Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-786, in the name of Wendy Alexander, which seeks agreement that the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill be passed. Members who want to take part in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I will keep my remarks brief—much briefer than the usual opening speeches in debates. However, it is right that the central issue of the bill and its purposes, which Mike Russell, Phil Gallie and others have remarked on, are addressed.
A lot of hard work has been done, not least by the Local Government Committee in its detailed consideration of the bill, and I thank that committee in particular for its contribution. Thanks also go to the Parliament and to the many organisations and individuals who have made valuable contributions at different stages of the bill.
The Executive and the Parliament expect the highest standards of conduct throughout our public services. We have sought in the bill to apply those standards both to councillors and to members of devolved public bodies. We believe that people in public office—by whatever route they have attained that position—should aspire to, be held to, and ensure high standards of conduct. By fostering, indeed requiring, those standards, the bill will strengthen the bond of trust between the community and its representatives. The public will see that standards apply and they can have confidence that those standards will be upheld.
The bill also provides for the repeal of section 2A. That repeal is not, and never has been, about the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. It is not about political correctness or, even less, about marriage. It is about building a tolerant Scotland. We know that teachers are confused about the meaning of section 2A, we know that bullying exists in our schools and elsewhere, and we know that children's organisations overwhelmingly back repeal.
Section 2A was introduced as an assault on local government, and was rightly condemned at the time as a backward and repressive measure. Since then, it has stood as an ugly constraint on the ability of local government to support all members of the community. Repeal has been a long-standing commitment of the Labour and Liberal parties, and of other parties in the chamber. Similarly, the commitment to repeal is held by the UK Government and, more recently, has been held by the Scottish Executive.
For the record, repeal has never been our top priority; it is simply one section in one of the 11 bills that we have tackled in our first year—a year in which, despite the din, we have never been diverted from lifting children out of poverty, building new schools and hospitals, planning new homes and creating jobs. It was others who chose to elevate this issue to the top of their agendas.
Why are we repealing section 2A? Because it is the right thing to do. Jackie Baillie could not but confirm that long-standing commitment to repeal and to the continuing search for an appropriate legislative vehicle when, as far back as September, she was questioned by this Parliament's committees. This bill, and its sister bill for England and Wales, provided such a vehicle. In October, two weeks before the Queen's speech but following the announcement of our legislative programme, we forewarned Church leaders and announced this bill as the vehicle for repeal.
In favouring repeal, we shared a common objective with parliamentary colleagues in Westminster. However, in Scotland we have a new Parliament with different procedures—including a public consultation process without parallel elsewhere—and different education traditions. We have kept faith with those new and sometimes lengthy procedures and with the consensual Scottish education tradition.
I did not try to gerrymander the parliamentary timetable to hasten the bill's passage. Sam Galbraith did not depart from the consensus approach to the Scottish curriculum. Sometimes the price of trying to do the right thing in the proper way is demanding. Week in, week out we faced a campaign without precedent in British public life. Whereas some sought to misinform and distort, the Executive kept faith with this Parliament's procedures and our national education tradition.
The charge that Donald Dewar, Sam Galbraith and I were somehow in the business of promoting gay sex lessons was always deeply dishonest and, more important, an insult to Scotland's teachers. Discrimination needed to be faced down and parental concerns needed to be allayed. Addressing parental concerns, consistent with our education traditions, was always going to be a matter for our education colleagues. Parents and Church representatives were invited to join the independent working group. That group met, it deliberated, and we have accepted in its entirety its unanimously agreed report.
The public debate has been long, bruising and sometimes personal. Tony Blair spoke about the character of that debate when he came to Scotland to visit this Parliament. Despite the invective, I am grateful to parliamentary colleagues across the party spectrum, who have exhibited dignity and decency throughout. None of us is beyond reproach, but members cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Few harsh words have issued from this chamber.
Today is this Parliament's opportunity to reflect on the choice that the Executive places before it. The Parliament must decide whether the Scottish Executive made the right decision when it decided that institutionalised and legal discrimination should be no more acceptable in the law of Scotland than in the law of the rest of the land. The Scottish Executive's choice in October, and ours today, is whether to keep the discriminatory section or to repeal it.
I say this to fellow MSPs: let the Parliament of Scotland repeal the section, to keep our pledge to serve all our people without discrimination. To those who have said over recent months that other injustices are more acute, I say: perhaps so, but we do not eradicate some iniquities by ignoring others. Let Scotland repeal the section to keep faith with all those who, whatever their views, look forward to a new day, when public life, whatever the issue at stake, sees decency overcoming deceit.
We cannot and we should not keep the clause because, quite simply, it has no place in our tradition of tolerance, in our family life as a nation, or in our values as a society. For that tradition, for our national family and for those values, the clause must go. I commend the bill to the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Before I call Kenneth Gibson, I should say that it looks as though decision time will be around 6.30 pm, but we will wait and see how we get on.
