Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As chairman of the corporate body, will you state for clarification whether the corporate body currently has any ability under the Scotland Act 1998 to initiate legislative proposals on parliamentary commissioners that the whole Parliament has decided to establish?
I am not really prepared to comment at this point. We are getting into a policy debate that I am not prepared to get drawn into at this time.
To me, this is a simple and straightforward debate: how does this Parliament want to amend primary legislation? Members know how difficult it is to get anything on the face of a bill—all Governments resist placing detail in a bill as much as they can. Therefore, if something is in primary legislation, it has been deemed by Parliament to be sufficiently important not to be dealt with by subordinate legislation.
One issue that we come up against time and again—the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee dealt with it only yesterday—is subordinate legislation that comes to committee badly drafted and at the last minute. Yesterday, the committee took the unprecedented step of agreeing a motion to annul a negative statutory instrument for precisely that reason.
If we are serious about amending primary legislation, we must be confident in the subordinate legislation process by which we would do that. We are asking the Parliament’s corporate body—a body that, as Mike Rumbles correctly says, is not a political body and which meets in private—to make such decisions on behalf of Parliament. This Parliament is the primary place for amending primary legislation; it should not be done through subordinate legislation. If something is important enough to be in primary legislation, it should be amended by primary legislation. That is a principle of the Parliament, and one that we should hold dear.
Under part 2, radical changes to a number of bodies, without any ability for Parliament to amend and with the bodies grouped together, could be brought to the Parliament by statutory instrument. The cabinet secretary is right when he says that Parliament will have a final say, but it will not have a full say in potentially large-scale changes to parliamentary commissioners or, because they are schedule 3 bodies, to any children’s panel or any health board in Scotland.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment, similar to one that the United Kingdom Parliament had agreed for its legislation, to allow this Parliament to decide the appropriate method by which changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public bodies should be brought forward. That was defeated by the Conservatives and the SNP—and I am afraid that, as far as the Labour Party is concerned, Tom McCabe was less than clear in his position.
I am pleased that David Whitton has lodged amendments to delete part 2. I will support them, and I hope that all of the Labour group similarly supports them. When I moved my amendments at stage 2, the three Labour members on the Finance Committee were split. I hope that Mr Whitton has a greater ability to ensure that all the Labour votes are behind him for his amendments than he had for my amendments.
In Westminster, the Conservatives called the equivalent of part 2 of this bill the “abolition of Parliament bill”. I hope that when it comes to the decision on the amendments today, they will have a consistent position north and south of the border.
09:45
Will the member give way?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As you chair the corporate body, will you confirm that it is not like any other committee of the Parliament? It is set up under the Scotland Act 1998, and to abolish the corporate body that act would need to be changed.
I completely accept your ruling, Presiding Officer but, with all due respect, I wonder whether this issue points to a gap in our practice. Perhaps attention should be paid to the point that Karen Gillon raised about the secrecy around the proceedings of the SPCB and the fact that two types of business may be enacted there—some that must be reported to the chamber and some that may be conducted discreetly.
I wish to reiterate a couple of points that I made in the debate and respond to a couple of points that have been made.
Mr Brownlee went through an extensive list of changes that were made to the bill at stage 2, which represent a direct response by the Government to the concerns that were expressed about the nature of the order-making powers and the manner of their utilisation. That gave clear information to Parliament on Mr Whitton’s point that they were minor changes, which was ill founded.
It has been accepted—not least by Mr Purvis, in his comments—that Parliament has the final say on any of the changes. We can debate points about the content of any draft statutory instrument that might be introduced but, as I have confirmed already, all statutory instruments will be introduced in draft form, consulted on and considered by committees, and Government will reflect on that before introducing a final order, which the Parliament can then accept or reject. The Government has listened to the concerns that have been expressed, and I encourage Parliament to support the order-making powers in the bill.
10:00
Will the member give way?
Order.
Order.
The result of the division is: For 62, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Section 11—Public functions: further provision
The amendments in group 3 are purely technical. Amendments 56 and 59 give effect to a suggestion—for which I am grateful—from the Subordinate Legislation Committee. They correct an unintended drafting flaw which meant that, in certain circumstances, a parliamentary body could be added to or removed from schedule 3 but a corresponding adjustment could not be made to schedule 3A, which lists the various parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen in respect of which proposals for an order under part 2 can be initiated only by the SPCB. The amendments remove that flaw so that if any changes are made to the parliamentary bodies in schedule 3, a corresponding change can be made to schedule 3A.
Amendments 93 to 96 adjust the references to various bodies in schedule 3 to bring them into line with the corresponding references in other legislation.
I move amendment 56.
Amendment 56 agreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[David Whitton].
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Section 12—Preconditions
Amendment 57 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[David Whitton].
Group 9 is on disabled children and their families strategies. Amendment 74, in the name of Karen Whitefield, is grouped with amendment 75.
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 disagreed to.
Section 13—Power to remove or reduce burdens
Amendment 28 moved—[David Whitton].
I had hoped that the minister would be a little more consensual in his response to my amendment, which was lodged not to undermine the Government’s work but to be helpful. I do not accept that I do not understand what the Government proposes to do. I understand its intentions fully, which is why I have raised my concerns. It is important that the previous Executive’s work to improve inspection of child protection services and to establish the GIRFEC approach—which the Government has carried forward—is in no way undermined. Amendment 73 seeks to give that reassurance and to send a clear signal that child protection responsibilities lie not just with social work services but with the holistic education service that is provided to all children. On that basis, I will press amendment 73.
11:00
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 60, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Section 14—Preconditions
Amendment 58 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.
Amendments 29, 30 and 32 to 36 moved—[David Whitton].
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Okay. If no member objects, I will put the question on amendments 62 to 67.
Section 25A—Public functions: duty to provide information on communication costs
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Section 25B—Public functions: duty to provide information on cost of travel outside the United Kingdom
Amendment 63 agreed to.
Section 25C—Public functions: duty to provide information on cost of hospitality and entertainment
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Section 25D—Public functions: duty to provide information on consultancy costs
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Section 25E—Public functions: duty to provide information on expenditure
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Section 25F—Public functions: further duty to provide information
Amendment 67 agreed to.
Section 25G—Public functions: duty to provide information on special advisers
At stage 2, we considered a series of amendments lodged by Mr Brownlee to impose statutory duties on the Scottish ministers and public bodies to publish annually a range of financial information. Many of those amendments were agreed to, with the Government’s full support, and now form part 2A of the bill. I undertook to consider other proposals, with a view to lodging other amendments at stage 3. Amendment 60 and the related amendments in the group discharge that undertaking by introducing a clear and comprehensive set of reporting requirements. The Scottish ministers and public bodies will be required to publish annually a statement of any expenditure on public relations, overseas travel, hospitality and entertainment, and external consultancy; expenditure on any payments made in excess of £25,000; and the number of individuals who receive remuneration in excess of £150,000.
In the interests of clarity and consistency, I propose that public bodies should be required to have regard to any guidance issued by ministers, and that any such guidance must be laid before the Parliament. It is also important that there should be flexibility to adjust the detail of the reporting requirements in the light of experience and amendment 69 provides an order-making power subject to affirmative resolution procedure that will enable ministers to introduce to the Parliament for its consideration proposals to do exactly that.
The new duties apply to the Scottish ministers and the 160 or so national devolved public bodies. Mr Brownlee has lodged further amendments that seek to extend those duties to housing associations and regional transport partnerships. I am prepared to support amendment 97B in relation to regional transport partnerships, but it is neither sensible nor necessary to apply the new reporting duties to the large number of housing associations, including registered social landlords. That would amount to treating housing associations as if they were public bodies, when they are in fact independent private sector organisations. As members will know, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has expressed serious concerns about the implications of the proposal. I therefore invite Mr Brownlee not to move amendment 97A.
10:15
The new duties to publish information that we have introduced build on the good work that was done in committee and reflect what I believe is a consensus across the political spectrum in favour of greater openness and transparency about expenditure by public bodies. The statutory reporting duties that we propose to impose on the Scottish ministers and public bodies are an important and valuable addition to the bill.
I move amendment 60.
As the cabinet secretary said, part 2A of the bill was introduced at stage 2 as a result of amendments that I lodged to place greater reporting requirements on public bodies, with the underlying rationale that forcing public bodies to be more open about certain areas of their expenditure will make them think more carefully before they incur such expenditure. I expect my amendments to have the effect of reducing expenditure, and I would have thought that members would hope that expenditure on PR, overseas travel, entertainment and external consultancy would be minimised, to the extent that that is possible. As the cabinet secretary said, the Government amendments, which we support, give effect to a reworked version of the amendments agreed to at stage 2.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for confirming that the Government will support the measures relating to RTPs. Anyone who has read any newspaper over the past few weeks will understand why we should all support greater transparency for those bodies. I have seen the concerns raised by the SFHA about housing associations, but we must recognise that, although they are private bodies, they are publicly funded to a significant extent. I do not agree that transparency rules should not apply to private bodies where they are substantially in receipt of public funds.
The SFHA has argued that by agreeing to amendment 97A we would reclassify housing associations. That is not the case, but even if it were, there remain provisions within part 2A to amend the list of bodies that are subject to it. If it were an insurmountable problem, such bodies could be removed from the list. If there were a particular problem, I am sure that members would accept that that would be a reasonable thing to do. I return to the broader point, which is that transparency in spending is a good thing. It leads to greater efficiency and all the other aspects that the bill is intended to achieve. I ask members to support my amendments.
The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
I, too, received the lobbying e-mail from John Leighton, the director general of the National Galleries of Scotland. His view is:
“Whatever the merits of this proposal may be, they have not formed part of any debate or consultation in the long process leading up to the establishment of Creative Scotland.”
It is not good practice to bring to the chamber something that we have not debated in detail before making our decision on creative Scotland. Creative Scotland will be the de facto lead body and I very much hope that it performs its duties as such. There is nothing in the bill to prevent it from doing so and everything to encourage it to do so. We will listen to any further debate, but I am certainly disposed for Patrick Harvie and me either to abstain or to vote against amendment 44.
The result of the division is: For 120, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 60 agreed to.
Amendments 61 to 70 moved—[John Swinney].
Does any member object to the question on amendments 61 to 70 being put en bloc?
Yes.
Mr Harvie, you can vote against amendments en bloc, if you wish.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If it would be helpful, now that I have voted against the worst bits I have no objection to amendments 62 to 67 being taken en bloc, since they remove the bad bits.
I am sorry, Ms McNeill, but I have to call Robin Harper.
