Ethical Standards in Public Life Bill
The first item of business is a statement by the Deputy Minister for Local Government on the publication of a draft ethical standards in public life bill. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement, so there should be no interventions.
The last time I stood at this dispatch box was on the day after the opening of the Scottish Parliament. The opening day was a great day for Scotland and, for a brief moment last night, we nearly had another great day but that delight was snatched—again—from the Scottish supporters. I want to put on public record our appreciation that at least we were allowed to dream for 90 minutes last night.
I turn to more interesting matters. I am delighted to announce to Parliament that the Executive is today publishing its draft bill on ethical standards in public life. This bill is one of the eight that Donald Dewar promised the Executive would introduce to Parliament in its first year. As with each of those bills, we are publishing a draft for wide consultation. We will take account of responses to the consultation before we introduce the bill to Parliament early in the new year.
The title of the bill is significant and appropriate. We believe that the ethic of public service extends not only to elected councillors, but to those who serve on public bodies. As I visit councils across Scotland and deal with public bodies in carrying out my responsibilities as a minister and MSP, I am impressed by the continuing tradition of public service of which we are all proud.
In June 1999 the First Minister said:
"the aim is to enhance the reputation of"
public service
"and to ensure a commitment to the highest standards".— [Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol 1, c 407.]
Too often the reputation of the many has been undermined by the publicity given to the misdemeanours of the few who fail to come up to standard. High standards must not only be maintained, they must be seen to be maintained.
We believe that there should be equity in the application of standards in public life. Our bill will ensure that equity and fairness are enshrined in those standards. Whether it be a council or a public body, there should be a shared agenda, with shared expectations and shared standards.
Our starting point has been the Nolan committee on standards in public life, but our consultation so far has taken place within Scotland and we have produced a bill that is shaped and influenced by Scottish traditions and circumstances.
There will be an opportunity to scrutinise the draft bill in full detail. Today I will identify the key elements of the bill. In essence, the bill will provide for the introduction of new codes of conduct for local authority councillors and members of public bodies. It will give councils and public bodies a duty to help their members to comply with their code. It will also establish a standards commission to oversee the new framework and deal with alleged breaches of the codes.
On the codes of conduct, we recognise that the introduction of a new ethical framework needs to relate to the nature of the organisations that it will apply to. We are mindful of the fact that one is an elected body and the other is an appointed body. We believe that our bill is sufficiently flexible to address those concerns. The content of the codes will require careful consideration. Local government will have the opportunity to shape and influence its code before it comes to Parliament for approval. The bill provides for that.
Public bodies form a diverse group. Each has its own constitution and functions and will need a code tailored to that. Accordingly, for those bodies the bill will establish a new statutory model code for the members of public bodies and will require each body to adopt a version of that code that is suitable and customised for its circumstances. The central change is that the model code, shaped by the Parliament, will be addressed by those public bodies within three months and will also require ministerial approval.
The bill will cover, initially at least, devolved executive public bodies which have their own staff and budget, which operate solely in Scotland and which have devolved functions only or a mixture of devolved and reserved functions. Those include executive bodies, the national health service bodies and the water authorities.
The public will have the right to know—for the first time in any real way—members' interests within councils and public bodies. Members' outside interests and influences will be made transparent.
Adherence to the code will be a personal responsibility for each councillor and member of a public body. However, councils and public bodies
also have an important role to play in assisting their members to uphold the code; for example, by providing clear and effective guidance, training and development, to ensure that the code is upheld. The bill will place a duty on each council and each body to promote its members' observance of high standards of conduct and to assist them to observe their code of conduct.
We welcome the creation of local standards committees and recognise that they can assist in the maintenance of public confidence in elected members in councils. We welcome those initiatives that signal that a council is taking responsibility for standards. In fact, I pioneered one of the first such initiatives in Scotland, in the most difficult of circumstances. The fact that all- party consent was achieved on that in Glasgow—a unique achievement, given the politics of that city—indicates the importance of the good ethic of public service for elected members.
We also consider it essential, however, for the public and members of councils to have confidence that every allegation will be subject to a consistent process and will be dealt with thoroughly and fairly. If that confidence is to be achieved, all allegations of breaches of the code should be dealt with by an entirely independent body. The bill will therefore provide for the establishment of a standards commission for Scotland, which will have responsibility for dealing with all allegations of breaches of the codes.