The passage of this bill has been particularly pleasing for me. Two years ago, on behalf of the SNP, I submitted our party's contribution to "A New Ethical Framework for Local Government in Scotland". This has been a long haul, but well worth it.
To those who say that Parliament does not work, or that its committee system is ineffective, this bill gives the lie. As it now stands, the bill bears little resemblance to its original form. The Executive is to be commended for taking on many committee recommendations, albeit grudgingly at times. Issues added to the original bill—with our support—include the time taken for investigations, surcharge, interim suspension, the explanation of rules and procedures, the right of appeal, the inclusion of area tourist boards and further education colleges, the loss of special responsibility allowance for suspended councillors, and more.
Members of the committee, its clerks and its convener are to be congratulated on their hard work. The committee's approach was open, constructive and enthusiastic and was undertaken in the genuine spirit of trying to arrive at the best bill possible. I thank especially Donald Gorrie, who supported all 47 of the amendments that I submitted at stage 2.
A key point in the debate was which non-departmental public bodies should be included in the bill. I am heartened that the minister has again agreed to look at that in the coming months through a review process. The bill as it now stands will show that only the highest standards are expected of those who serve on our councils and devolved public bodies. We now have a clear and transparent public mechanism for dealing with allegations of wrongdoing. That will, I trust, go a long way towards improving perceptions that people may wrongly have of sleaze on our councils and devolved public bodies. At the same time, the bill will provide balance by introducing safeguards against malicious, unfounded allegations.
The bill will allow elected members and members of devolved public bodies the freedom to do what they are there to do: serve the Scottish public. The minister talked of parity of esteem between local government and the Parliament. I believe that this bill goes a long way towards strengthening that approach.
On behalf of the SNP, I welcome the repeal of section 2A, which was imposed on Scotland by a Westminster Tory Government. I am pleased that it was the SNP that led the way in ensuring that parental concerns were properly addressed. I commend the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc Bill to the chamber.
I join others in thanking the committee clerks for their work and assistance with the bill. I also thank the many organisations that gave evidence. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Local Government Committee under the able convenership of Trish Godman. It is interesting that, until we came to stage 2 of the bill, no vote had been taken in the committee. Many good ideas and suggestions came from committee members as a result of our deliberations. The Executive took some on board, and the bill is much improved and strengthened as a result.
The bill will do much to restore public confidence in our local authorities in particular and public bodies in general. To achieve that aim, the bill is a necessary piece of legislation. It is important that the public have confidence in all tiers of government. Like my colleagues on the Local Government Committee, I would prefer to have seen the inclusion of MSPs. I hope that that suggestion will be revisited in the future.
I am particularly pleased that an appeals procedure has been included, as that was an issue that I pursued, along with the repeal of surcharge on councillors and council employees. I welcome the commitments to seek ways in which to cover the LECs and public companies, including arm's-length council companies, at a later date.
Section 2A has been debated at length and I acknowledge that the Executive has moved considerably from its initial stance but regret that it does not feel able to take that final step of legally enshrining marriage in the guidance. I may be old-fashioned and in the minority in the Parliament, but I speak for a majority in Scotland who say that marriage is a cornerstone of civilisation.
I cannot ignore my mailbag or the wishes of the overwhelming majority of my constituents. I want marriage to be given due recognition in the bill. In the recent Scottish Television poll, two thirds of respondents did not feel that the Executive's latest proposals went far enough. We said that we would be a listening Parliament, but it is no use our simply listening and not acting. I acknowledge that the opponents of repeal—in the form of the Churches and Brian Souter—feel that their concerns have been addressed, but I point out that neither the guidance nor the guidelines that incorporate the importance of marriage are enforceable by law.
This is a good bill and I would like to support it. However, I cannot, in the present circumstances, support the repeal of section 2A. I regret that I will vote against the bill.
It would not be useful to turn this debate into a self-congratulatory orgy, but I am bound to say that Wendy Alexander made an exceptionally good speech. I am happy to endorse all that she said.
The committee worked well—Kenny Gibson listed the improvements that the committee made to the bill. I think that Trish Godman is an excellent convener—I hope that she will look kindly on me in future.
The committee worked well, but we are all learning. As I said before, our timetabling is still not satisfactory. Our system is a bit like a cycle race around a track. To the uninitiated, the cyclists appear to cruise gently for many laps and start sprinting near the end and go like the clappers. We have a lot of useful early discussion with deputations from various groups but the timetable at the later stage does not allow us to conduct our affairs cleverly. Despite that, there have been improvements in the bill and I think that Frank McAveety deserves great credit for his attitude to that change. Even in relation to quangos, on which we differed an hour ago, progress has been made.
Like others, I think that we have made a serious contribution to improving local government and quangos. I hope that local government will accept the bill in the spirit in which it is passed. It is an effort to improve quality and to sort out the small minority of councillors who bring local government into disrepute.