I do not have time—I have only two minutes. The director of the National Galleries of Scotland has written to members to indicate his concerns, which I share. Amendment 44 is not well drafted and does not help to deal with the issue that has been raised. We need to get on the record assurances from the minister about the importance of the lead role that creative Scotland will take in funding the arts, which is the key issue. I hope that we will get such assurances when Fiona Hyslop sums up on the amendment.
We in the Conservative party have worked hard to try to ensure that whatever emerges from the new creative Scotland is better than what we had previously. We have been guided by two main principles. One is that the creative arts sector in Scotland should be allowed to get on with its job with the minimum of Government interference, and the second is that creative Scotland should be recognised as the lead body when it comes to arts matters in Scotland. We believe that those issues would be dealt with by amendment 44 and by amendments 45 and 46, which we will deal with in a later group.
Over the long weeks and months that we have wrangled about the bill, we have had many winks and nudges from the Government that there is no argument, and that creative Scotland is in fact the lead organisation. In response to a question that I put to him on 2 April 2009, Mike Russell, the predecessor of the Minister for Culture and External Affairs, went on the record. He said:
“The role that creative Scotland will have in the process is absolutely clear: creative Scotland is the lead organisation.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2009; c 16433.]
No ifs, no buts.
As Pauline McNeill for Labour, Iain Smith for the Liberal Democrats and I all argued at stage 1, it seemed that the Government had still not made clear in the bill its intentions about who led on the arts in Scotland. If memory serves me right, that was also one of the main issues—which Iain Smith, Patricia Ferguson and I raised—that led to the collapse of the original creative Scotland bill. Linda Fabiani was not able—or not allowed—to say whether creative Scotland would be the lead organisation.
10:30
I regret that the establishment of creative Scotland was added to this mess of a bill, instead of being provided for in a stand-alone bill to replace the one that was defeated because of the Administration’s past incompetence. There was a will to introduce a fresh creative Scotland bill at an earlier stage, which could have been done if the Government had decided to go that way. Creative Scotland could already have been fully up and running by now. However, we are where we are.
Ted Brocklebank was right to say that there were, and still are, concerns about creative Scotland as the lead body. There might be confusion among the various bodies that have a role. That is not really to do with other arts-related bodies but relates to the role of bodies such as Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland. However, I do not think that amendment 44 is the way to deal with that. There are laws of unintended consequences here. The amendment would allow ministers, without coming back to the Parliament, to make directions that would allow creative Scotland in effect to take over responsibility for such things as the national companies and the National Galleries of Scotland.
Will the member give way?
You should be finishing now, Ms McNeill.
It is unfortunate that The Herald article and the minister said that amendment 44 would have unintended consequences. In view of that, although we support what the amendment seeks to do—and I hope that we will hear strong words from the minister that she supports the idea that creative Scotland is the lead body—we will abstain on the vote.
You should be finished now, Ms McNeill.
I call Fiona Hyslop, who has three minutes.
Group 6 is on creative Scotland—directions from Scottish ministers. Amendment 45, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 72 and 46.
I draw Parliament’s attention to the first of the two guiding principles that I mentioned when I spoke to amendment 44—that the creative arts sector should be allowed to get on with its job with the minimum of Government interference. We applaud the Government’s consistent claim that it wants to adopt a hands-off attitude to the creative sector, but we are concerned that some wording in the bill implies a more controlling role for the Government.
Why does subsection (1) of section 30, on “Directions and guidance”, say that
“Scottish Ministers may give Creative Scotland directions (of a general or specific nature) as to the exercise of its functions”?
We understand why ministers would offer general directions but, if they want to be hands off, why would they wish to give creative Scotland specific instructions? Our amendment 45 would simply remove the word “specific”.
Our amendment 46 follows the same reasoning. If the Government intends to honour its commitment to leave artistic judgments to creative Scotland, why does it leave itself an escape clause in section 30(4), which says that it
“may vary or revoke any direction given under this Part”?
Surely that places a question mark over all the assurances that have been given. My amendment would insert a new subsection to ensure that, if the Government chose to vary or revoke such assurances, relevant ministers would first have to come back to this place to seek approval.
I move amendment 45.
Members will be aware that the bill creates a new body, SCSWIS, which brings together the remits and inspection duties of a number of bodies, including the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, the Social Work Inspection Agency and HMIE, with which responsibility for the inspection of child protection services rests.
Currently, child protection services are inspected by HMIE, the lead agency, which works in partnership with SWIA. That was a new approach, introduced by the previous Executive following a series of systemic failures by some local authorities’ child protection services. The approach has been successful in identifying failings in systems for child protection and in driving up standards. HMIE has been able to bring to the task extensive experience of in-depth inspection, professionalism and a rigour that has served the system well. In doing so, it has worked closely with SWIA, which is entirely appropriate, because child protection spans education and social work services.
Labour members accept the case that has been made for the rationalising of inspection services in the care sector; in many ways, that makes sense. However, we are concerned that, in future, HMIE will have no definite or guaranteed role in child protection inspection services. Amendment 73 seeks to address that concern by ensuring and providing for a continuing role for HMIE. Partnership working is central to the getting it right for every child policy. Education is a universal service, but social work is not. Not all vulnerable children are already in the social work net. In undertaking its child inspection work, HMIE has sought to drive up standards and to take the lead across a universal service.
Currently, we are two thirds of the way through the child protection cycle. Taking HMIE out at this stage would adversely affect the necessary continuity of the inspection regime. Education should not be let off the hook in relation to its child protection obligation. Amendment 73 will send a clear signal to education services that they should continue to take their share of responsibility for child protection services across Scotland.
I move amendment 73.
Karen Whitefield may not understand what is happening to HMIE’s child protection services. We are transferring the relevant personnel and expertise from HMIE to SCSWIS—there is no question of a child protection inspection round being interrupted until we get through the second round.
The effect of amendment 73 would be to require SCSWIS to involve HMIE in inspections of services for a child or group of children even where that might not be appropriate—for example, in inspections of social work services for very young children. The amendment goes further and requires HMIE to be involved in any inspection relating to an adult or group of adults, which is not appropriate or necessary. The effect of the amendment appears to be much wider than is intended.
I assure Karen Whitefield and the chamber that, when requiring SCSWIS to undertake a joint inspection of children’s services under part 6 of the bill, ministers can and will indicate that HMIE and any other relevant body must be part of that. In addition, under the duty to co-operate in part 6, SCSWIS and HMIE can work together to inspect services in which they have a shared interest. That is an important aspect of the collaborative approach that the Government is pursuing. I therefore oppose the amendment.
I have a specific question for the minister. Concern has been expressed about HMIE’s role in reporting on social work inspections. Many people believe that HMIE supplies a considerable amount of rigour and a degree of systematisation to the process. I understand the minister to be suggesting that HMIE would not necessarily be involved in the authorship of such inspections. For that reason, there is concern that rigour will be reduced or lacking in the process. Can the minister assure us specifically that HMIE will continue to play a role in reporting on these matters?
I will allow the minister to speak briefly.
I remind members that we are talking about the merger of bodies—in this case, the merger into SCSWIS of the part of HMIE that deals with child protection inspection. The people who are involved in the transfer will report on the child protection inspection programme, so there is no change in that regard. I reassure members that we are retaining all the tremendous expertise on this front that has been built up over the past few years.
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 73 disagreed to.
Section 53A—Emergency cancellation of registration
Group 8 is on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 50, in the name of Shona Robison, is grouped with amendments 82, 88, 90 and 53.
I lodged amendments 74 and 75 in an attempt to improve services to disabled children and their families. I think that most members accept that we need a focus on driving forward change that will improve the lives of and outcomes for disabled children and young people. Amendments 74 and 75 would place statutory duties on national and local government to agree and implement strategies for disabled children and their families, which would help to ensure that there was a focus on improving the lives of those children.
It is time to pick up the pace of work that is being done on this important policy area, and amendments 74 and 75 would provide a legislative vehicle for making that happen. We have heard warm words of support for disabled children and their families, but for far too long there has been too little action.
I had discussions yesterday and today with COSLA and the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram. I understand the concerns of COSLA and the minister and I understand that a review will be announced. The timescale for such a review is essential. We need to step up the pace. COSLA was keen for the work to be undertaken in a year, but such an approach would simply kick the issue into the long grass, beyond the next Scottish Parliament elections, which is unacceptable. I hope that the minister can approach amendments 74 and 75 in a more consensual way and offer hope to disabled children and their families.
I move amendment 74.
Karen Whitefield seeks to withdraw amendment 74. Is that agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Essentially, I agree with Johann Lamont. I do not think that enshrining the joint statement in legislation will take us further forward. We have a joint statement that provides the framework for all partners to work together. It needs to be expanded to include the social enterprise sector. I would welcome that discussion, and I commit to keeping Parliament advised of developments in the area. I am also happy to engage in further discussion with the SCVO. I will be doing so this evening at a British-Irish Council meeting on the third sector. That meeting, which is taking place in Scotland, is a welcome opportunity for us to share ideas.
Proposed new section 10Z10 provides that
“HIS may establish ... the Scottish Health Council.”
Malcolm Chisholm is keen for the council to continue as a committee of HIS under primary legislation and to ensure that HIS cannot transfer the council’s functions or carry them out in some other way without the Parliament’s approval. I understand his concerns and agree with him about the importance of the functions of public engagement and user focus that the council carries out in relation to the NHS.
We have listened to the concerns that were expressed at stage 2. Committee members were concerned that ministers would have complete discretion over the council’s establishment and how long it could continue. Malcolm Chisholm’s amendment 47 will, if agreed to, remove any flexibility in the way in which the functions of patient focus and user involvement are delivered; it will mean that the Scottish health council must be established under the new arrangements and could not be dissolved.
In the committee, I offered to introduce an order-making power that would require parliamentary debate and approval of any proposed future changes to the council, in the event that change to how HIS carries out those functions seems necessary. Amendments 51 and 54 introduce that power. Any orders would be subject to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, would be debated by the Parliament. Those provisions are necessary to retain important flexibility. They address Mr Chisholm’s concerns by ensuring the involvement of the Parliament in any future change to the Scottish health council.
This package of amendments—Malcolm Chisholm’s amendments 47 and 48, and the Scottish Government’s amendments 51 and 54—strikes the balance that is necessary to reassure members while allowing adequate flexibility for future possible changes.
In answer to his question about the chair of the Scottish health council, I confirm to Malcolm Chisholm that we can advertise for a person to be both a member of the HIS board and chair of the council so that it is clear from the outset that they will fill both posts. That is how the current chair of the Scottish health council was appointed. I hope that, with that reassurance, Malcolm Chisholm will feel able to support the Scottish Government’s amendments in addition to his own.
