Chamber
Plenary, 27 Apr 2000
27 Apr 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I would like to thank the minister for her very positive opening to the debate.
I open my remarks by paying tribute to my colleagues on the Local Government Committee. Over the past few months, we have put in a great deal of time and effort examining the proposals that are before the chamber today. We have conducted that examination in a spirit of bipartisanship and good will that I hope will be reflected in the debate this morning.
I would like to pay special tribute—although I know that she will be embarrassed by my saying this, because she told me so earlier—to Trish Godman, who has chaired our meetings with humour and great patience, two qualities that are in great demand, especially when dealing with the more robust and forthright members of the committee. Of course, I exclude myself from that category, because, as you know, Presiding Officer, I can always be relied on to support the convener, and would never dream of heckling, barracking or, indeed, speaking out of turn.
On a more serious note, the bill before us today is here as a direct consequence of the actions of politicians. It is difficult to pinpoint when it happened, and it is of no real value to say who is to blame, but at some point the public lost trust in all of us. Members may have received a recent survey that was conducted by Nestlé, which showed that, in terms of public trust, out of 12 occupations listed, politicians were 10th, with only television presenters and journalists ranked as less trustworthy. We may argue that that mistrust applies only to some politicians, and that the public may trust one politician or party more than another. That may be so. However, we share a collective guilt. For some, it may be shared only by association, but it is shared none the less. It is a collective guilt that we must address together.
The bill recognises—and I pay tribute to the Executive for changing the original ambit of the bill to include this—that distrust extends to members of non-departmental public bodies. Those placemen and women who act as ciphers of the ruling party's political will, and those public servants who act on the public's behalf for more egalitarian motives, are, whether we like it or not, increasingly viewed with distrust by the public. They require the reforms in this bill as much as do the front-line politicians.
Reform is the key backdrop to the bill, as the Minister for Communities said earlier. Standards commissions, registers of interest and codes of conduct are good things but in themselves cannot cure the malaise perceived as at the heart of public life. Real reform is needed. Although it is not appropriate to go into detail today, we must not overlook the work of McIntosh and Kerley or the innovative ideas put forward by my colleague Alex Neil in his proposed public appointments bill. This new Parliament—as the minister said, itself a creation of the need for reform—must act on that need. It cannot turn back, despite the pressure to do so from vested interests.
Much of the debate on the bill has centred on the abolition of section 2A, or section 28 as it is more commonly known. That is unfortunate because it has overshadowed much of the good work done on the bill and the measures it will introduce. At stage 2 we will propose an amendment in relation to section 2A, which my colleague Nicola Sturgeon will outline later in the debate. I will confine my remarks to the substantive part of the bill and my party's attitude to the bill overall.
The SNP supports the Executive on the main thrust of the bill. In the SNP submission to the consultation paper "A New Ethical Framework for Local Government in Scotland", which I wrote for my party in July 1998, we stated:
"The Scottish National Party believes elected members must build trust in their council and earn the respect of communities and individuals the council serves. Councils must achieve best value in local services and adhere to the highest possible standard of conduct. The SNP will ensure its own elected members and councils provide the best possible standards of service to the people we represent."
We stand by that statement and we will be voting in favour of the general principles of the bill. However, we have some areas of concern, many of which are shared by colleagues on the Local Government Committee and one or two of which the minister hinted at this morning. My party colleagues will pick up these points during the course of the debate. I will concentrate on some of the main outstanding concerns.
When the Minister for Communities first unveiled the coalition's plans to broaden the ambit of the bill to include public life, that announcement was welcomed. On 2 July, in the debate on McIntosh, she said:
"The Executive and this Parliament expect the highest standards throughout the public service."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol 1, c 879.]
She went on to explain how that meant an extension of the proposed ethics bill to include both local government and public bodies. We were promised extensive consultation and that happened at draft bill stage, with opinion sought across the range of public life in Scotland. The minister did not say part of the public service but "throughout the public service". That phrase must mean what it says and all members of all public bodies in receipt of public money in Scotland should be included. There should be a common code for all, a common level of standards and a common watchdog for all public officials, elected or unelected, reserved and devolved, councillor or MSP. They should all be subject to the same standards; all expect to live as far as possible under the same public ethics code. When the bill was announced, it was clearly the collective view of the Executive to include public bodies. That is the only logical conclusion of that extension.