Never again do we want the conduct of an individual to affect the reputation of an institution or a council. Our public bodies should have robust and clear codes that have public confidence. Those codes should be applied clearly and effectively. It is not for those who run public bodies, as members or officials, to become the personal gatekeeper of the conduct of an individual in their organisation. It is for the establishment of the standards commission to create an authoritative and independent scrutiny of conduct in all public bodies. In the new Scotland, with the creation of the Parliament, we are beginning the modernisation of our democratic structures. The Parliament is not the end but the beginning of that process. The standards commission will be the gatekeeper to the establishment of high standards and best practice in public bodies in Scotland.
We will ensure that investigations of alleged breaches of the code will be carried out swiftly and accurately. It is important for the individuals concerned to know that the allegations will be dealt with quickly, to reassure the public and to clarify the personal circumstances for that individual. An independent person—the chief investigating officer—will be responsible for investigating alleged breaches of the code and reporting to the commission. Where appropriate, the chief investigating officer will be able to refer matters to another body; for example, the ombudsman, an auditor or, in the most extreme cases, the police.
For local government, if the commission finds that a councillor has breached the code, it will decide what sanction would be appropriate. Sanctions may range from censure of the individual concerned to temporary suspension, or, in cases of significant violation, disqualification of the individual from being, or being elected, a member of a local authority for up to five years.
The chief investigating officer will also investigate alleged or suspected breaches of the code by members of relevant public bodies and will report such breaches to the standards commission. Sanctions open to the appointing body would be similar to those proposed for the local councillors, ranging from censure to suspension and, in extreme cases, removal from public office in public bodies.
Those are the central provisions of the bill: a commitment to equity and fairness; a commitment to a Scotland with high expectations of public service; and a commitment that the citizen is at the forefront of our considerations. How we serve our citizens and reflect their needs and aspirations is at the core of our legislative programme. We can lead Scotland in Britain in the development of ethical standards in public life. We can do the same for equality and social inclusion.
We have an opportunity, in the bill, to address the commitment we made in our programme to building a Scotland on the principles of social justice and fairness—a Scotland of equal opportunity and inclusion. We intend to repeal section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, commonly known as section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
Our view is that that legislation was, and remains, ill conceived. We believe that it has served to legitimise intolerance and prejudice. It has acted as an unhelpful constraint on the ability of local authorities to develop best practice in sex education and to tackle bullying in schools. It has also reduced the capacity—a central capacity, in my opinion—of local authorities to respond to the needs and aspirations of the people they serve, which includes the gay and lesbian community and communities throughout Scotland. We believe that repeal of section 2A will enable the gay and lesbian community to be full participants in the building of a socially diverse and equitable Scotland.
Regarding education, we believe repeal of section 2A will assist in allowing schools to provide a balanced, coherent and responsible approach to
the nurture of personal and social development. I have more than 13 years' experience of teaching in Glasgow and beyond, and I believe that teachers will continue to develop in a sensitive manner, as good professionals do, an understanding of personal values and respect for others of different creed, different race and different sexual orientation.
The issue of sexual orientation is also central to tackling the problems of bullying that have emerged in schools. At present, many professionals fear the possible legal consequences of tackling head on issues such as homophobic bullying. Repeal of section 2A will enable teachers to do that. It will also help voluntary groups who work within the gay and lesbian community to work with councils and it will help them to feel that when they make applications, those will be considered according to the quality of the group's work rather than according to sexual orientation.
We believe that our bill will enhance and reinforce high standards in Scottish public life. We believe that it will create a Scotland that puts citizens and public interest first. It will address the unfairness of the restrictive legislation in section 2A and it will show that Scotland is leading Britain in ensuring that those who govern do so by the consent of the governed, and that the principles of fairness, transparency and social justice are at the heart of our programme for this Parliament.
Many members wish to speak in the economic debate, so I will restrict questions to the minister to 20 minutes. I ask members to make their questions brief.
I thank the minister for that statement and I commend him for providing us with a copy of it last night. With his indulgence, I will ask some brief questions for clarification.
First, what does the minister propose will be the mechanism and criteria for the selection of the chief investigating officer for Scotland's standards commission?
Secondly, the Executive has had time to consider the workings of existing standards committees, such as the one that is established at Glasgow City Council—on which the minister and I both served—and the Parliament's Standards Committee. What lessons can we learn from the workings of such committees?
Finally, will the minister clarify, for some sections of the media, that the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 does not involve the promotion of one lifestyle over another, but is simply the end of legal discrimination against lesbians and gay men?