I welcome the minister’s acceptance of amendment 47. The Health and Sport Committee was certainly of the view that the Scottish health council should continue. It has been an important development during the Parliament’s existence. It ensures that the public are adequately represented, monitors consultation processes in health boards and gives boards advice on major changes. It is a crucial body that needs to be maintained, and giving HIS the power to decide whether it should continue did not seem to the committee to be appropriate.
I very much welcome the change of approach, but it seems something of a paradox that amendment 51 would give powers back to the ministers to abolish the council. However, that is in line with all the other powers that ministers seek to enable them to abolish a range of bodies, and we will oppose it.
Amendment 47 agreed to.
Amendment 48 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Amendment 51 moved—[Shona Robison].
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
When the Government lodged amendments on the Mental Welfare Commission at stage 2, a number of concerns were raised both about the effect of those amendments and, perhaps as important, about the Government’s policy intent. Some clarification was provided by Shona Robison, to whom I am grateful for meeting Malcolm Chisholm, me and the commission to discuss those concerns. Members will have received a briefing note about that yesterday from the commission.
Amendment 76, in my name, would preserve the status quo as regards the role of the commission. The Scottish Association for Mental Health supports the amendment on the ground that the bill as currently drafted leaves it unclear which body, if any, will monitor the operation of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Scotland Act 2003. It should be said that the commission is comfortable with the bill as it stands on the basis that the provisions clarify the expectations about the role of the commission, which does not and cannot monitor the act in its entirety at present.
I would be grateful if the minister could take the opportunity to put on the record how the Government believes the legitimate concerns that have been raised by SAMH can be addressed while also taking account of the commission’s view. In particular, it would be very helpful indeed if the Government could provide an assurance that the rejection of my amendment would not lead to a diminution in practice of the support and protection available to people with a mental disorder.
I should say that the Conservative group will support amendment 49, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, which will remove the power to charge.
I move amendment 76.
It was regrettable that the amendments on the Mental Welfare Commission were introduced so late that the provisions could not be subject to stage 1 scrutiny. However, having said that, I welcome the various changes that the minister has proposed, the most substantive of which will come forward this afternoon.
Amendment 49, in my name, relates to charging for advice. It is helpful that the bill will contain an explicit power for the Mental Welfare Commission to give advice, but I share the concerns that others have expressed that the commission is also to be given a power to charge for its services. The commission’s advice and information line is widely used by health professionals, social workers, service users and carers. Research by the commission shows that the service is highly valued. Therefore, it would be a matter of great concern if people were inhibited from calling the commission because they were concerned that they might be charged a fee. It should be clear that the commission’s services are free at the point of delivery.
Amendment 76, in the name of Derek Brownlee, repeats concerns that I raised at stage 2. As he indicated, we have since had a meeting with the commission, with which I have also had further discussions. We should bear in mind the fact that the commission is content with the Government’s proposals, as Derek Brownlee acknowledged, because they represent a description of the work that the commission actually does at present. However, the question for the minister is: if the commission is not to monitor the operation of the whole of the 2003 act, who will monitor the other parts of it? For example, at the Equal Opportunities Committee meeting on Tuesday, issues were raised about the duties of local authorities in terms of sections 25 to 31 of that act. It would be helpful if the minister could say something about that in her speech.
I commend amendment 49 to the Parliament.
Sorry, I should have called the minister earlier.
I forgive you, Presiding Officer.
All the amendments in group 11 relate to the functions of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.
I do not support amendment 76, in the name of Derek Brownlee, which would have the effect of removing part of the Government amendment that was agreed to at stage 2 that amends section 5 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. Amendment 76 would restore section 5 of the 2003 act back to its original text. As amended at stage 2, section 5 of the 2003 act now reflects how the commission works in practice in monitoring the operation of the act and in promoting best practice. Under the bill as currently drafted, the commission’s role will be to monitor the practical application of the principles of the 2003 act. Amendment 76 would widen section 5 back to its original form. That is not appropriate, given the commission’s practices and the role that the new scrutiny bodies will have in scrutinising mental health services. As has already been said, amendment 76 is not wanted by the commission itself. However, I can give an assurance to Derek Brownlee and others that it is very much our intention that SCSWIS and HIS will have a direct role in scrutinising mental health services. Of course, collaboration and joint working with the Mental Welfare Commission on those issues will be very important indeed.
I am happy to support amendment 49, which will remove the power that is currently to be given to the commission to charge for advice. As I have indicated previously, I have no wish to deter vulnerable individuals from seeking advice from the commission for fear that they will be charged. Therefore, I accept amendment 49, which is in the name of Malcolm Chisholm.
Amendments 12 and 23 are Government amendments that reflect two issues that the commission raised with us after stage 2 and which we agreed to consider. Amendment 12 will ensure that the commission retains a residual role, in addition to that of the commission visitors, of instigating formal investigations under section 11 of the 2003 act and of making recommendations following such investigations. Amendment 23 will insert a further control on the power of the commission’s chief executive when exercising the commission’s power to discharge patients and to recall guardianship orders. The chief executive will be required to consult the commission in every such case.
I am grateful to the minister for her clarification. In particular, I am glad to have on record the point that other bodies will be responsible for some of those activities, as the key point that caused concern was that issues might somehow inadvertently fall between the gaps. On the basis of what the minister has said, and on the basis that the commission is content with the bill as it stands, I seek Parliament’s approval to withdraw amendment 76.
Amendment 76, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 49 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.
After section 99A
The joint statement that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations published last year was broadly welcomed across the third sector as representing progress in how government at all levels should interact with the voluntary sector. COSLA’s briefing note to MSPs acknowledges that the statement was seen as helpful in clarifying roles and responsibilities. I am sure that members from all parties will acknowledge the important role that the voluntary sector plays in providing services to many of the most vulnerable people in society.
Amendment 77 would simply require that public bodies take into account that joint statement in so far as it is relevant. The key question is whether the joint statement is being adhered to. I know that many local authorities are undertaking very good practice, as the SCVO has pointed out. However, we would all acknowledge that there are also problems throughout the country in how the relationship is operating.
Although COSLA undoubtedly thinks that amendment 77 is unhelpful and perhaps unnecessary, the SCVO’s view is quite the opposite. It sees it as a helpful amendment that would give additional leverage to the voluntary sector by forcing the proper consideration, in each case, of the terms of the joint statement, which was entered into voluntarily.
11:30
I accept that amendment 77 would not, of itself, transform the landscape for the voluntary sector, but it is incumbent on those who oppose it to explain, if it is not accepted, how the joint statement can be implemented in practice, and how we can address the legitimate concerns of voluntary groups right across the country about the disparity between the power of the voluntary sector and that of government at all levels. It is an important point about which we will hear more in the years to come, when the pressure on the voluntary sector will increase. I urge Parliament to support amendment 77.
I move amendment 77.
I thank Mr Brownlee for his interest in the joint statement and for raising his concern that some voluntary organisations across the country feel the statement’s principles are not being followed in practice. COSLA signed up to the principles in the joint statement on behalf of all local authorities in Scotland. The statement has also been endorsed by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers in Scotland and by the SCVO. In my opinion, it is proving to be a helpful tool in establishing good relationships between statutory partners and the third sector in community planning partnerships. Third sector organisations in different parts of the country have raised with me the fact that they have greater access to decision making and more involvement in the design of services than they had previously.
That is not to say that the voluntary sector is not facing challenges. I make it absolutely clear on all platforms that the Government is open to dialogue and discussion of all those questions, and to addressing the concerns that the third sector might have. I made that point to Mr Brownlee when he raised the issue on 4 March.
The SCVO has asked the minister to intervene in particular circumstances in which it feels that voluntary organisations are suffering, but he has not done so. Will he now make a commitment to intervening when voluntary organisations feel that they are being particularly disadvantaged as a consequence of what is happening at the local level?
The key issue is not so much what is in the joint statement as how it is implemented and how its worthy principles are translated into practical actions. Some voluntary organisations feel that the joint statement is not worth the paper it is written on.
I understand the cabinet secretary’s point about whether amendment 77 is the right way to deal with the issue—Johann Lamont made a similar point—but if it is not, what is? There is a disparity between the power of the voluntary sector and that of the Government, and the danger is that, during the next few years, as the Government squeezes funding at all levels, it will squeeze the voluntary sector disproportionately, when the appropriate response would be to grow the sector and allow diversity in service provision.
Amendment 77 is not perfect, but it is one way of trying to advance the agenda. Members should think very carefully. If they want to reject the amendment, that is fine, but we will then need to think about how else the agenda can be advanced. We hear very admirable sentiments from all parts of the chamber, but I have yet to hear anything specific about how the detail of the principles in the joint statement can be delivered in practice. That is what concerns the voluntary sector across the country. I therefore press amendment 77.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There are no printed copies of the marshalled list or groupings of amendments at the back of the chamber for the benefit of members. Can somebody look into that?
Presiding Officer, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to be the first member to speak in the stage 3 debate on this mess of a bill—at least I could tell you, but we have rules against the kind of language that I would use.
My amendments deal with one organisation that the Government wants to change, but they also speak more widely to the bill as a whole. Stage 2 amendments transferred
“Waterwatch Scotland’s customer representation and complaints handling roles to Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman ... to allow for the transfer of staff to either body and to require those bodies together with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, to form co-operation agreements.”
My amendments propose to reverse those amendments.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth may well make the case in favour of the amendments that he proposed and persuaded the Finance Committee to accept at stage 2—indeed, surely he will make that case—on the basis of the better functioning of arrangements or lower costs, but there is also a case against. As we have heard, the present complaints handling function is working well. Complaints are down by around 75 per cent and the arrangements, which allow one body to cover both the public and private sectors and are funded by a levy on the industry, have genuine benefits. The current arrangements do not cost a lot. Indeed, Waterwatch has identified savings that could be made if it was allowed to retain its current powers. In short, there is a case against, and it boils down to if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I lodged my amendments not because I am utterly persuaded of either case—for or against change—but because the first that I knew of the changes, as the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, which scrutinises water industry bodies in Scotland, was after stage 2, by which time the amendments had been made. If the Scottish Government wishes to inspire people with confidence that any order-making powers that the bill creates will be used responsibly and that consultation will be meaningful and in advance to give everyone the chance to make their view heard, that was not the way to go about things.
My committee takes evidence regularly from Waterwatch and other water industry bodies, after which we follow up by taking evidence from ministers. At no point did the cabinet secretary or ministers say, “By the way, I am thinking about abolishing this body. What does the committee think?” The Government should have sought our views in that way. That would have been the responsible way to go about making this change and perhaps would have inspired confidence among members that any order-making power will be used responsibly and consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability that members will no doubt debate later. That is my objection to the stage 2 amendments, and it is why I am seeking to reverse them.