I understand the obstacles to MSPs being included and I have had lengthy conversations with members of the Standards Committee on that. I appreciate their concerns; none the less, I ask for the commitment sought by the Local Government Committee in its report on stage 1 of the bill
"to re-examine this issue, and to consider whether legislation or other arrangements are required."
There is a bigger principle at stake than simply tying up loose ends—that of equality. People in local government are quite rightly resentful that they are the only section of the political class for whom outside regulation of ethics and standards is deemed necessary.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said in its written evidence to the Local Government Committee:
"The majority view of local government is that councils should be empowered, within a regulated, accountable and transparent framework, to self regulate themselves with regard to standards, a power available to other elected representatives such as MSPs, MPs and MEPs."
That is a view that must be taken on board by the chamber.
That is not the only grievance that local government has on the bill as it stands. Other grievances include that the bill does not address the power of surcharge on councillors or the interim suspension and complaints procedure. Colin Campbell will outline our objection to surcharge, an objection that was shared cross-party on the Local Government Committee. The complaints procedure and interim suspension is of equal, if not greater, importance for many councillors.
For many years councillors in Scotland were expected to work for a pittance. I remember when the leader of Strathclyde Regional Council received a salary of under £6,000 while the chief executive received £108,000. Both had extremely responsible positions, working under tremendous pressure. One was given a salary commensurate with that pressure and one an amount to live on that, for the hours worked, would have made him one of the most poorly paid workers in the country.
I will make the point that the fact that I did not agree with the politics of the incumbents of that post did not mean that I did not recognise their work load or the pressure that they were under. That situation was remedied, to an extent, when special responsibility allowances were introduced in 1995. Under the SRA system, there was some recognition that full-time jobs should have full-time wages. SRAs are far from ideal as they can often be used as a tool of patronage rather than a recognition of merit, but they are a start and are highly valued in local government.
Under the current proposals, a power of interim suspension will be vested in the standards commission. If a councillor has a complaint lodged against them, they can, under the powers of the commission, be suspended while the complaint is investigated. If they are suspended, they lose their SRA, which in the majority of cases is their only income. It would be against natural justice if that situation were allowed to stand. Back benchers would lose nothing but conveners could lose the bulk of their income.
The situation is further compounded by malicious complaints, to which everybody in public life can be subject, especially councillors, who operate in the front line. It is easy for a person who feels slighted by the actions of a councillor to fabricate a story against them. If the allegation is made anonymously, as is permitted under the current structure, and the councillor is suspended from their duties pending the investigation, then a person will be able to exact revenge against an elected member and achieve a result without any breach of standards or ethics having been proven.
That problem is further compounded by the lack of a defined timetable for complaints. Again, I am pleased that Wendy Alexander touched on that in her speech. As it stands, suspensions could run indefinitely, which would leave a councillor in financial penury without limit of time.
Those are serious matters that compound the view in local government—I believe unjustified but real—that within one year this Parliament is beginning to renege on its promise of a new covenant between local government and this Parliament. I understand that the issue of equal treatment between MSPs and councillors is not one to be addressed today, but if the issues that I have mentioned are left in abeyance and not resolved, our 1,222 councillors will be entitled to the view that we are less than serious about the equality in the relationship that we promised and are less than serious about working in partnership with our colleagues in local government.
I hope to hear today from the Executive and from members of the Standards Committee that they are sympathetic to equality of treatment, even if we lack the legislative time fully to resolve the issues. I want the Executive to say what measures it will take to resolve the anomalies that I have mentioned with regard to interim suspension and malicious complaints. I want the chamber to send a clear message to local government that we understand its concerns and are prepared to act on them.
One further anomaly that we should consider, which is again an issue of equality in the bill, is the selective nature of the public bodies included in the bill. Colleagues will be aware that, in schedule 3, the bill lists the public bodies that come within its ambit. The list is far from exhaustive and whole sections of public life are excluded. I again refer the chamber to the Minister for Communities' remarks on 2 July:
"The Executive and this Parliament expect the highest standards throughout the public service."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol 1, c 879.]
The minister said "throughout the public service." She did not say part of the public service; she said throughout. My party and colleagues in the Local Government Committee share my concern about this bill. In its report, the Local Government Committee stated that
"all devolved public bodies, including Local Enterprise Companies, operating in Scotland and spending public money, should be included within the provisions of the legislation."