I thank Kenneth Gibson for those questions. The first question was about consideration of the selection of the chief investigating officer. That officer will be someone who understands the workings of public bodies in local authorities throughout Scotland. It will be someone who has credibility in the role that he or she must play and who will set examples on the key issues that will underpin the standards commission. I will welcome suggestions from all members of all parties as to how we can arrive at a firm conclusion regarding the criteria that we want to apply.
The second question was about the functioning of the standards commission. The establishment of standards committees in some authorities has helped to address issues of public concern in those local authority areas. The fact that there was all-party consensus in the example with which we are most familiar signifies that we in public office recognise that a small minority can affect the majority who execute their public duties with great diligence and effort. It is important that we learn from that experience when we set up a standards commission. That experience indicates that there should be clear guidance and codes of conduct. We must also make it clear that all are responsible for their actions and that effective sanctions will be applied to ensure minimisation of misbehaviour. The establishment of standards committees has led to a significant diminution of the criticisms levelled at local authority members in many parts of Scotland. That is testimony to the fact that we should have such standards committees.
I also welcome Mr Gibson's comments regarding section 2A and I agree with his remarks relating to the repeal that we are putting forward. It is a pragmatic response to the issue of developing understanding and knowledge of personal and social development in schools and it will help to ensure that all participants feel that they have a role to play. We do not recognise the caricature that some have drawn of the issue of repeal of section 2A.
As we said when the First Minister announced the legislative programme, the Conservatives have no objection in principle to this bill. It starts the long process of restoring public confidence in our local authorities—confidence which is sadly lacking. The minister is to be commended for that, but the fact that the bill is necessary at all is a damning indictment of the unacceptable face of the Scottish Labour party in local government in Scotland. If the Labour party had put its house in order, legislative time would not be required for this purpose.
I notice that the minister proudly referred to the standards initiative taken by Glasgow City Council
that had all-party support. Does Mr McAveety agree that the miracle in George Square was not that the initiative commanded all-party support, but that it commanded the support of one party—his party?
I want to ask a few specific questions about the bill. The idea of a standards commission is fine on its own, but the minister also referred in his statement to the local government ombudsman and the Accounts Commission for Scotland. Are we not, perhaps, in danger of duplication and overlapping of functions between those bodies and the proposed new commission? Should not we be looking to rationalise the number of scrutinising authorities? How will overlaps between the standards commission, the Accounts Commission and the ombudsman be dealt with within the framework that the minister envisages will develop through this legislation?
The repeal of section 28, or section 2A, has been tacked on to the ethical standards bill. The Conservatives regard that as yet another example of the perverse priorities of the Executive. That part of the bill has nothing to do with ethical standards and everything to do with political correctness. Will the minister explain what local authorities are currently constrained from doing that they would wish to do when section 2A is repealed? I found his justification for the repeal somewhat unconvincing. If local authorities plan a range of new activities after the repeal of section 2A, how much does the minister envisage that such activities will cost, and what local services will be cut to pay for them?
Finally, does the minister's postbag make him aware, as mine does, that there is concern among parents regarding the content of sex education and social education classes in our schools? Those classes might not conform to the parents' wishes or to the family values that they wish to promote. In those circumstances, will not repeal of section 2A add to their anxieties, and does not the minister agree that, at this time, it would be more appropriate to set out and to agree curriculum guidelines on such sensitive issues—guidelines to which all parties could agree before taking the steps proposed in the bill?
I thank Mr McLetchie for his breathtaking arrogance in lecturing anyone in this chamber on standards in public life, given the Tories' record at Westminster. He claimed that he is willing to listen to the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland made their point about the conduct of the Conservatives in public office quite clear at the election in 1997.
All parties consented to the setting up of a standards committee in Glasgow City Council. That was not a priority of an individual in the majority group on the council. John Young, who is now a Conservative member of the Parliament, welcomed the initiative as a remarkable breath of fresh air in municipal government in Glasgow. I welcomed John's support for that initiative because he recognised it for what it was: an effort to ensure that there are high standards applied to public life and that people are reassured that that is done. That underpins what we have laid out in the bill.
The ombudsman is not an enforcer and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to put the ombudsman in the role that we foresee for the chief investigating officer of the standards commission. The Accounts Commission looks at the finances of local government. If there are grey areas in the bill, those issues should be addressed at the committee stage of the bill and we will welcome suggestions at that stage.