I move amendment 1.
No. I have to make progress.
The transfer will create a number of benefits for consumers. It will simplify access by moving towards a one-stop shop for consumer complaints handling and representation. It will allow the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Consumer Focus Scotland to bring to bear the expertise and experience that they have built up in related fields and will ensure that the lessons that are learned from complaints handling and customer representation in any service can lead to improvement across all services. The proposals will also save money. The Parliament has now seen the updated financial memorandum. The transfer of Waterwatch’s functions to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Consumer Focus Scotland will save water customers £300,000 a year—more than a third of Waterwatch’s budget. In light of my comments, I hope that Patrick Harvie will agree not to press amendment 1 and not to move his other amendments in the group.
Derek Brownlee’s amendment 91 proposes that the transfer of Waterwatch’s functions should not occur until one year after royal assent is received. I am perfectly happy to support that. It will ensure that there is sufficient time for careful transition planning, thereby ensuring an uninterrupted service for consumers and allowing time for Mr Harvie’s committee to consider the issue and report on it. Mr Brownlee’s amendments 84 and 85 would introduce either affirmative or negative procedure into the process for commencement of the Waterwatch provisions, which would be a highly unorthodox process for commencement. Of greater concern is the uncertainty that those amendments would create for Waterwatch, particularly when combined with his amendment 91 to delay commencement for a year. In effect, Waterwatch as an organisation and its staff would be left in limbo, unsure of what the future would be. That would be hugely unsettling and would be likely to result in poor staff morale and lower service to customers. In short, Mr Brownlee’s approach is not the correct one. On that basis, I invite him not to move amendments 84 and 85.
The purpose of the Government simplification programme is to declutter the public bodies landscape in Scotland to improve the quality and efficiency of the services that are provided to the people of Scotland. In the current financial climate, we must explore every avenue of public service reform that will improve services and reduce cost. The transfer of Waterwatch’s functions to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Consumer Focus Scotland achieves both. I commend it to Parliament.
Four members wish to speak in the open debate. I can give them no more than two minutes each.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I do not have time.
Mr Swinney’s plan to split Waterwatch Scotland’s functions between the SPSO and Consumer Focus Scotland was therefore denied, after due consideration, by the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. His decision to fly in the face of that considered position by introducing amendments at stage 2 was disappointing and perhaps had a touch of “the cabinet secretary knows best”. Of course, the cabinet secretary knows his own mind, because did he not say that he was happy for the future of Waterwatch Scotland to be considered and decided by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body? We now realise that he meant that only if the SPCB agreed with his view. So, out went the dummy from the pram and in came a raft of stage 2 amendments. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will tell members—he has done so—that the abolition of Waterwatch will have no impact on services and will save money. Well, that is not entirely accurate, because savings will be generated not by the proposed merger but by dismantling the statutory regional panel and national committee structure.
The Parliament amended the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 in 2005 to set up Waterwatch, including its consumer consultation panels. I observe that Waterwatch has stated that the saving would be greater if it was required only to investigate complaints. However, the cabinet secretary has ignored that view, because it is a case of his way or no way.
Finally, Presiding Officer—
The cabinet secretary said on 9 December 2008:
“I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to add something else to the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, as that would begin to contaminate the sense of judgment that members of the public will want to have.”—[Official Report, Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, 9 December 2008; c 29.]
When he appeared in front of the Finance Committee only a month later, the Government’s view had turned 180 degrees. That is why the Finance Committee was surprised when it was given the amendments for consideration. Committee members abstained during that consideration because we wanted to know why the cabinet secretary had changed his view. We did not receive an explanation, and we have not subsequently received one. The cabinet secretary has not convincingly explained why what he said on 9 December 2008 no longer stands.
There is an issue of substance that is of concern, which the cabinet secretary has not addressed fully in the Government’s amendment 81. That amendment makes the SPSO a body that will be involved in and
“investigate contractual or commercial transactions”
relating to Scottish Water, any of its subcontractors and Scottish Water Solutions. I know that the minister responsible, Mr Stevenson, has been involved in a flurry of activity with his officials at the back of the chamber. I am not sure what the results of that relating to—
I rise to speak because Waterwatch is in my constituency and that of Keith Brown. We will be interested to see how he votes on amendment 81. Waterwatch was part of the dispersal policy of the previous Administration, and dispersed jobs to an area with relatively poor employment. Thirty jobs in the constituency will go back to the centre if the bill is enacted as it is. I am not going to repeat other members’ points, but the other important point is that the SPSO cannot deal with systemic complaints; it can deal only with individual complaints. Waterwatch has shown that, by dealing with systemic complaints, it has improved the performance of Scottish Water. Frankly, what the Government proposes is vandalism for the sake of numbers, and it should be opposed. I support Patrick Harvie’s amendments.
I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and either press or withdraw amendment 1. I ask him to do so as briefly as he can.
Group 2 is on order-making powers. Amendment 24, in the name of David Whitton, is grouped with amendments 25, 57, 27, 28, 58, 29, 30, 32 to 41, 43, 52, 87, 26, 31, 42 and 55.
Members will have picked up that time is pretty tight. I understand that there are important points to be made and important debates to be had, but I ask members to be as brief as possible. I also draw members’ attention to the pre-emption information that is shown on the groupings paper.
It is widely accepted that part 2 is the most contentious part of the bill. Certainly, it is the part that has attracted the most criticism and comment. Labour is again arguing that part 2 should be removed altogether, which is consistent with the position that we took in the Finance Committee at stage 2, when we warned that we could not support part 2 as it stood and that we were looking to the cabinet secretary to bring forward new proposals to address the concerns that had been expressed.
We were not alone in expressing our disquiet at the cabinet secretary’s plans. Members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, the Health and Sport Committee and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee all criticised part 2. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommended the removal of part 2, with only the SNP members who were present dissenting. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee said that it would prefer to see the powers that the cabinet secretary is seeking to take for himself removed from the bill. Members of the Health and Sport Committee recommended that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and other bodies that were established and that are funded directly by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body be removed from schedule 3 and added to the list of those that are exempted from ministerial control. The committee members came to those conclusions as a result of the evidence that they took from a wide range of witnesses from all corners of Scottish public life, all of whom told the cabinet secretary that what he proposes in part 2 is more than a step too far. Indeed, as has been said before, it is unprecedented.
What was the cabinet secretary’s reaction to that? He simply reaffirmed his view that he does not agree with his critics. Lined up against him are all the commissioners who have been appointed by the Parliament, as well as the ombudsmen; the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland; the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee; the Lord President of the Court of Session; the police complaints commissioner for Scotland; and learned legal academics such as Professor Alan Page, professor of public law at the University of Dundee, Professor Chris Himsworth, professor of administrative law at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr Aileen McHarg, senior lecturer in public law at the University of Glasgow. All of those people argued against Mr Swinney’s power grab.
I will not go through what sections 10 and 13 would allow ministers to do. Suffice it to say that they would allow ministers to remove burdens; to abolish, confer, transfer or delegate functions; and to create or abolish public bodies. I repeat what I said when we debated the bill at stage 1: the cabinet secretary, in a minority Government with no parliamentary majority, wants to take for himself the powers to do what he likes because he wants to go further and faster without troubling the Parliament with primary legislation. Yet, as the professors told the Finance Committee, the order-making powers are unprecedented at both Scottish and United Kingdom levels. In taking the powers, Scottish National Party ministers would be able to abolish or merge public bodies at will.
Mr Swinney argues that there is a precedent for his proposals in section 57 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. However, as the Finance Committee noted, that was not mentioned as a precedent for the power in section 10 of the bill in the accompanying documents or during evidence that was given by the bill team. In addition, there are key differences between the powers in the 2003 act—which are, essentially, for local authorities—and the wide-ranging and extensive powers that are listed in section 10. The Scottish Government argues that the provisions in section 13 largely mirror provisions in the UK Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. If so, why did Mr Swinney not just adopt the provisions that are set out in it?
To be fair to Mr Swinney, some minor changes have been made. He lodged amendments at stage 2 to remove Audit Scotland and the Scottish Commission for Public Audit from the long list in schedule 3 of organisations to which he could apply his super powers. Nevertheless, all the bodies that have been created by act of the Scottish Parliament remain on that long list—and therein lies the constitutional challenge. Should a minister be allowed to have the power to abolish or amend, on a whim, the powers of such bodies without returning to Parliament and making the changes through primary legislation? As one of our witnesses commented, we are hardly overburdened with primary legislation—members who have taken part in the many education debates will testify to that.
Mr Swinney obviously believes that, in order to go further and faster, we must agree to set up an enhanced super-affirmative procedure to make changes to any of those public bodies. However, despite assurances from the Presiding Officer, the question must be asked whether using the Parliament’s corporate body as a means to make changes to some of those bodies is the correct procedure to adopt.
At the heart of the problem surrounding part 2 is the lack of consultation right at the beginning.
The SNP Government has set itself a target to cut the number of public bodies by merging some and transferring responsibilities between others, but that does not necessarily constitute real reform. Taking unprecedented, draconian powers that would allow ministers to override the will of the Parliament is not the democratic way forward. The fixation on the extraordinary powers that ministers are demanding to force through change in the teeth of widespread opposition is not the answer. The cabinet secretary was given the chance to make changes, but he has simply tinkered at the margins. That is why we believe that part 2 should be removed altogether.
I move amendment 24.
09:30
Will the cabinet secretary underline why he thinks that it is appropriate for the Parliament to give power to the corporate body, which meets only in private, to determine whether there should be a decision to amend primary legislation by subordinate legislation? Surely one of the underlying principles of the Parliament is that as much work as possible should be carried out in an open and transparent manner. The corporate body is not that type of body.
The corporate body undertakes sensitive consideration of issues on behalf of Parliament. It is elected by Parliament; it is chosen by us to represent and progress a certain range of issues. The Finance Committee accepted that the corporate body should be invited to take forward the issue that we are discussing. The last time I looked, the corporate body’s decision making was subject to a significant amount of external scrutiny.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that doing what is proposed would politicise the corporate body and change its role entirely? At the moment, it is responsible for the administration of the Parliament building.
The issue was debated exhaustively at stage 1 and in the various committees. We said that in the bill as introduced, the safeguards did not go far enough but that we could see a role for part 2, provided that the safeguards were right.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to introduce a sunset clause, which is now part of the bill. One of Mr Whitton’s amendments would remove it—I am sure because he is trying to delete all of part 2 rather than because he has a particular aversion to my sunset clause.
