserve all that comes to them. That is an appalling way to treat the Parliament and it suggests that the job of ministers is to indulge in trickery so that the elected members of the Parliament do not notice what is going on. In such circumstances, ministers could get away with anything.
Thank goodness there is an election on 1 May because—[Interruption.] I see that Jamie Stone is waving—he is the epitome of a turkey voting for an early Christmas. The reality of the situation is that a Government that believes that it can not only survive but flourish as a result of trickery is a Government whose time has run out.
I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I am embarrassed by amendment 59 and I ask the minister to consider withdrawing it. Firefighters and folk in communities fear that agreement to amendment 59 could lead to closure of fire services and, subsequently, to loss of jobs. Although I welcome the minister's commitment to ensuring that a requirement for full consultation will be in the guidance, I ask him to take that further in order to ensure that consultation involves stakeholders, people in communities and people who are really concerned about the decision on amendment 59.
Amendment 59 contains a certain amount of sense. As Iain Smith said, measures to decentralise and give more local control are a good thing, and if the regulations insist on adequate consultation, that will be a step in the right direction. However, as other members have said, the way in which the measure has been introduced is absolutely unacceptable. If there was previously consultation, why was not the measure included in the bill, or at least in an amendment at stage 2?
There is no excuse for lodging such an amendment now, other than to parrot what is being done at Westminster. The Procedures Committee will have to consider carefully this business of parachuting in absolutely new measures at stage 3. It is totally unacceptable and subjects the Parliament to ridicule.
To be cynical about it, if someone has a really dodgy proposition, there is some excuse for trying to sneak it in when nobody will notice. However, if someone has a perfectly straightforward and—as I believe amendment 59 is—quite honourable proposition, they make the most awful blunder if they try to sneak it in in a way that people object strongly to. The debate is then all about the way in which that was done, rather than about the merits of a proposal that might be quite good. The lodging of amendment 59 is the most extraordinary blunder.
As a distinguished colleague in another party said to me a few minutes ago, the lodging of amendment 59 is the worst example of abuse of Executive power in the duration of this Parliament—that is not the way that the Government should carry on. I will not support governments or executives or whatever they like to call themselves that behave in that way. It is absolutely counter-democratic and counter to how most members believe we should do things.
Like Cathy Peattie, I had not intended to contribute to this part of the proceedings, but having listened to the debate I wish to make a short speech.
The main issue is not whether the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 is right or wrong; the issue is the need to debate and scrutinise that repeal. I dispute one of Donald Gorrie's points: the issue is not parity with Westminster. I understand that Westminster yesterday held its second reading of the Local Government Bill, so the repeal was considered at that stage. At least the opportunity to debate the issue is available at Westminster.
From speaking to Labour members, I think that there is slight confusion. Will the minister clarify in his summing-up whether the Local Government Committee scrutinised the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 at stage 2 or whether wider fire service and modernisation issues were discussed? If that committee did not scrutinise the repeal at stage 2, we must ask why not, given that the consultation document was published early last year.
I assure the member that the Local Government Committee did not see the amendment at stage 1, at stage 2 or any other time. There has been no consultation. The first knowledge of the amendment was when it was published in the business bulletin on Monday.
I thank the member for that comment. I hope that that clarifies the situation for any Labour members who think that the repeal was scrutinised.
Just before the recess, we had a good members' business debate on the firefighters' dispute. During that debate, some members asked—rightly—that we be careful with language, actions and other matters, so that the negotiations were not adversely affected by anything that was said in the chamber. This last-minute amendment—amendment 59—does not help the process of reaching agreement in that dispute. Whether the repeal of section 19 is right or wrong is not the issue. In the middle of an industrial dispute, amendment 59 is, to say the least, inflammatory.
As Elaine Smith said, the matter is not whether the amendment is good or bad; rather, it is about the fact that the procedure that was used is shabby. We have an interesting precedent for consultation and we have a new meaning for consultation. In the future, it will apparently be fair to include in a consultation document reference to possible intentions to amend an act of Parliament. Thereafter, when a proposal is produced to amend any section of that act, it will be fair to say that that general reference to the act means that people have been consulted on that proposal.
We have been told that because the First Minister said that he would take an early legislative opportunity to introduce the proposal, we should have jumped up the day after he said that—on 20 December, would you believe—to make representations. However, nobody believed that the definition of an early legislative opportunity was the lodging of an amendment two days before stage 3 of a bill that does not refer to the subject.
John McAllion was right to mention all the people at Westminster and all the opportunities that exist there to scrutinise the equivalent proposal for England. Even Scottish members of that Parliament have more opportunity to scrutinise English legislation than we have to scrutinise our legislation. Moreover, the House of Lords has more opportunity for scrutiny than we have. Unelected and appointed people in England have more opportunity to scrutinise their legislation than we have to scrutinise ours. That says it all.
The Executive has heard the debate and I urge it to tak tent of what has been said and, for the Parliament's sake, to make a move before the vote to refer amendment 59 to the Local Government Committee.
We have listened carefully to the points about procedure that members of all parties have made and I have no doubt that ministers and members will reflect on those points. However, I want to separate the process point from the points of substance. Several members expressed concerns about the process but nonetheless indicated support for the measure. At the end of the day, that is what is important in relation to how we take forward this particular measure. Very few opportunities are available for us to do that.
I want to reflect on a number of the comments that have been made. I will start with those that were made by John McAllion.
Will the minister give way?
No. I have a very short time and I want to make progress. I was very generous with interventions earlier in the debate.