Section 2A has been thoroughly debated. We must explain our views more cleverly than we have to the people who have been misled by false information from some of the people on the other side of the debate. It is a notable achievement that the Parliament has passed the bill. It has addressed a wrong that was felt by many of our fellow citizens, who saw section 28 as a serious piece of discrimination against them. We have ended that discrimination, and I think that that is a great step forward. We should recognise the fears of certain sections of the public and try to convince them of our case because, as others have said, there is no great programme for the promotion of homosexuality. That is complete rubbish. We have confidence that Scottish teachers will continue to deal with this issue well, as they have in the past.
We are constantly told that people against the repeal of section 28 have run a misleading campaign.
The way that I dealt with the matter in the first instance was to send to constituents a copy of section 28, also known as section 2A, along with the guidelines that were issued with it. I did not state an opinion; I left them to make up their own minds. Their minds guided me at a later date. Does Mr Gorrie accept that?
If Phil Gallie says that, I am happy to accept it. He is an honest man. Many people have conducted the argument correctly, but quite a lot of people have not. They have circulated material that was used only in health contexts for people who are homosexuals and seriously at risk on the health front. The implication was that that sort of material was circulating round schools, which is entirely untrue. There have been people on Mr Gallie's side of the argument who have not conducted themselves honourably. I am sure that he has. As Wendy Alexander said, the conduct of MSPs has been commendable on this issue, but some of the conduct outside has not.
Speaking officially on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, which I do occasionally, I am happy to support this bill and to say that its authors deserve great credit.
On behalf of the committee there are some people I would like to thank. First, Eugene Windsor, Irene Fleming, Craig Harper and Morag Brown, all the admin people who worked behind the scenes on the bill, and the official report, which was very patient with me when I slowly worked through stage 2 of this bill.
All the committees in this new Parliament—approaching its first birthday—have been informed in their deliberations by evidence provided by groups and individuals. That is certainly true of the Local Government Committee in relation to this legislation. I thank all of those from local government, COSLA and other organisations who informed committee members. In particular, I thank those individuals who gave the most personal accounts. They did more than inform us; they moved us. I thank them for sharing at times very intimate details of their experiences, so that we, elected members of this Parliament, were reminded of the human side of this debate.
Scotland has a tradition of public service, of which we can rightly be proud. The bill builds on that tradition and reinforces it. The aim was to support high standards in public service, and the bill does that.
This Parliament is committed to the principles of equal opportunities and to tackling exclusion in all walks of life in Scotland. That is why the bill repeals legislation that singled out sexual orientation for special condemnation.
I must also thank Wendy Alexander and Frank McAveety and their civil servants, who have moved significantly since the committee first reported on this bill. They have listened to our concerns and they have responded. Indeed, today they accepted amendments from the Opposition.
Last, but not least, my thanks must go to the committee. Because of its hard work, diligence and sense of humour, we covered a massive amount of work. My thanks go to each and every committee member.
After all the raised voices in recent weeks, this is a day for quiet pride as we point the way to a new and tolerant Scotland. It is a day for quiet pride because this is the first step, not the end of a journey. All those who support this bill must continue to inform and spread the message of tolerance and respect.
Once again, I thank everyone for their help.
At this late stage in the debate I would like to make a final appeal to the Conservatives across the chamber. If I read Keith Harding correctly, the Conservatives are about to vote against the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. That would be a shame; it would be a shame for this Parliament and for the Conservatives. I am not here to promote the Conservative cause, but it would be a shame for the Conservative party. Conservative members should re-examine the decision that they have made, if they have made the decision to vote against the bill, which will raise standards in public life throughout Scotland.
If the Conservatives oppose the bill because of discriminatory legislation from 1986, they have made their point. They have stated their reservation and the whole world knows it. For goodness' sake, do not make a further mistake—support the bill.
I will be brief.
The bill is an important step forward in our public life. I thank my colleague, Frank McAveety, for all his work and for his willingness to listen and to take on board the views of the Local Government Committee. Like others, I pay tribute to the work of that committee in shaping the heart of the bill, which is a different one today because of its efforts. As with the discussion that we have just had on section 2A, this a different way of doing business in the new Scotland. Much of the credit must go to Trish Godman, who managed to achieve consensus in bringing forward amendments.
I will end on a reflective note. The bill will remove a badge of shame. I invite all members—as we have just heard—to support it in the knowledge of what we are proposing, not the caricature that has been made of it.
In recent months we have learned about the precious nature of public life, the power of PR, the proper concerns of parents, principles that money cannot buy, party politicking and perhaps also something about ourselves.
I commend the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament.
Presiding Officer, I seek the chamber's permission to move a motion without notice.
Do we agree that a motion without notice should be moved?
Members indicated agreement.
Motion moved,
That decision time be at 18:23—[Mr McCabe.]
Motion agreed to.
In that case, members have 25 seconds to reflect before decision time. I hope that members outside the chamber are aware that we are moving to decision time.