The key issue for Parliament to consider is whether the Government has done sufficient to address the concerns raised about the powers in part 2. We have had welcome clarification on the scope of the necessary protection element; we have had a new schedule 3A, which moves the parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen into a separate schedule; we have had the removal of Audit Scotland from the scope of part 2; and we have had significant procedural improvements. That leads us to conclude that the safeguards have been improved sufficiently to allow us to support part 2.
I accept that the corporate body may not be the perfect organisation to consider the parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen, but it is difficult to think of another parliamentary vehicle that would allow—
Members: Parliament?
Order.
Derek Brownlee is simply wrong and misleads Parliament when he suggests that the Parliament would not have any say. The whole purpose of requiring any changes to be in primary legislation is to give Parliament a much stronger say. We know that when issues are raised in subordinate legislation and statutory instruments come before committees, there is often insufficient scrutiny by dint of committees’ sheer volume of work. That is wrong and should not happen. We should have much more careful scrutiny of all legislation going through the Parliament.
On the question of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, when I made a proposal on separate legislation just two weeks ago, the advice that I was given by the Parliament’s legal advisers, which was based on advice that they had received from the Scottish Government’s legal advisers, was that to invest powers in the corporate body would simply be wrong because it is a committee of the Parliament that may not always be in existence.
The member can press her request-to-speak button if she wants to speak.
This Parliament has the power to decide in legislation to invest powers in other bodies, and I do not agree that using the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is the right way to proceed. That is the legal advice of this Parliament and the advice to which I will have regard when I support David Whitton’s amendments.
I think that the member is probably correct, but she has her point on the record.
On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand the statement that you have just provided, which confirmed that the SPCB has no ability to initiate secondary legislation. However, my point of order asked for clarification, with regard to what the Scotland Act 1998 says about the proceedings and powers of the SPCB, of whether there is any precedent for the SPCB initiating proposals for legislation. That is relevant in relation to the Government’s amendments under part 2, with regard to how the Government brings forward statutory instruments.
That is correct, and I confirm that I sent that letter to Mr Swinney.
I call on David Whitton to wind up and either press or withdraw amendment 24. Could you do so in four minutes or less, please, Mr Whitton?
No. Mr Swinney has had his say. [Interruption.]
We have heard from Mr Swinney three times. He has had more than enough time to say what he has to say.
What the minister is proposing is not just an affirmative procedure or a super-affirmative procedure but a super-super-affirmative procedure. He wants to involve the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in deciding on matters. The Presiding Officer’s letter to him about his proposals, which he mentioned a moment ago, states:
“we also consider that your proposal with regard to the role of the SPCB, could be a workable compromise.”
However, I am afraid that a workable compromise is not good enough. When it comes to sorting out primary legislation and bodies that were set up by the Parliament, workable compromises just do not cut it. When we debated the matter at stage 1, I said:
“the cabinet secretary, in a minority Government with no parliamentary majority, wants to take to himself the power to do what he likes”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2010; c 22511.]
Members: That is not true.
It is true. I said that I am talking about primary legislation. All the bodies that have been created by acts of the Scottish Parliament remain on his large list. There is a constitutional challenge in that. The minister should not be allowed to have the power to abolish or amend them. The Parliament does not have that power. [Interruption.]
Members can get as indignant as they like, Presiding Officer, but the facts are the facts. That is what the cabinet secretary is trying to do, and it is noticeable that none of his back benchers stood up to support him. The only person we heard from is him. [Interruption.]
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The question is, that amendments 37 to 41 and 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 37 disagreed to.
Section 21—Consultation
Amendment 38 disagreed to.
Section 22—Explanatory document laid before the Scottish Parliament
Amendment 39 disagreed to.
Section 23—Combination with powers under European Communities Act 1972
Amendment 40 disagreed to.
Section 24—Order-making powers: modifications of enactments
Amendment 41 disagreed to.
Section 25—Interpretation of Part 2
Amendment 43 disagreed to.
Before section 25A
The Government amendments are improvements on those that were lodged by Mr Brownlee at stage 2. An amendment that I lodged at stage 2, which is now in section 25E, will be improved by the Government’s amendments. In the bill as it stands, the requirement relating to expenditure over £25,000 is burdensome and badly drafted. The consequences would be interesting. I asked a number of health boards and other bodies to provide information as set down in the bill as amended at stage 2. Lists of drug purchases and plasma products were all provided. However, Scottish Enterprise said that it did not know what an “item procured” meant, and the Scottish Government refused to answer my freedom of information request because it said that it would be too expensive to comply. Some internal procedures within Government are necessary.
The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the inclusion of the housing associations in the reporting requirements. In many respects they are charities. They are accountable to rent payers, and they are currently regulated by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and will be regulated by the housing regulator as a result of other legislation. If Mr Brownlee’s rationale, in which he appears to believe strongly, were extended, it would apply to voluntary bodies and all charities that provide contracts in the public sector and, for the majority of the work that they do, are in receipt of public funds. That would be the corollary of what Mr Brownlee said.
Mr Brownlee has argued that his amendments represent a transparency revolution. The Conservative technology manifesto that was published three weeks ago includes some elements of Mr Brownlee’s intentions for Scotland. For example, it talks about publishing items of Government and quango spending over £25,000. It goes on to say:
“We will also publish online all government tender documents for contracts worth over £10,000”.
They are not so keen on that for Scotland. The document then says:
“We will also publish online every item of local government spending over £500—including every contract in full.”
I am not really surprised that the Scottish Conservatives have shied away from that. All the same, they had an opportunity to implement Conservative policy.
In earlier discussions on publishing such a level of financial detail in the public sector, I opposed the measure, not just because it is overly bureaucratic and burdensome or because we already have auditing, financial scrutiny and FOI arrangements—and if they are failing we should improve those systems—but fundamentally because of a wider issue. There are those who have the knives out for the public sector, not just in the Conservative party, but in several political parties across the spectrum. Why are we focusing only on the public sector? Derek Brownlee has not included private finance initiative consortiums in his sights. Why are we not thinking about the large corporations and private sector companies that exert influence through the planning system or in public procurement? Why are we not requiring them to be equally transparent? There are those who have the knives out and cannot wait for the cuts to start happening. We should not begin by turning the public sector into the research arm of the Tory taxpayers alliance.
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 122, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 121, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
After section 25G
The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Group 5 is on creative Scotland as the lead body on culture. Amendment 44, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is the only amendment in the group.
Okay. It seems to me that nothing that we have heard from the Government since then has put our concerns to rest. There is still no clarification in the bill.
My amendment proposes absolutely no additional powers for creative Scotland. Had that been our intention, we would have said so. We have said in the amendment that creative Scotland will act as the lead body only
“if directed by the Scottish Ministers”.
In other words, ministers would always have the final say in ensuring that none of the other arts bodies feels in any way disadvantaged. The bodies to which the amendment refers are all those specified by the Government. Our amendment 44 seeks simply to transform what even the Government accepts is the de facto situation into the legal situation.
I move amendment 44.
I have no time. I have expressed my view on the creative industries many times. I believe that ministers have failed to persuade Scottish Enterprise to transfer the budget for creative industries to creative Scotland. I want to ensure that creative Scotland is in the driving seat when it comes to supporting those industries. The framework agreement that supports creative Scotland has no status in statute.
Yesterday’s article in The Herald showed that special advisers did their job well in briefing the paper accurately.
We will abstain only on that basis. We do want to create the—
I welcome amendment 44. Not only am I sympathetic to its intention but I think that it has given us the opportunity to discuss and, I hope, clarify the role of creative Scotland and its relationship with the other agencies. The minister—or, at least, her predecessor—refused to use the term “lead agency” and preferred “lead co-ordinating body.” The trouble with such compromises is that they can sometimes add to the confusion, rather than provide clarity.
No one here is suggesting that creative Scotland can tell any elected local authority, or any other national body for that matter, what to do with its funding or override its decisions, but do we want to return to the situation where individuals, organisations or companies are shunted from one public body to another, with no one taking responsibility for support or action? Small artistic enterprises are both creative bodies and businesses, but in the past they have far too often received no support from either the Scottish Arts Council or the enterprise companies as both have evaded or avoided their responsibility.
The Scottish National Party’s original promise was to transfer the budget for creative industries. That promise has gone the way of every other so-called election manifesto promise. If the funding is not to be transferred, which would have made the position very clear, the Government could at least spell out where responsibility lies.
I acknowledge the concern that has been raised, to which Robin Harper referred, by some of the other national bodies, including the National Galleries of Scotland. On that basis, we will not push the matter further. However, given the original intention to launch creative Scotland to provide new impetus to the arts and culture in Scotland, to do so while fudging its role is not the start that I would have wished. I would welcome further comments from the minister on the role that she sees creative Scotland playing.
It is precisely because many co-ordinating relationships involve the public and private sector that the Government should make it clear in the bill that creative Scotland will be the first among equals on artistic and creative matters. We do not accept that that makes any other body subordinate, especially in its own areas of interest.
The minister expressed concerns about the drafting of our amendment. I am not a lawyer and neither is the minister. As she would, I have taken advice from clerks and officials on drafting my amendment. I note what she has said today and in correspondence. However, I have received advice that the difficulties that she perceives are largely a smokescreen.
Far from being loosely worded, our amendment has been drafted carefully. The museums and the National Galleries of Scotland, which have e-mailed us today, have not fully understood that. I believe that their concerns were prompted by yesterday’s scare story in The Herald, which suggested that we proposed swingeing new powers at the 11th hour. That is arrant nonsense. All that we say is that, when creative Scotland is involved in discussions with other interested and specified bodies about matters for which it has responsibility, it should normally act as the chair or take the lead. I understand that that happens currently, so why is it hard for the Government to specify that in the bill?
You should finish now, Mr Brocklebank.
I am sorry, Mr Brocklebank; you must finish.
Are you pressing or withdrawing amendment 44?
The result of the division is: For 16, Against 64, Abstentions 44.
Amendment 44 disagreed to.
Section 30—Directions and guidance
This group of amendments relates to the power of direction that the Scottish ministers will have over creative Scotland under section 30. Notwithstanding our previous debate, Mr Brocklebank has consistently stressed the importance of an arm’s-length approach in ministers’ relationships with creative Scotland. My predecessors and I have made it explicit that we are committed to that arm’s-length relationship and that no ministerial direction will be given on artistic or cultural judgment. We have included a provision to that effect—such a provision did not appear in the previous Administration’s draft culture (Scotland) bill.
