Part of Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:45 pm on 21 June 2000.
As I am a member of the Local Government
This is a contentious issue, but one area, although the committee debated it seriously, was seen less as a matter of contention than as a matter of wrestling with what we all identified as a problem. At that stage, the discussion focused especially on the role of LECs. We were anxious that the activities of bodies that have access to significant public moneys and that have an important role at a local level should be transparent and accountable.
Kenny Gibson says that the problem is that company law will not change. My understanding, however, is that the Parliament will consider LECs and their role. It is possible that the role of the LECs will change—I hope that that is possible. The committee as a whole was clear that the LECs and their role as public bodies were an issue, but other committees in the Parliament are addressing that. I hope that we can return to this subject at a later stage. We should have defined the bodies that we were dealing with; bodies would then fall within or outwith that definition. However, we started with a list and, through the committee procedure, realised that some bodies did not appear to be on it.
There is no easy way to solve that. We can take either Gil Paterson's catch-all position or the Executive's position, which is to deal with the narrower group now and to consult on the broader group. However, the intent remains the same. We should maximise the bill's coverage of bodies that can deal with public moneys, are publicly accountable and relate to the same ethical standard. That should apply to MSPs as well.
All sorts of bodies—small, localised bodies, children's panels and so on—have expressed anxieties about this matter. The best way for us to hold the position on a national standard is for people to commit to it through discussion and consultation. I therefore support the Executive's position, which is to consult those bodies further. My anxiety is that, if we do not consult, people will not sign up to the code of conduct.
We want a commitment from the Executive that this is not the final word on the matter. Kenny Gibson wants to characterise the proposals as the Executive excluding people from public accountability; he wants the code to be all-embracing. However, it is clear that other bodies can be included at a later stage. It would be unacceptable if this issue were not addressed in the near future. By shifting on this, the Executive has acknowledged the political issues that have been identified, has made a commitment to moving forward with the bodies that are included on the list and has taken off the list travelling people's organisations and so on, which should not be included in the scope of the bill.