Part of Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:45 pm on 21 June 2000.
I cannot give way. I have been given only four minutes. I am sorry, but I cannot accept interventions. I have written a 15-minute speech, would you believe? [MEMBERS: "We believe it."] My concerns about the bill are shared by my party and by my colleagues on the Local Government Committee.
I went on to say:
"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."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 94.]
Our position is that all bodies that were added to the bill at stage 2 should be retained; the position of the Executive is that they should all be removed, with the exception of area tourist boards and the boards of further education colleges. Our view is that a quango is a quango is a quango.
It should be noted that all but three of the 49 devolved public bodies that were added by the Local Government Committee at stage 2 were approved unanimously. Donald Gorrie said to the committee on 23 May that
"the list seems to be a good attempt to cover what are, in common parlance, quangos. The bodies spend public money or advise on the spending of public money. They have an impact on people's lives in the same way that a councillor does and the argument is that they should be treated in the same way."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 23 May 2000; c 957.]
In his stage 1 speech on 27 April, Michael McMahon said:
"I join the committee in expressing reservations that a number of advisory bodies, such as local enterprise companies, further education colleges, housing associations and tourist boards, will be excluded from the proposals. As we know, individuals in those organisations are responsible for the management of considerable public funds and, like councillors, make policy decisions. The public must have confidence in the integrity of those officials."
Bristow Muldoon added that
"we should ensure that the bill covers arm's-length companies, such as leisure companies, and industrial and provident societies established by local authorities either to spend public moneys or to manage public assets."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 113 and 121.]
I hope that I can count on those colleagues to vote
I will miss out a few pages of my speech. In paragraph 10 of page 3 of the policy memorandum that accompanied this bill, the Executive said:
"The Executive does not believe that a statutory system would be seen as a deterrent by anyone genuinely committed to public service values."
Touché. If a statutory code would not be a deterrent to members of Executive non-departmental public bodies, why should it be a deterrent to those who serve on advisory non-departmental public bodies?
The only other pertinent argument is that an extension of the powers of the bill to include advisory committees would be disproportionate to any value that their inclusion would bring. That runs contrary to the spirit of the legislation. If all public life is to come under one scheme, the issue of whether the value of including any particular body is proportionate should not come into it. The ethics bill is about restoring public confidence in public bodies. That means all public bodies, and any argument about proportionate value should be set aside.
A number of Executive NDPBs have been excluded. According to the Executive, their regulation is a reserved matter under section C1 on business associations in part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, and is therefore outwith the competence of the bill. Section C1 lists as reserved matters the
"creation, operation, regulation and dissolution of types of business association".
The Executive argues that that means that the NDPBs are excluded from the bill. However, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Brian Jamieson, in evidence to the Local Government Committee on 9 May, did not seem to agree. In a specific reference to LECs, he said:
"That is why I said that the Scottish Enterprise board, which has discussed the matter, is entirely open to the suggestion that—so far as is practicable—we should impose all the provisions of the statutory code on the local enterprise companies. However, we would like to do that in the way in which we have proposed, instead of going down the statutory route."
The deputy convener then asked:
"Are you saying that this cannot be done, or that it ought not to be done?"
Brian Jamieson replied:
"I am not aware of anything that would make what you suggest a constitutional impossibility."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 9 May 2000; c 904-05]
Mr Jamieson, while not wanting LECs to be included in the bill, is not hiding behind company law and reserved powers. I spoke to him yesterday and he confirmed that LECs could be included provided that their model code reflected that they were bound by company law. That view is supported in paragraph 24 on page 6 of the Executive's own policy memorandum, which states:
"Similar codes of conduct will be introduced for members of relevant public bodies . . . Because these bodies do not form a homogeneous group it will be necessary for each body's code to reflect the type of work that it does, its composition, and the responsibilities and duties of its members. Accordingly the Bill provides for a statutory model code of conduct for members of relevant bodies; and for each of the relevant bodies to adopt a version of that code which is suited to its circumstances."
It is clear from the policy memorandum that public bodies that are limited companies would be able to adapt their codes to reflect that reality. There is no question of changing company law, so the issue of company law being a reserved matter is a red herring.
The Executive has also objected to the inclusion of a number of bodies such as tribunal NDPBs and university courts. We have yet to hear a clear argument from the Executive as to why those bodies have been excluded. Housing associations are also to be excluded; again, no clear reason has been given. Housing associations argue that, like universities, they are not public bodies. We do not accept that argument. They also argue that they are regulated by statute through Scottish Homes. However, that could be incorporated into their model codes.
We are unclear on the Executive line on this, but nationalised industries either operate in the same company law climate as limited companies, or act as public corporations, in the same way as the water companies that are included in the bill. Either way, they should be included, especially given the fiasco over Caledonian MacBrayne.
The last line of attack from the Executive is that there has been no time for consultation with the bodies that it is proposed are added to the bill. That argument could be applied to the late inclusions—area tourist boards and college boards—yet there has been the same time for them to be consulted as there has been for everyone else. That was flagged up in the committee some five months ago. The Scottish National Party feels that it should oppose the Executive's attempt to withdraw all the public bodies introduced at stage 2.