Amendment 45 would ensure that ministers gave only general directions, but prohibiting specific directions to creative Scotland would considerably restrict ministers’ ability to give important non-artistic directions on matters such as governance, auditing and finance. A strong argument for ensuring that specific directions may be made is that it reassures the public that ministers could intervene quickly in the event—albeit unlikely—that serious governance or financial problems needed to be addressed.
The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 refers to ministerial directions of a “general or specific” nature to Bòrd na Gàidhlig and such a provision also applies to national park authorities under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Such a provision is generally available to ministers, but it will not mean interference with artistic or cultural judgment.
Amendment 46, which would require directions to be laid before Parliament, is unnecessary. It would be unprecedented and would risk unwarranted delay when a direction needed to be made urgently—in a parliamentary recess, for example.
I have had useful discussions and correspondence with Mr Brocklebank and I know that he understands where the Government is coming from. I understand the intention behind his amendments. Following those discussions and after seeing his amendments, the Government lodged amendment 72, which I hope offers the appropriate reassurance that no artistic or cultural direction can be given to creative Scotland through any variation of directions.
Amendment 72 provides reassurance that the power to vary or revoke a direction is subject to the arm’s-length principle on matters that involve artistic or cultural judgment, to which section 30(2) refers. I hope that, with the reassurance that he looks for, Ted Brocklebank is satisfied that amendment 72 is better in legal terms at doing what he tries to achieve in amendments 45 and 46. I urge him to withdraw amendment 45 and not to move amendment 46.
I have listened carefully to the minister’s arguments and have taken into account the correspondence that I have had with her on these matters. Although I still have some reservations about whether amendment 72 deals adequately with all my concerns about ministers varying or revoking powers that have been given, I recognise that, in her response to the proposal in amendment 45 to remove the words “or specific”, she has come some way towards my position. As one of the consensual politicians in this place, and because I wish creative Scotland to be set up as soon as possible, I am willing to accept her judgment and seek permission to withdraw amendment 45.
Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 72 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
Amendment 46 not moved.
Section 43—Inspections
Group 7 is on social care and social work improvement Scotland and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education—child protection inspections. Amendment 73, in the name of Karen Whitefield, is the only amendment in the group.
The question is, that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Will the minister reflect on the experience of many of my constituents, who, in the absence of a national framework or strategy, struggle to get any service at all? The minister cannot continue to abdicate his responsibility to provide direction and give confidence to families that their needs will be served and services will be delivered. His failure to provide direction is not giving families confidence.
Users of children’s disability services identify inflexible bureaucracy as a significant barrier to securing the child-centred services that would meet their needs. On a practical note, authorities would have to allocate substantial resources to devising and reporting on a dedicated strategy of the type that Karen Gillon wants. Given the current economic climate, those resources would be better spent on the front-line delivery of services.
Rather than tying authorities to new, dedicated strategies, we seek to encourage agencies voluntarily to adopt a common language and approach, which focuses on the child and is accompanied by flexible working, to support individual children and families. That means working across boundaries, so that families experience flexible support from a single team.
May I hurry you along, minister? We are short of time.
I listened carefully to the minister’s response to my amendments 74 and 75. Like him, I want all the money to be spent on the delivery of front-line services. Indeed, in England and Wales, disabled children and their families benefit from investment in front-line services because a Labour Government delivered for them. [Interruption.] The nationalists may well laugh, but £34 million of consequentials came—[Interruption.]
Thirty-four million pounds of consequentials—the missing millions—came to Scotland. Where has that money been spent? Disabled children and their families in my constituency and constituencies throughout Scotland are not receiving it.
The Labour Party wants progress to be made on that issue and welcomes the minister’s consideration of the timescale for the review and the necessary inclusion of all key stakeholders in the policy area so that progress will be made. On that basis, I will not press amendment 74 or move amendment 75.
That concludes this morning’s session on the bill.
I rise briefly to support amendment 49, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm. For such a vulnerable group of people, charging does not seem to me to be appropriate.
On the stage 2 amendments on the Mental Welfare Commission generally, I believe that the discussions that the various committees, including the Health and Sport Committee, have had with the Mental Welfare Commission and stakeholders have led to a much more satisfactory position. Therefore, I hope that Mr Brownlee will withdraw amendment 76.
I hope that amendment 49 will be supported.
I am obliged.
This is another important issue, and I regret that it has come up at such a late stage and that the committee did not have the opportunity to consider it in more detail.
Regardless of their view of amendment 77, I do not think anyone should use it to judge the voluntary sector’s view and the critical role of partnerships. Indeed, my party takes the view that there should be parity of esteem. We have a record of developing local and national compacts with the voluntary sector that try to make partnership real and genuine. The test is what the Government is doing in relation to the voluntary sector. I am not sure whether the amendment enhances the Government’s approach or sets it back, and I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.
I agree that the voluntary sector should have a role in community planning partnerships, and I would like to hear the minister’s view on that.
I am not sure who Derek Brownlee was speaking about when he said that the joint statement was broadly welcomed. It is not my view that the voluntary sector across Scotland broadly welcomes the approach that has been taken by central and local government. The challenge is that we are in the odd position of having a joint statement, but signatories to it have no confidence in its delivery. The SCVO and COSLA have expressed concerns, which highlights the fact that paper statements do not deliver policy changes. I am not sure about the benefit of reflecting such statements in legislation.
We need the minister to commit to real engagement with the voluntary sector. She also needs to address the point that, despite the fact that the budget is growing, too many voluntary organisations are reporting real difficulties at the local level. The Government has a responsibility in that regard. The SCVO has already said that it is concerned that the minister will not intervene when voluntary organisations have expressed concerns about their experience at the local level. The SCVO has also said that the Government’s decisions are putting pressure on the sector’s capacity to deliver services and secure funding locally.
We need the Scottish Government to commit to act on the real concerns that voluntary organisations have expressed at the local level. We know the added value that such organisations bring, but all the joint statements in the world will not deliver unless there is a proper partnership between the Scottish Government, local government and the voluntary sector.
To an extent, this debate on amendment 77 has been useful because it has given us the opportunity to highlight the issues. I am not convinced that putting into legislation a joint statement whose signatories all seem to be expressing concerns is the way to go. I expect the minister to commit to coming back to the committees of the Parliament, to look at what happened to the compact process, to listen to what voluntary organisations say about their funding in the context of a still growing budget, and to say what the Government can do about its decisions and priorities, which are putting voluntary organisations under so much pressure. I would welcome the minister’s comments, not on his willingness to make statements, but on his willingness to act and to change his priorities and the decisions that he has made, which clearly present real difficulties to voluntary organisations at the local level.
The question is, that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The result of the division is: For 32, Against 47, Abstentions 45.
Amendment 77 disagreed to.
For clarification, can the cabinet secretary confirm that the effect of the amendments of that the ombudsman can now be involved in contractual disputes involving Scottish Water, Scottish Water solutions, and subcontractors?
As I have set out, the ombudsman will be able to take forward the functions of Waterwatch.
The provisions in the bill will transfer Waterwatch’s complaints handling function to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and its representative role to Consumer Focus Scotland, both of which are significantly larger bodies than Waterwatch and operate across a wide range of sectors.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I am perhaps not quoting Patrick Harvie directly, but he suggested, if I picked him up correctly, that the issue is finely balanced, which is what the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee and the Finance Committee found. On the general issue of Waterwatch, there are questions about whether what is proposed is a meaningful simplification. The sums of money involved are relatively small. I appreciate, though, that that does not take away the need to consider savings.
The cabinet secretary said that my amendments are unorthodox. They may be, but I still believe them to be competent. Delaying commencement until 12 months after royal assent is received would effectively move the issue into the next session. I think that we all accept that there is a significant possibility that Scottish Water, as an entity, will not be in the same position in the next session. At that point, we may take a different view on the appropriate regime for complaints handling. Amendment 91 would allow Parliament to reconsider the issue in the next session of Parliament.
Patrick Harvie’s concerns in relation to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change committee are fair. Malcolm Chisholm has made the same point in connection with other provisions in the bill. The issue comes down to the fact that, rather unusually, the Finance Committee was the lead committee for the bill. However, that reflects the fact that the bill is a rag-tag of various issues rather than a coherent whole. I intend to press amendments 84 and 91, and encourage members to support them.
I speak in support of amendments 1 to 5, in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seek to reverse the amendments made by the cabinet secretary at stage 2 and keep Waterwatch Scotland intact. It is worth recalling the context of our discussion on Waterwatch. Members will be aware of the work of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, which was ably led by the Deputy Presiding Officer Trish Godman. The committee reported in May 2009 after spending some time considering a range of bodies and their value and governance arrangements. Of course, Waterwatch was included in that. The committee concluded that
“Waterwatch should not be transferred as proposed.”
I really must hurry you.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The cabinet secretary has, indeed, argued the case in favour of the change that he proposes, arguing that it will simplify the service that will be offered to consumers, that lessons learned from the sector will be more widely applicable and that there will be some cost savings. There have been queries, even within the few minutes that we have had to debate the issue, from several sides of the chamber about whether cost savings can be achieved given the structure of Waterwatch and whether some of the cost savings will be achieved at the expense of the purpose of previous legislation that we passed. That issue runs through the whole bill. We should be very cautious about reversing and ignoring, for cost savings alone, the objectives that we had in mind when we passed legislation in the first place. As Richard Simpson and Jeremy Purvis highlighted, the question is whether there would be weaknesses in the system under the SPSO.
The cabinet secretary has stated clearly that his purpose is to declutter the landscape—that purpose is not shared by all of us in the chamber. We should ensure that the landscape works better rather than simply make it clearer for the sake of it. We should look to achieve that objective rather than decluttering. I will press amendment 1.
The member makes a perfectly fair point. I will suspend the meeting for five minutes and then come back to the chamber.
09:48
Meeting suspended.
09:55
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 63, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 10—Public functions: efficiency, effectiveness and economy
It is clear that we have an intense political debate on the issue. I am all for political debate, but the debate must be based on facts. Mr Whitton has inadvertently misled Parliament. He said that the provisions will give ministers the power to overrule Parliament. That is simply not true. Any order that is made under the order-making powers to change the functions of any body will not pass with my final say; it will pass only when Parliament gives its consent. Mr Whitton has therefore fundamentally misrepresented the position. I ask him to apologise when he sums up for misconstruing and misrepresenting the Scottish Government’s position. [Interruption.]
Order.
No, it is difficult to think of another committee or group that could handle the role without our saying, in effect, that the roles of the commissioners and ombudsmen can be amended only by primary legislation. We need to think very carefully about operating a different standard for some of the commissioners and ombudsmen from that for the rest of the public sector.