That issue must be addressed. We cannot have a two-tier system in which some public bodies are included and others are not. This chamber legislates in this area and it should be able to legislate for all who live in this country and hold public office.
I will end on the positive note on which I began. This is a good bill and one that the SNP is happy to support. However, it is not yet a perfect bill; my party and I believe that it can be improved upon. I look forward to the minister's reply and hope that some light will be shone on matters that I have raised and that we can move forward in the spirit of cross-party co-operation that we have enjoyed so far.
I open my remarks by paying tribute to my colleagues on the Local Government Committee. Over the past few months, we have put in a great deal of time and effort examining the proposals that are before the chamber today. We have conducted that examination in a spirit of bipartisanship and good will that I hope will be reflected in the debate this morning.
I would like to pay special tribute—although I know that she will be embarrassed by my saying this, because she told me so earlier—to Trish Godman, who has chaired our meetings with humour and great patience, two qualities that are in great demand, especially when dealing with the more robust and forthright members of the committee. Of course, I exclude myself from that category, because, as you know, Presiding Officer, I can always be relied on to support the convener, and would never dream of heckling, barracking or, indeed, speaking out of turn.
On a more serious note, the bill before us today is here as a direct consequence of the actions of politicians. It is difficult to pinpoint when it happened, and it is of no real value to say who is to blame, but at some point the public lost trust in all of us. Members may have received a recent survey that was conducted by Nestlé, which showed that, in terms of public trust, out of 12 occupations listed, politicians were 10th, with only television presenters and journalists ranked as less trustworthy. We may argue that that mistrust applies only to some politicians, and that the public may trust one politician or party more than another. That may be so. However, we share a collective guilt. For some, it may be shared only by association, but it is shared none the less. It is a collective guilt that we must address together.
The bill recognises—and I pay tribute to the Executive for changing the original ambit of the bill to include this—that distrust extends to members of non-departmental public bodies. Those placemen and women who act as ciphers of the ruling party's political will, and those public servants who act on the public's behalf for more egalitarian motives, are, whether we like it or not, increasingly viewed with distrust by the public. They require the reforms in this bill as much as do the front-line politicians.
Reform is the key backdrop to the bill, as the Minister for Communities said earlier. Standards commissions, registers of interest and codes of conduct are good things but in themselves cannot cure the malaise perceived as at the heart of public life. Real reform is needed. Although it is not appropriate to go into detail today, we must not overlook the work of McIntosh and Kerley or the innovative ideas put forward by my colleague Alex Neil in his proposed public appointments bill. This new Parliament—as the minister said, itself a creation of the need for reform—must act on that need. It cannot turn back, despite the pressure to do so from vested interests.
Much of the debate on the bill has centred on the abolition of section 2A, or section 28 as it is more commonly known. That is unfortunate because it has overshadowed much of the good work done on the bill and the measures it will introduce. At stage 2 we will propose an amendment in relation to section 2A, which my colleague Nicola Sturgeon will outline later in the debate. I will confine my remarks to the substantive part of the bill and my party's attitude to the bill overall.
The SNP supports the Executive on the main thrust of the bill. In the SNP submission to the consultation paper "A New Ethical Framework for Local Government in Scotland", which I wrote for my party in July 1998, we stated:
"The Scottish National Party believes elected members must build trust in their council and earn the respect of communities and individuals the council serves. Councils must achieve best value in local services and adhere to the highest possible standard of conduct. The SNP will ensure its own elected members and councils provide the best possible standards of service to the people we represent."
We stand by that statement and we will be voting in favour of the general principles of the bill. However, we have some areas of concern, many of which are shared by colleagues on the Local Government Committee and one or two of which the minister hinted at this morning. My party colleagues will pick up these points during the course of the debate. I will concentrate on some of the main outstanding concerns.
When the Minister for Communities first unveiled the coalition's plans to broaden the ambit of the bill to include public life, that announcement was welcomed. On 2 July, in the debate on McIntosh, she said:
"The Executive and this Parliament expect the highest standards throughout the public service."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol 1, c 879.]