John McAllion made a point about timing. One of the reasons why the amendment was lodged when it was lodged is that—notwithstanding points to which I will soon refer about the consultation that the Executive undertook on the issue, which the Executive does not believe it undertook in secret—it would have been quite wrong to proceed on the matter prior to discovering whether the Bain report supported the general measures that are contained in amendment 59. Had the Executive proceeded with its intention to pursue those measures and subsequently found ourselves out of step with the Bain report when it came out in the middle of December, we would have put ourselves in an extraordinarily difficult position. That is why the Executive reserved its position on the issue until the publication of the Bain report. I will move on to pick up on the points that the First Minister made about that.
Where in the consultation document is section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 mentioned?
Anyone who is familiar with such matters who looks at paragraph 47 on page 18 of the consultation document will see that the Executive makes it explicit that it recommends that the Fire Service Act 1947 be amended to reflect changes. I make the point that that part of the document is all about section 19 of the 1947 act. People who now claim to have knowledge of the matter should have been aware of that at the time.
Notwithstanding the serious points that I have made, I regret that the issue has today been picked up as it has by the SNP in particular, and by the SSP. Those parties, in a modern form of political alchemy, have tried to make fire where there is no smoke. They have attributed to the Executive motives that relate to some central Government agenda to close fire stations, but there is simply no such agenda. If members believe that there is a central Government conspiracy to close fire stations, why on earth are ministers giving up powers in relation to such decisions? Iain Smith made that point. We are doing the opposite of what would be required of such an agenda.
John McAllion made the point that there is some explicit financial pressure in relation to these matters that would force an agenda of fire service closures, but that is simply not the case. The fact of the matter is that the grant to support the fire service is growing year on year; in fact, we have recently made special provisions that will allow fire authorities to carry money between years. We are also supporting them in a variety of ways in relation to pension funds and so on. A lot of financial support is going into the fire services to try to prevent the scenario that has been suggested today from happening.
I want to address the suggestion that we have somehow sneaked in amendment 59. I will repeat a point that I made earlier: in response to Tommy Sheridan's question, I said that we flagged up the question about change in paragraph 47 of the consultation document. As I said, the SNP and SSP were so concerned about the matter that they made no comment on that point whatever; indeed, even the Fire Brigades Union did not raise the issue when it wrote to the Executive. We debated the subject on 15 May 2002, but SNP members who spoke in the debate and its front-bench spokespersons—who are the most knowledgeable people on the subject—did not express any concerns about that matter of principle.
The First Minister—not, as Mike Russell described, using some sleight of hand—told the Parliament that there would be a repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947.
Will the minister give way?
Far from using sleight of hand, the First Minister said that at the premier point of the week during First Minister's question time. He made it clear to the Parliament that the Executive would take an early opportunity to repeal section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. We are not talking about a measure that was hidden or sneaked in; it was declared openly to the Parliament, which was given the opportunity to ask questions. Indeed, Tricia Marwick raised that point but she failed to follow up on it.
The accusations that we are preparing the way in that manner are simply not true; the opposite is the case. We want to see a stronger fire service throughout Scotland because we respect what the fire service does in communities throughout the country. We want to see that service being more effective in dealing with the problems in communities. We want to remove central control and diminish central influence and those aims are not in line with some kind of conspiracy theory. We want to devolve power to local areas and to trust local leaders to make the right decisions locally. We also want there to be local consultation.
I want to pick up on the point that Cathy Peattie rightly made that it is important for us to have proper local consultation when change is proposed at local level. That consultation must be thorough and it must involve people. There is a lot of experience of how such consultation should be done in, among others, education circles. We will issue guidance on those matters to ensure that local authorities and joint fire boards have regard to such matters. We need to ensure that full public consultation and democratic scrutiny take place.
Will the minister give way?
With respect to John McAllion, I have not given way to other members and do not think that I should give way on the point that I am making.
The measures are entirely consistent with the rest of the bill, which is about removing central prescription and constraints on local authorities. The issue is about giving more local freedoms and trusting local leaders to be accountable locally for their actions. Local leaders should take people along with them, consult and make decisions that are right for their communities and not to be subject to the silly provisions whereby the fire chief in Grampian, for example, must come to the Executive for ministerial approval to move an aerial from the top of his building to another building within his command. That is absurd in the modern day. We do not want a situation whereby people in Oban must come to us to try to upgrade a fire station from retained to full time. Such things should be done locally through local decision making, which is what we seek. The rest of the bill makes similar provisions.
We are repealing compulsory competitive tendering, giving more local freedom, involving the fire service in community planning and ensuring that its influence will be increased. There is a new power to advance well-being in local areas. We trust local people to get on with things locally and to be accountable. We are abolishing section 94 controls on local authorities, which will give them freedom and allow them to trade more locally. We are also removing section 171 controls on economic development powers and so on.
Amendment 59 is entirely consistent with the spirit of the bill, with provisions in the rest of the bill and with measures that have been taken across the Executive. For example, it is intended that changes will be made in relation to the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956, because it is ancient. The amendment is about making the fire service consistent with the police service, which the Conservatives changed some years ago. We have made a series of provisions throughout the Executive to remove controls on local authorities.
The issue is about local authorities and local managers managing. It is about local decision makers taking decisions locally. It is about removing ministerial powers and archaic practices. There is not a threat; rather, there is an opportunity for more responsive local management, more local accountability and full democratic scrutiny at local level in exactly the way that Cathy Peattie described. That is how things should be. I urge the Parliament to agree to amendment 59.
The question is, that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr 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)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
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)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr 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)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 56, Abstentions 2.
Like Presiding Officers around the world, I am obliged to cast my vote for the status quo. The bill as published was the status quo and amendment 59 would change it. I therefore vote against amendment 59.
Amendment 59 disagreed to.
Section 34—Definitions
Amendments 44, 45, 46, 60 and 61 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 35—Short title and commencement
Amendment 62 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
That ends the consideration of amendments.