Parliament will still have the final say and we certainly do not believe that the commissioners and ombudsmen should be given some exalted status that prevents Parliament from ever reconsidering their role, whether their status can change and whether efficiencies can be made. Others may take a different view, but we do not believe that it would be healthy to safeguard the commissioners in the way that other members have suggested. The procedural safeguards and other measures in the bill, as they stand, provide sufficient protection while allowing us to proceed.
If Mr Whitton has a good and convincing explanation as to why what I have said is not the case, I will, of course, apologise to Parliament. However, he is the one with a problem to think about for the remainder of the debate.
Mr Whitton seeks to remove the order-making powers in part 2 in their entirety. That means that ministers in the current or any future Government would not be able to bring proposals for the Parliament’s consideration to improve the exercise of public functions, having regard to efficiency, effectiveness and economy, or to remove or reduce burdens in existing legislation. The issue that is before us is as simple as that.
The order-making powers in part 2 have an important part to play in making it possible for Parliament to take advantage of opportunities to simplify and streamline the public bodies landscape as they arise without the need for primary legislation on every occasion. I disagree fundamentally with what Patrick Harvie said earlier about the need for us to rationalise the public bodies landscape. The forward perspective on public expenditure and the issues that were raised in yesterday’s United Kingdom budget demonstrate that it is clearer than ever that we need flexibility to be able to make real improvements in the delivery of public services and to get the best possible value from the public pound.
I have always accepted that the order-making powers need to be accompanied by proper safeguards. Those safeguards were further strengthened at stage 2 to meet the recommendations that were made by the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee as well as concerns that were expressed by particular bodies. Mr Whitton characterised those changes as minor. They were not minor; they were fundamental changes that were recommended by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I accepted in full the proposals that were made.
Let me explain some of the safeguards. First, a proposed order would have to satisfy a series of stringent statutory requirements. A proposal would have to be proportionate to the policy objective, and it could not remove any necessary protection in existing legislation. Any modification or transfer of functions would have to be broadly consistent with the general objects or purpose of the original body. We have made it clear that an order could not remove certain protections, including the independence of judicial decision making, which addresses the issues that the Lord President raised; civil liberties protections; health and safety protections; and cultural heritage protections, which addresses issues that the national collections raised. We have also made it expressly clear that a body could not be abolished unless it was an empty shell that had no functions left to exercise.
The power to initiate proposals and the final say on whether an order can be laid before Parliament in relation to parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen will rest with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
The corporate body determines the budgets of the commissioners in question. How much more political can an issue be? It consists of individuals who have been chosen by Parliament to exercise functions, and we should trust it to address some issues, as the provisions mean that decisions would ultimately come back to Parliament for all members to make.
Mr Whitton said in his rather interesting speech that the commissioners opposed the proposals. The Scottish Information Commissioner said that he saw merits in the proposals, providing that the independence of the commissioners was assured. I have taken steps to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in that respect. Mr Whitton spoke about people who had expressed concerns about the provisions. All of those concerns were expressed before stage 2, and before the Government made significant concessions at stage 2.
We have given full effect to the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s procedural recommendations. That means that, at the start of the consultation process, a draft order would have to be laid before Parliament with an explanatory document. There would then be a period of 60 days to allow full public consultation and scrutiny by the relevant parliamentary committees if they wished to do that. Once laid, the draft order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In all of that, Parliament would have the final say; ministers would not have the final say on any of the provisions.
Mr Whitton raised the issue of a precedent and asked why it was not raised earlier. The Government raised the issue of a precedent in response to concerns that the Finance Committee expressed. That is how the parliamentary process works: committees raise concerns and the Government addresses them. If we do not do that, we are criticised for not listening to committees; we are now being criticised for giving answers to issues that committees raised. Of course, the Administration in 2003—I accept that Mr Whitton was not a part of it—enacted the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, in which powers were enshrined that allow primary legislation to be altered by secondary legislation, with the necessary safeguards.
The Government has listened to and addressed the concerns that have been raised about order-making powers in the bill.
Amendments 57 and 58, in my name, are further examples of our having listened to representations and adjusted our proposals accordingly. They provide that the role of the president of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland and sheriffs in restricted patient cases is a necessary protection that cannot be removed by an order under part 2.
Amendment 87 is a consequential amendment that is designed to ensure that the new sunset clause operates properly in relation to schedule 3A.
I urge members to support the order-making powers in part 2 and to resist Mr Whitton’s amendments, which would deprive Parliament—I stress Parliament—of the opportunity to consider further proposals for pursuing the public services reform agenda in an efficient and effective fashion.
I apologise for having to suspend, but I wanted to get this right, as I believe that it is fundamentally important.
The SPCB has previously invited Parliament to establish a committee to consider SPCB proposals and, if it wishes to do so, to bring those proposals forward—I give you, by example, the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Bill, which was debated in Parliament yesterday. I would interpret that as the SPCB initiating legislation, but I point out that, once any bill is introduced to Parliament, it becomes the property of Parliament itself. That is the situation as regards primary legislation. I confirm that the SPCB does not have the power to initiate subordinate legislation at this point in time.
I hope that that clarifies the issue to members’ satisfaction. I have completely lost track of where we had got to.
I have just answered that very question, Mr Purvis.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to help by reading to the chamber section 21(1) of the Scotland Act 1998. It says:
“There shall be a body corporate to be known as “The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body” (referred to in this Act as the Parliamentary corporation) to perform the functions conferred on the corporation by virtue of this Act or any other enactment.”
That makes it clear that the Parliament is able to confer on the SPCB any functions that it chooses. That was confirmed to me by you, Presiding Officer, in a letter that you sent to me some months ago, which was shared with the Finance Committee and members of Parliament.
With equal respect, that is not a point or order for me to consider at this stage; it is for others to consider at another time, should they wish to do so.
We are becoming dangerously short of time. I can offer the minister two minutes in which to respond to the debate.
I will do my best, Presiding Officer.
I have to say that I was a bit surprised by Mr Swinney’s uncharacteristic display of indignation at the beginning of his contribution, but I think that it was just designed to cover up what he is really up to, which is to usurp the right of the Parliament.
Order.
The key point is the one about the Parliament’s role in deciding on primary legislation. I press my amendment.
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Group 3 is entitled “Order-making powers – technical changes”. Amendment 56, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 59 and 93 to 96.
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendments 29, 30 and 32 to 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Section 14A—Order in relation to certain bodies: requirement for request and consent
Amendment 30 disagreed to.
Section 15—Subordinate legislation and powers of direction, appointment and consent
Amendment 32 disagreed to.
Section 16—Local taxation
Amendment 33 disagreed to.
Section 17—Criminal penalties
Amendment 34 disagreed to.
Section 18—Forcible entry etc
Amendment 35 disagreed to.
Section 19—Prohibition on modification of this Part
Amendment 36 disagreed to.
Section 20—Procedure
Amendment 59 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.
Amendments 37 to 41 and 43 moved—[David Whitton].
Group 4 is on duties to provide information on certain expenditure. Amendment 60, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 61 to 71, 97, 97A, 97B and 100.
I am not clear about why Derek Brownlee has introduced housing associations at this late stage in the process. Perhaps if he had thought about the issue a little earlier, he would have been more aware of the implications that amendment 71 would have for housing associations and their diversity. We can have confidence that they are regulated and transparent. It is rather rich of the Tory party to lecture others about transparency and accountability given the approach to that by some in the private sector in relation to their finances.
Housing associations are a model of transparency and accountability. At their heart, they have tenants who are interested in the services that are delivered. I assure members that, certainly in my area, every penny is a prisoner if its spend is not justified. Big organisations could learn something from them.
Even if we had reservations about housing associations, Derek Brownlee must be aware that a bill is currently before the Parliament that deals with the role of the regulator in relation to housing associations. We can look there to ensure transparency in spending and proportionality in the burdens that we place on housing associations, particularly small ones. At present, housing associations could tell us their spending plans for the next 30 years, which is why they are successful. Amendment 71 is inappropriate, as the regulatory issues can be considered elsewhere. Members can have confidence that housing associations and co-operatives are a model of good practice on spending that others would do well to follow.
I agree with some of Johann Lamont’s points. It would not help the situation to include housing associations in the measures. Housing associations perform particular functions and there is significant scrutiny of their activities. I have concerns that including them might have unintended consequences. Our proposals take account of the sentiments of the Finance Committee. I invite the Parliament to support the Government’s amendments in the group.
The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 122, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 69 agreed to.
Amendment 70 agreed to.
Amendment 71 not moved.
Section 27—General functions of Creative Scotland
I want to set the record straight. On 2 April last year, Mr Russell explained that in relation to creative Scotland’s work with the creative industries—that is at column 16433 of the Official Report.
Before I call other members, I will exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A(a) to extend the deadline for this group by 10 minutes to enable those members given a right to speak on the amendment to do so. I call Iain Smith, to be followed by Pauline McNeill, who will have two minutes each.
Will the member take an intervention?
I support what amendment 44 seeks to do. It is paramount to the effectiveness of the new body, creative Scotland, and I commend Ted Brocklebank for lodging the amendment. He and I, and others, have consistently called for clarity in the bill to ensure that creative Scotland is the lead co-ordinating body in relation to all the functions laid out in section 27. Creative Scotland already has the responsibility for a range of things, including promoting understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the arts and culture. The policy memorandum states:
“The Government will look to Creative Scotland to play a strategic, leadership role within the arts and cultural sector.”
It is the lead body, so why the resistance to putting that in the bill?
On the range of bodies that could be covered by amendment 44, the minister says that the amendment could mean that other bodies could be the target of ministerial direction. So far this morning, ministers have not been shy about taking powers of direction. It is important to note that it is being implied that the amendment would give ministers a huge range of powers—it would not. The amendment would provide a power for ministers to choose, if they so wish, to make creative Scotland the lead body in co-ordinating any exercise in relation to its own work. It does not confer any powers on creative Scotland. It does not undermine any other body concerned with the arts and culture, nor is it intended to do so. I am clear about what it sets out to do. I spoke to the legal team to confirm that point.
The scope of amendment 44 is so broad as to give ministers the power to direct creative Scotland to co-ordinate the activities not just of public bodies but of any organisation in the voluntary or the private sector that is involved in the arts and culture or creative industries. Creative Scotland would thus be placed in the invidious position of being directed to co-ordinate bodies such as Equity, Voluntary Arts Scotland or the Visual Arts and Galleries Association, which, in turn, would face the choice of being swept under purported Government control or turning their back on the productive relationship with creative Scotland that they might otherwise have had. Such a role would be alien to the partnership working for which members throughout the chamber called when the bill was debated at stage 1.