David then moved on to repeal of section 2A. I do not think that Mr McLetchie's use of the phrase "perverse priorities" was a Freudian slip. It was deliberate use of language to suggest and connote something that is not necessarily the case. The truth is that evidence indicates that teachers are inhibited, by the existence of section 2A, from giving the full professional advice that is appropriate to particular circumstances. In my teaching career, I have been prohibited from intervening and assisting youngsters in understanding their own complex personal and social development. I would not wish that on any future children in Scotland. I hope that the teaching profession will have the opportunity to operate as it always has in Scotland, in a sensitive and understanding manner, and to intervene in these matters.
Parental consent is essential for any programme for personal and social development. There is nothing in the bill, or in the intentions behind it, which will not allow parents to be involved in the negotiation and consultation with teachers and care agencies on the way in which programmes for personal and social development are delivered. The issue is to put on a relatively equal footing all approaches to life, and to support people in our communities throughout Scotland. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I remember the point of view that was expressed by William Hague only three or four months ago, when he said that caring Conservatism was about to re-emerge. It is a pity that that point of view has not yet permeated the Scottish Tory party.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the general tenor and purpose of all parts of the bill and its proposals. We will work in this Parliament, and in local government, to make the bill as good as possible.
Will the minister allow councillors and MSPs to
play a vigorous role in drawing up clear-cut rules? That seems to be the essence of the matter. Declarations of interest, and so on, are a bit peripheral. We need absolutely clear-cut rules for elected people and officials, and I hope that he will consider local government officials, civil servants, MSPs, people on quangos and councillors. For example, when I refused an offer of a freebie to go to Hampden, was I daft or was I being sensible? I want to know the rules that set that out. The rules are absolutely essential. If a council produced a robust system of dealing with first-line complaints, would the minister consider building that into the system, allowing that those complaints would have to be reported to the central body? Quite a lot of problems could be sorted out locally, while retaining public confidence.
Finally, what level of proof does the minister think that the standards commission will require? I got into great trouble with esteemed former council colleagues for making the obvious point to the Nolan committee that corruption takes place privately. If a developer gives an envelope full of used notes to a councillor, he does so in a darkened room and with nobody else present, so that his actions cannot be proved. The level of proof that is required is an interesting point.
I reassure Donald Gorrie that we will consult throughout Scotland on the codes, and that we will welcome contributions from MSPs. It is also important that local government shares this agenda. For too long, councillors have felt that they were not being considered in this debate. It is important to recognise that they have a contribution to make to the development of codes. Without the active consent and support of local government, such a principle cannot be maintained.
Donald Gorrie asked whether he was daft or sensible. If he had gone to Hampden, he would have been daft; if he had gone to Wembley, he would have been absolutely sensible. It is a matter of judgment, depending on the circumstances at the time. I firmly believe that some matters can be dealt with quickly and efficiently locally, and that reassurance can be given to the wider public. There will be an escalating level of severity, according to the nature of the case. That can be discussed at stage 1 of the bill.
Donald Gorrie said that corruption cannot be proved, as deals take place in private rooms. At the moment, we do not have the benefits of "The Truman Show", in which everything is recorded for public consumption. That is why we need a framework for this code for ethical standards in public life. This is Holyrood, not Hollywood, and it is important that that issue is addressed. We must ensure that there are clear guidelines for its effective operation.
I assure Donald Gorrie that we take those matters on board, and that they will influence some of the debates through the Local Government Committee and through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I welcome the minister's announcement, particularly on the repeal of section 2A. I ask for further explanation of the rationale behind the inclusion of quangos. If someone who is a member of both a local authority and a quango is found guilty by the local authority, how does that affect their membership of the quango?
We hope that, at the various stages of the bill's scrutiny, those matters will be addressed in a coherent and sensible way. It strikes me that the way in which someone operates in one public body cannot be separated from the way in which they operate in another. If someone errs in their behaviour in one public body, that can impact on their credibility within another. It must be recognised, however, that one body is elected and the other is appointed. The chief investigating officer's recommendation should be passed on to the appropriate public body. If action is not taken by that body, the matter could be raised before the Parliament for further consideration.
There should be equity in all public bodies, whether they are local authorities or quangos, which Mr Kerr mentioned. My experience in local government leads me to believe that people would welcome that, as part of a shared agenda of high public standards for both elected and appointed officials.
Will the minister follow the practice that he adopted in the City of Glasgow Council, by ensuring political balance in the standards commission and by rotating the chairmanship? Furthermore, will local enterprise companies be included in the scope of the bill, and will the bill deal specifically with problems of lobbying and lobbyists?