She went on to explain how that meant an extension of the proposed ethics bill to include both local government and public bodies. We were promised extensive consultation and that happened at draft bill stage, with opinion sought across the range of public life in Scotland. The minister did not say part of the public service but "throughout the public service". That phrase must mean what it says and all members of all public bodies in receipt of public money in Scotland should be included. There should be a common code for all, a common level of standards and a common watchdog for all public officials, elected or unelected, reserved and devolved, councillor or MSP. They should all be subject to the same standards; all expect to live as far as possible under the same public ethics code. When the bill was announced, it was clearly the collective view of the Executive to include public bodies. That is the only logical conclusion of that extension.
I understand the obstacles to MSPs being included and I have had lengthy conversations with members of the Standards Committee on that. I appreciate their concerns; none the less, I ask for the commitment sought by the Local Government Committee in its report on stage 1 of the bill
"to re-examine this issue, and to consider whether legislation or other arrangements are required."
There is a bigger principle at stake than simply tying up loose ends—that of equality. People in local government are quite rightly resentful that they are the only section of the political class for whom outside regulation of ethics and standards is deemed necessary.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said in its written evidence to the Local Government Committee:
"The majority view of local government is that councils should be empowered, within a regulated, accountable and transparent framework, to self regulate themselves with regard to standards, a power available to other elected representatives such as MSPs, MPs and MEPs."
That is a view that must be taken on board by the chamber.
That is not the only grievance that local government has on the bill as it stands. Other grievances include that the bill does not address the power of surcharge on councillors or the interim suspension and complaints procedure. Colin Campbell will outline our objection to surcharge, an objection that was shared cross-party on the Local Government Committee. The complaints procedure and interim suspension is of equal, if not greater, importance for many councillors.
For many years councillors in Scotland were expected to work for a pittance. I remember when the leader of Strathclyde Regional Council received a salary of under £6,000 while the chief executive received £108,000. Both had extremely responsible positions, working under tremendous pressure. One was given a salary commensurate with that pressure and one an amount to live on that, for the hours worked, would have made him one of the most poorly paid workers in the country.
I will make the point that the fact that I did not agree with the politics of the incumbents of that post did not mean that I did not recognise their work load or the pressure that they were under. That situation was remedied, to an extent, when special responsibility allowances were introduced in 1995. Under the SRA system, there was some recognition that full-time jobs should have full-time wages. SRAs are far from ideal as they can often be used as a tool of patronage rather than a recognition of merit, but they are a start and are highly valued in local government.
Under the current proposals, a power of interim suspension will be vested in the standards commission. If a councillor has a complaint lodged against them, they can, under the powers of the commission, be suspended while the complaint is investigated. If they are suspended, they lose their SRA, which in the majority of cases is their only income. It would be against natural justice if that situation were allowed to stand. Back benchers would lose nothing but conveners could lose the bulk of their income.
The situation is further compounded by malicious complaints, to which everybody in public life can be subject, especially councillors, who operate in the front line. It is easy for a person who feels slighted by the actions of a councillor to fabricate a story against them. If the allegation is made anonymously, as is permitted under the current structure, and the councillor is suspended from their duties pending the investigation, then a person will be able to exact revenge against an elected member and achieve a result without any breach of standards or ethics having been proven.
That problem is further compounded by the lack of a defined timetable for complaints. Again, I am pleased that Wendy Alexander touched on that in her speech. As it stands, suspensions could run indefinitely, which would leave a councillor in financial penury without limit of time.
Those are serious matters that compound the view in local government—I believe unjustified but real—that within one year this Parliament is beginning to renege on its promise of a new covenant between local government and this Parliament. I understand that the issue of equal treatment between MSPs and councillors is not one to be addressed today, but if the issues that I have mentioned are left in abeyance and not resolved, our 1,222 councillors will be entitled to the view that we are less than serious about the equality in the relationship that we promised and are less than serious about working in partnership with our colleagues in local government.
I hope to hear today from the Executive and from members of the Standards Committee that they are sympathetic to equality of treatment, even if we lack the legislative time fully to resolve the issues. I want the Executive to say what measures it will take to resolve the anomalies that I have mentioned with regard to interim suspension and malicious complaints. I want the chamber to send a clear message to local government that we understand its concerns and are prepared to act on them.
One further anomaly that we should consider, which is again an issue of equality in the bill, is the selective nature of the public bodies included in the bill. Colleagues will be aware that, in schedule 3, the bill lists the public bodies that come within its ambit. The list is far from exhaustive and whole sections of public life are excluded. I again refer the chamber to the Minister for Communities' remarks on 2 July:
"The Executive and this Parliament expect the highest standards throughout the public service."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol 1, c 879.]
