Schedule 3 — Devolved Public Bodies

Part of Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:00 pm on 21 June 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Frank McAveety Frank McAveety Labour 4:00, 21 June 2000

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I am minded to reflect that Donald Gorrie's epitaph will be: "Here lies Donald Gorrie—but." [Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Donald Gorrie fan club. [Laughter.]

John Swinney raised the issue of trust, but he should judge us by how far we have moved from where we were prior to the elections to the Scottish Parliament. At that time, we had a commitment, if elected to government, to introduce a bill on ethical standards in local government. Wendy Alexander and I recognised that that commitment should be widened to include other public bodies. Therefore, the principle that underpins our response is one of trying to meet the spirit of the Parliament—of making organisations more transparent and accountable. However, our intentions also had to address the practical difficulties that exist when trying to legislate in this rather murky grey area. The bill that we have produced has been made much stronger by the committee's consultation and consideration as much as by anything else.

We recognise that we are removing bodies from the scope of the bill largely because of practical arrangements, but it is also important to recognise that we are including a number of bodies that would not have been included in the original bill—we did that only after consultation and dialogue with members of all political parties.

I remind members that changes to schedule 3 will be by orders that must be debated by this Parliament, so accountability in relation to the bodies that are to be included—or excluded—from any parliamentary order will reside with Parliament rather than with ministers.

Our principal objective is to try, where possible, to identify what we would consider to be the big hitters in public spending and devolved public bodies. More than 90 per cent of those big hitters are covered in the present framework. In conjunction with the review that is being undertaken, we wish to consider the ways in which LECs might be brought within the ambit of the legislation, should their constitution be changed. We are keen to progress that issue as much as anyone in the Parliament.

As a point of clarification, I advise that Scottish Homes was included in the bill at stage 1. It was still in the bill at stage 2 and, for some remarkable reason, it is still clinging on for life at stage 3. It will remain there until any housing bill is fully approved by this Parliament, when it will no longer be a board. It will be accountable to this Parliament and that accountability will therefore be enshrined here. I hope that Kenny Gibson recognises that that is a much more effective measure; it is not as discordant as he suggested.

LECs are companies, and the regulation of companies is a reserved matter. I agree with Sylvia Jackson and with many other members that we wish to address that issue in the review process. It is not that we are disinclined for LECs to be part of the process, but that we cannot regulate companies. I remind Donald Gorrie that I wanted articles of association to be part of the process. Perhaps we can examine that matter over the following period of time.

I will conclude by referring to what Kenny Gibson said. The application of such a code is about appropriateness and about the measures that are undertaken. Many of the bodies that were included at stage 2 were advisory bodies—which are specifically that. Such bodies do not have access to a resource base, nor do they expend public money.

It was appropriate to consider how to take that into account differently, which is why we wished to omit some of the bodies at stage 2. In my opinion, Executive bodies take the big decisions. They are the ones that spend our public money, and I think it is appropriate that they are covered. That is why I hope that members can support the Executive's amendments.