Schedule 3 — Devolved Public Bodies

Part of Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:30 pm on 21 June 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Frank McAveety Frank McAveety Labour 3:30, 21 June 2000

In discussion at stage 2, it was clear to me, as the minister, and to the Executive that there was a strong feeling that more public bodies should be included within the remit of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill than had been envisaged during the stage 1 process. We wanted to respond to that today. I will take time to go through these points—after the Presiding Officer's reassuring words to Alasdair Morgan, I will deliver a lengthy speaking note on the amendments. I apologise to Alasdair in advance.

The bill initially covered what we termed devolved public bodies, to which appointments of members were made by ministers or by Her Majesty. These amendments introduce a new and additional regime, which allow us, as appropriate, to bring the widest possible range of public bodies within the coverage of the bill.

The new regime will allow us to set out the standards that we expect members of public bodies to follow. It will also avoid the problems of intrusion, delay and centralisation that could occur if we left community and advisory bodies in schedule 3. We are committed, as an Executive, to widening involvement in public service. We do not want to introduce mechanisms that might act as a barrier to those bodies. While the full weight of the commission and the chief investigating officer is appropriate for bodies initially included under schedule 3, the additional regime will be appropriate for many community-oriented and advisory bodies. That distinction is necessary. It would be inappropriate to apply the full regime to members of a local trust set up, for example, to provide a children's playground. We propose the creation of a power for ministers to specify by order bodies in addition to those listed in schedule 3 and to set out a code or codes of conduct to apply to those bodies. Members of those bodies would be placed under a duty to have regard to the relevant code or codes.

It is important that we take adequate time to consider which bodies should be covered by the extended regime and to consult those bodies and others. That is why we do not propose to specify those bodies in the bill, but to return to Parliament with an order that specifies relevant bodies once we have conducted a review and consulted on the bodies that might be covered. I assure Parliament that our review will cover advisory bodies and the other bodies that the committee considered at stage 2. It will be able to recommend that bodies be added to schedule 3 or be made subject to the new additional regime.

Most of the remaining amendments in the group are concerned with removing bodies from schedule 3. As I explained, that is to allow us to consider and consult on how best to put in place codes of conduct for community and advisory bodies—it is not because we do not wish high standards for those organisations, too.

The amendments also remove from the schedule several bodies that are constituted as companies. Now that we have had the chance to consider the stage 2 amendments in detail, we believe that it is not within our legislative competence to extend the bill's regime to companies. That is because of the terms of section C1 in part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That section reserves to Westminster the operation and regulation of types of business association. We are in no doubt that the nature of the bill's regime, most notably in the way in which it provides for the possible removal from office of a member of a relevant body and subsequent disqualification, takes us squarely into what I would describe as a reserved area.