Amendment 44 is also so loosely worded as to capture artistic and creative activity in all its forms, even in organisations for which such activity is peripheral.
Creative Scotland does not need the amendment. Robin Harper referred to section 27(3), which says:
“Creative Scotland may encourage and support such persons as it considers appropriate in the exercise”
of its functions. Work is under way—without legislation—to improve support for our creative industries, which is the main focus of interest of Ted Brocklebank and Pauline McNeill. Creative Scotland is taking the lead through the Scottish creative industries partnership, which includes representation from Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, creative Scotland, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Creative Scotland is also establishing a productive relationship with local government on the basis of consensual partnership, without the need for legislative direction.
A point of principle is involved. Great care has been taken to avoid meddling by ministers in creative Scotland’s artistic and cultural judgment—we will debate that in relation to the next group of amendments. Amendment 44 would undermine that principle, which I do not think is Ted Brocklebank’s intention.
The amendment would be positively unhelpful to creative Scotland and its credibility as an arm’s-length body. It would allow ministers to meddle in and get in the way of creative Scotland’s development of relationships. Creative Scotland does not want the amendment and the arts sector is seriously concerned that the Parliament would seek late in the day to provide for such ministerial interference. If the amendment were agreed to, the Government would take every opportunity to make it clear that we believe in the arm’s-length principle for arts and culture and that the Tories’ proposal is alien to that.
I know that the Tories are trying to reinvent themselves, but I say politely that creating a nanny state or, even worse, a command state of Government direction of all bodies—private, public and voluntary—that are involved in the arts and culture in Scotland is surely a step too far, even for the Conservatives. I know that that is not Ted Brocklebank’s intention, but that would be the practical consequence of agreeing to the amendment. On that basis, I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
It is clear from the provisions and responses to requests from members that I have made a commitment. Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and all the other public bodies are part of the Scottish creative industries partnership, which is ably convened by creative Scotland and met only yesterday in the Parliament.
Great progress is being made in swathes of the creative industries. Most important, the bill is about artists and creative practitioners in Scotland. They deserve the arm’s-length approach that amendment 44 would undermine. I urge Ted Brocklebank to withdraw the amendment.
I call Ted Brocklebank. You have very few minutes.
Why does the Government not accept that, given all the fallout from the shotgun wedding between the Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Screen and all the additional industries, the one action that would cement the new body’s authority is saying in the bill in simple language that creative Scotland leads for the arts in Scotland?
I fear that, if the opportunity that the amendment presents is not grasped, creative Scotland will become a byword for obfuscation and a tier of bureaucracy.
I will press the amendment.
10:45
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
I am inclined to support the position that the minister has outlined. I am concerned that the removal of the words “or specific” from section 30(1) would make it difficult for ministers to exercise any control over governance at creative Scotland if something went wrong. How creative Scotland presents its accounts, for example, is a specific rather than a general issue and, therefore, one on which Scottish ministers would be expected to be able to give directions. I do not see why the revocation or varying of directions of that nature, which relate to how an organisation functions, as opposed to how it exercises its functions, needs to be approved by the Parliament. That would be strange, given that they do not need to be approved by the Parliament when they are issued.
Amendment 72 provides the important additional reassurance that the power will not affect the issues that are covered in section 30(2). However, I have a slight concern about whether, in practical terms, there is a difference between guidance and directions—section 30(3)(b) does not exclude the issues to which section 30(2) relates from the requirement on creative Scotland to have regard to guidance. An assurance from the Government that it does not intend to give guidance to creative Scotland on how it exercises the functions to which section 30(2) refers would be helpful.
The amendments in group 8 are all minor and technical in nature. For the avoidance of doubt, amendment 50 will make it clear that “registration”, in section 53A(1), is intended to refer to registration under chapter 3 of part 4 of the bill.
In line with normal practice, amendment 82 will make it clear that commencement orders may not include incidental, consequential or transitional provisions. Amendment 88 will make it clear that, if the Parliament does not renew the order-making powers in part 2, which are subject to a sunset clause, that will not affect the validity of orders that have been made under section 10 or section 13(1). Amendment 90 will remove an unnecessary repetition from section 103(3). Amendment 53 is a technical amendment, which will ensure that the definitions in paragraph 20 of schedule 8 relate to that schedule.
I move amendment 50.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
After section 77
It is clear that, in lodging amendments 74 and 75, Karen Whitefield seeks to achieve the best possible outcomes for children who have a disability and their families. Improving the lives of children and families is a goal that we share and we are prepared to seek a way forward on a consensus basis, to achieve that goal.
However, amendment 74 would impose an extra statutory function on the Scottish Government. A requirement for a prescriptive national strategy would place emphasis on the system rather than on children’s needs. Similarly, amendment 75 would impose on local authorities a duty to establish and report against an annual strategy for supporting families who have a disabled child. The amendments turn round the process of how we should deliver services to children. If we start with a strategy, we run the risk of designing services to fit the strategy. Children need services that are designed to fit their needs.
Okay. I offer a couple of ways forward, on which we can perhaps all agree. First, working with all relevant stakeholders in local government, health, education and the third sector, as well as children and families themselves, and building on the results of a baseline survey of services for disabled children, which is currently being undertaken by the for Scotland’s disabled children campaign’s liaison project, we will undertake and bring back to the Parliament by the end of this year a broad strategic review of all aspects of children’s disability services.
Secondly, we will explore the strategic value at local level of work on a charter for Scotland’s disabled children, which the liaison project is developing. The charter invites local authorities and health boards to sign up to delivering flexible services that put children and young people at the centre, in line with the GIRFEC approach. On that basis, I invite Karen Whitefield not to press amendment 74 or move amendment 75.
I appreciate that—
I should say to Mr McNulty that the minister will not speak to this group of amendments again.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Like many other members, I speak to parents of disabled children. I will do so tomorrow, when I meet the parent of a daughter who requires constant attention. I have introduced the minister to the lady in question. If I simply relay to that mother what the minister has just said, she will say, “That is just more bureaucratic waffle. How do I get the services that will support me and my child?”
The fact remains that, under the Scottish National Party Government, £34 million that was made available for disabled children has not got through to them. I accept that a review is a step forward, but the money must get through to the parents of disabled children and to the children themselves.
Order.
The result of the division is: For 60, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 74 disagreed to.
Amendment 75 not moved.
Section 90—Healthcare Improvement Scotland
We come to group 10, on establishment of the Scottish health council. Amendment 47, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, is grouped with amendments 48, 51 and 54.
During the past five years, the Scottish health council has played an important role in driving forward the patient focus and public involvement agenda by monitoring health boards’ performance and engaging in a great deal of development work around that agenda. Over that time, it has been part of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland but has had a distinct identity and operational autonomy within that body. For example, it has its own chair, who is appointed by the minister, and its own national council.
I well remember the debates about the Scottish health council during the progress of the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill in 2004, when many members of the then Health Committee, including Shona Robison, were unconvinced about placing the council within NHS QIS. I was adamant that it should have independence within NHS QIS, which is partly why I feel so strongly about the matter today.
Therefore, when the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced, I was surprised to see that it gave NHS QIS discretion over whether to continue to have a Scottish health council. I am a great admirer of NHS QIS’s work—it has shown great leadership in clinical areas—but I do not believe that it should have control of the patient focus and public involvement agenda.
I am pleased that, following the debate in the committee, Shona Robison accepted that “may” in proposed new section 10Z10, which section 90 would insert into the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, should become “must”, albeit with an addendum. I will not go over that aspect, as that would simply replay the arguments that we had during stage 2.
I have one final question for the minister. Since the debate in the committee, I have become aware of some dispute about the meaning of proposed new section 10Z10(2)(b). The chair of the Scottish health council has always become a member of the board of NHS QIS, but I ask the minister to confirm that the cabinet secretary will still have the freedom to appoint the best person to that position irrespective of whether he or she is already a member of healthcare improvement Scotland at the time that the post is advertised.
I move amendment 47.
11:15
The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The result of the division is: For 77, Against 46, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Section 91A—The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland
Group 11 is on Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland: functions. Amendment 76, in the name of Derek Brownlee, is grouped with amendments 49, 12 and 23.
I call Richard Simpson.
Group 12 is on third sector partnership. Amendment 77, in the name of Derek Brownlee, is the only amendment in the group.
I am not aware that the SCVO has approached me to ask me to intervene in that fashion. If Johann Lamont were to advise me of such circumstances, of course I would consider them and reply to her. I stand before Parliament today unaware of circumstances in which I have refused to intervene in relation to such concerns.
I have to hurry you along, minister.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 26A; the marshalled list of amendments, which is SP bill 26A-ML; and the groupings, which I, as Presiding Officer, have agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division this morning. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 2A—Transfer to certain bodies of functions of Waterwatch Scotland
Group 1 is on regulation of the water industry. Amendment 1, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendments 4, 79 to 81, 5, 84, 85, 91, 2, 3 and 92.
There should be. We will put that right as soon as possible, if that is the case. I call Patrick Harvie.
I turn first to the Government amendments. Amendments 79 to 81 are technical amendments. They amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to ensure that the ombudsman can handle complaints from customers against licensed providers. Amendment 92 is a consequential amendment that was omitted at stage 2. It removes the convener of the water customer consultation panels and the panels themselves from schedule 3 to give consistency with the current text of the bill.
I turn to Patrick Harvie’s and Derek Brownlee’s amendments. Patrick Harvie raised concerns about the lack of Parliament scrutiny of the Waterwatch proposals. I welcome the opportunity that he has given the Parliament to discuss the matter. Waterwatch has two functions: to consider complaints about Scottish Water and to represent the views of water customers. It is a small organisation that employs seven staff, and although it has performed its functions well, as a small organisation it has disproportionate overheads and limited access to specialist advice.
I must hurry you.
Okay. I simply add that when the then Environment and Rural Development Committee considered the issue, Rob Gibson, Richard Lochhead and, indeed, Alex Johnstone actively supported the measure. We believed in an holistic approach in 2005 and we believe in it now. I urge support for Patrick Harvie’s amendments.
He is sitting there.
09:15
And Mr FitzPatrick will, no doubt, contribute to this debate, if he is so confident.
There are concerns with regard to amendment 81 and the justification that the Government has not provided. That is why we will support Patrick Harvie’s amendments.
There will be a division, but there will be a five-minute suspension before it.
09:18
Meeting suspended.
09:23
On resuming—
On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that the ruling that you said you would come back with is pertinent to how some members will decide to vote on the amendments, when do you consider that it would be appropriate to give your view on my first point of order?