The role of the organisations that Alex Neil mentions has already featured in other discussions that have taken place in the Parliament.
The form and approach that I might have undertaken in the context of the administration in Glasgow would not necessarily be welcomed in this Parliament. Therefore, I would not necessarily want to use that council as a slide rule. It would, however, be interesting to find out how decisions could be executed fairly quickly, in the face of opposition.
Two other issues are important. First, we should have a debate on the role of the standards commission. That, and other aspects of the bill,
might be influenced through discussions in the Local Government Committee. I welcome contributions on that issue. I have no fixed view; therefore that could be developed over the next two or three months.
Secondly, as LECs are private companies, they are excluded from the provisions of the bill, although certain regulatory responsibilities may intervene in the issues that Alex Neil has raised. That matter might be considered by the appropriate committees of the Parliament. However, we believe that this bill will address those concerns as far as they affect the bodies for which we have responsibility: local councils and other public bodies.
Does the minister agree that the bill sets out a path to a greater public confidence in those who are elected, and that that is to be welcomed? Will he indicate the way in which the repeal of section 2A will affect those in wider education—in community education, for example—and what impact it will have on them?
The bill will reassure people and reinforce the general public confidence in those who operate in our elected and appointed bodies. In his assessment, Nolan found very little evidence of what the tabloid press might call allegations of the misuse of public office. We want to set a standard, from the outset of this Parliament, that is of such a high level that the public will be reassured that we are operating in the public interest rather than from self-interest.
I accept what Karen Gillon is saying about others who are involved in education. Many people who are involved in care provision or youth provision would welcome the opportunity for the flexibility that the repeal of section 2A would provide, to address many of the concerns that young people themselves have raised. Only recently, it was found that, within the gay and lesbian community in Glasgow, almost 60 per cent of people had been threatened or physically attacked in the past year on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Youth workers on the streets would pick that up in debates and through sharing experiences.
There is a need to respond to that in a sensitive and understanding way, which the repeal of section 2A will allow to a greater extent. That will be welcomed not only by the gay and lesbian community, but by everyone in Scotland who believes that we should use community education and youth work to assist young people in the difficult choices that they face.
I welcome any measure that seeks to improve standards in public life. However, I heard no proposal to stamp out that continuing and insidious threat to equality that is known as cronyism. The appointment of friends, relatives, placed people and councillors from only one party—guess which—to public bodies has become a traditional form of what might be called cosy corruption. Brown envelopes are not necessarily involved, but there may be a web that controls many areas of Scotland, particularly in the west. I would like to hear Frank McAveety's view on what can be done to stamp out cronyism. I would also like to hear his view on people in public life taking a full public oath against cronyism and against corruption in any form whatsoever.
There is a remarkable symmetry in Dorothy-Grace Elder being cheered by the Conservatives. After the Tories' track record, there is some remarkable surrealism in this chamber.
Dorothy is wonderful at tabloid-speak and at linguistic caricaturing. I appreciate the fact that she has spent many years—that is the best euphemism that I can find—engaging in that sort of use of language. However, if she wants to raise those matters, she will have the opportunity to influence the debate during the progress of the bill.
We recognise the issues that Dorothy raised. We want to reassure individuals throughout Scotland that those of us who are in public service operate in the public interest rather than with self- interest. I cannot remember her ever writing positively about the creation of a standards committee in Glasgow.
My main reason for addressing that question is that I want to reassure people, irrespective of their political stance or party, about people in public office. I caution Dorothy against playing the game of claiming that one party is intrinsically morally superior to the other, when individuals in all parties have erred. That would put us on shaky ground. We should recognise the broader picture.
Dorothy can raise the issues that she has mentioned during the discussion of the general principles of the bill. I welcome a learned and intelligent contribution from her at that stage.
As we are talking about a bill on ethical standards, I ought to declare an interest. My wife is a serving councillor—placed there not by cronyism, I have to add, but by the good people of Broxburn.
Given that the minister has commended some of the councils, such as Glasgow City Council and West Lothian Council, that have established standards committees, why has he not compelled all local authorities to establish standards committees? What role does he see the councils that do establish such committees playing with the standards commission?
If local authorities feel that it is appropriate to establish local standards committees, I encourage them to do so. However, we felt that the introduction of an all-Scotland standards commission would address any issues that were raised and would allow for consistency throughout the country. I recommend that local authorities consider establishing standards committees, and I understand that many authorities are doing so, which will reassure the public.
I apologise to the four members whom I have not called, but we will be returning to this subject again.