The minister said "throughout the public service." She did not say part of the public service; she said throughout. My party and colleagues in the Local Government Committee share my concern about this bill. In its report, the Local Government Committee stated that
"all devolved public bodies, including Local Enterprise Companies, operating in Scotland and spending public money, should be included within the provisions of the legislation."
That issue must be addressed. We cannot have a two-tier system in which some public bodies are included and others are not. This chamber legislates in this area and it should be able to legislate for all who live in this country and hold public office.
I will end on the positive note on which I began. This is a good bill and one that the SNP is happy to support. However, it is not yet a perfect bill; my party and I believe that it can be improved upon. I look forward to the minister's reply and hope that some light will be shone on matters that I have raised and that we can move forward in the spirit of cross-party co-operation that we have enjoyed so far.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
We come now to the debate on motion S1M-637, in the name of Ms Wendy Alexander, on the general principles of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotla...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As we move towards the debate stage of today's proceedings, I believe that it is appropriate for me to give notice of...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Thank you, Mr Sheridan, for giving me that notice. I will respond to your point of order at the end of this morning's session, before we adjourn for lunch.
The Minister for Communities (Ms Wendy Alexander):
Lab
I am delighted to have this opportunity to open today's debate on the general principles of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. In July...
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):
Lab
Does the minister agree that stable family life includes marriage, which plays an equally valid role to non-married stable relationships in Scottish society?
Ms Alexander:
Lab
Absolutely. I am happy to confirm everything that the member said.We have also acted to ensure that the best advice—
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I am interested in Ms Alexander's comment to her colleague. Does it mean that the Executive may be willing to follow the example of her colleagues down south...
Ms Alexander:
Lab
I have made clear in this chamber, as has the Executive, that we do not honour marriage and the family by denying the reality of other relationships that are...
Mr Kenneth Gibson (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I would like to thank the minister for her very positive opening to the debate.I open my remarks by paying tribute to my colleagues on the Local Government C...
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
The Conservative party welcomes the bill in principle. It certainly makes a start in the tortuous process of restoring public confidence in our local authori...
Tommy Sheridan:
SSP
The member mentions the Ayr by-election. She will recall that the Conservatives' share of the vote was less than at the previous election; therefore, it did ...
Miss Goldie:
Con
The proof of the pudding is, as always, in the eating. The pudding that I am enjoying eating at the moment is Mr John Scott—Laughter. I use that purely as a ...
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I will set out the Scottish National party's position shortly, but could Miss Goldie explain the position of the Conservative party's education spokesperson?...
Miss Goldie:
Con
The Conservatives' position can be clarified amply and I am sure that Mr Monteith will take advantage of the opportunity to do that in his speech later. My u...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Will Miss Goldie remind the chamber how many times, since it was introduced, section 28 has been invoked in law to protect families, as she claims it does?
Miss Goldie:
Con
It is always very difficult to say how often a particular section is used. If such a section exists to give protection, people will usually try to abide by t...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
How many times?
Miss Goldie:
Con
The section has been there as a guardian of fundamental right.
Mr Rumbles:
LD
How many times?
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green) rose—
Green
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
l would like to see some order in the chamber—members will not conduct conversations across benches without having indicated their wish to intervene. Please ...
Miss Goldie:
Con
I am grateful.
Robin Harper:
Green
Will Miss Goldie give way?
Miss Goldie:
Con
No, thank you.I say to Mr Rumbles that it is clear that when there is statutory protection, it is there for protection—it need not speak for itself because i...
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
Will Miss Goldie give way?
Miss Goldie:
Con
I am sorry, but I am running over my time and I would prefer to get on with my speech, if Nora Radcliffe will forgive me.According to the consultation paper,...
The Deputy Minister for Local Government (Mr Frank McAveety):
Lab
Will Miss Goldie take an intervention?
Miss Goldie:
Con
I am sorry, but I am running out of time—I have been generous in accepting interventions.The Executive's attempt to repeal section 28 and replace it with une...
Kate MacLean (Dundee West) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Miss Goldie:
Con
No.I hope that the utterer of the words that I quoted, Mr Henry McLeish, will stick to the counsel that he gave in 1994 and will proffer it to his party toda...