Scottish Parliament, 27 April 2000

373 contributions from 89 members. The official report.

Introduction

Caledonian MacBrayne

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement on state aid for Caledonian MacBrayne. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement and therefore there should be no interventions during it.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

With your permission Presiding Officer, I would like to make a statement on the Executive's proposals in relation to Caledonian MacBrayne's lifeline ferry services in the Highlands and Islands. The Executive attaches high priority to safeguarding the lifeline ferry services off the west coast of Scotland, upon which those fragile communities rely. Our commitment to the maintenance of these vital services has been demonstrated by making available for 1999-2000 the highest ever deficit grant, of £14.8 million. That helps to keep fares as low as possible.

The European Commission has a duty under article 88.1 of the EC treaty to keep aids in member states under review. Following the introduction of Community guidelines on state aids to maritime transport, the Commission wrote to the Executive last year seeking information as to compatibility with Community law of the current arrangements for Caledonian MacBrayne ferry services.

It might be helpful if I explain briefly what the relevant rules about state aids are. Article 87.1 of the EC treaty provides that, in general, state aids are deemed to be incompatible with the common market if they distort, or threaten to distort, competition by favouring certain undertakings and in so far as they affect trade between member states. Such aids require to be notified to the Commission, which has a limited discretion to find that they are compatible. To comply with the state aid rules and the 1992 regulations on maritime transport or cabotage—Council regulation 3577/92—we need to put the services out to competitive tender.

The Community issued guidelines on state aid to maritime transport in 1997. Part 9 of those guidelines provides that, in certain circumstances, aid in respect of operating losses incurred as a direct result of fulfilling certain public service obligations are not considered to be state aid provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions include: that public tenders are made, that there is adequate publicity and that the contract is awarded on a non-discriminatory basis; that the contract does not involve over-compensation or cross-subsidy, so that the system is not used to support inefficient management and operating costs; and that the duration of such contracts is to be limited to a reasonable period, in general not more than five years.

A public service obligation is defined as an obligation imposed upon carriers to ensure the provision of a service that would otherwise not be economic. Article 4 of Council regulation 3577/92 on maritime transport or cabotage allows a member state, in certain circumstances, to impose a public service obligation as a condition for the provision of cabotage services on shipping companies participating in regular services to, from or between islands. However, it is obliged to do so on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all Community ship owners. That would be achieved by competitive tendering.

We believe that most Caledonian MacBrayne services are in the nature of public service obligations. Therefore, to be able to continue to provide the services and to comply with the 1992 regulations and the 1997 guidelines, the routes must be put out to tender. That will bring CalMac services into line with the Executive's practice in respect of the northern isles, where tenders are currently being sought for ferry services to Orkney and Shetland. In determining the best way forward for routes operated by CalMac, the issues are complex. They include decisions about how the routes might be tendered, about the ownership of vessels and about service specifications.

Today, I am publishing a consultation paper that sets out the options for tendering. The Executive is seeking views on options and I want to encourage all those with an interest in these vital services to play a part. A number of key issues arise, such as how the routes should be grouped in the tendering exercise.

Tendering the CalMac network as a whole could be regarded as a barrier to competition. It seems likely that a minimum of two or three groups of routes would be necessary to meet requirements for adequate competition. I will seek views on what groupings would be regarded as sensible packages of routes by local communities. Furthermore, local authority ferry services might be affected by these rules. We will consult local authorities on that issue.

There are particular issues in relation to mainland-to-mainland routes, which include Tarbert-Portavadie, Gourock-Dunoon, and the local authority services Gourock-Kilcreggan and the Corran ferry. Although it has been suggested that the cabotage regulations and the state aid guidelines might rule out assistance to such mainland-to-mainland routes, we believe special considerations apply to similar air routes. I intend to make a robust case to the Commission for Scotland's remote mainland ferry services to be brought within the tendering exercise.

In respect of the Gourock-Dunoon route, there is the added issue of a private sector operator close by. However, the CalMac service provides an important component of an integrated transport system for users who do not have access to a car. I therefore intend to make representations to the Commission for a passenger-only service which, I believe, is complementary to the service provided by Western Ferries at present. The Executive undertook to publish Deloitte Touche reports commissioned by the previous Government on options for the Gourock-Dunoon route, and I propose to do so even though some of the argumentation in them has now been overtaken.

There might be significant advantages in keeping the substantial CalMac fleet together to give economies of scale, to secure future investment in ferries and to provide the flexibility of fleet relief vessels. As a result, I will seek views on the proposal to establish a separate vessel-owning company, which could be accountable to the Scottish Executive in that regard.

The Executive values highly CalMac's contribution as a publicly owned operator of lifeline ferry services. We will therefore allow CalMac to bid to continue operating the routes and I will seek the company's views on how best to structure itself to meet the challenge of competitive tendering. Of course, any bids from CalMac would be on a transparent basis, consistent with the principles of fair competition.

For the longer term, we will carefully consider introducing new legislation which would ensure compatibility with EC law. That will provide a significant opportunity to shape a new framework for Scotland's ferry services and I will seek views on the content of that legislation and the role that a possible Highlands and Islands transport authority might play.

It is planned that the first tenders will be placed by spring 2001, which implies that tenders—including detailed service specifications—would require to be invited later this year. Much work has to be done and views on the initial proposals that I am publishing today will require to be submitted by 30 June.

However, I want to assure members of the Executive's absolute commitment to maintaining these vital lifeline ferry services to Scotland's islands and rural communities. I am happy to give the assurance now, that in drawing up service specifications for tendering we will make clear that fares and levels of service will be protected. This challenge is huge; however, I seek the co-operation and assistance of the local communities, CalMac and its work force, local authorities and other interests to work with the Executive to deliver a tendering framework that supports and underpins the economic and social well-being of Highlands and Islands communities and builds on the success of CalMac's present services. We have the opportunity to set the framework for the future delivery of high quality integrated ferry services, and the Executive, CalMac itself and the communities involved must respond positively to the challenge.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This appears to be another case of blaming a European directive rather than the interpretation placed upon it. Has the minister considered the fact that, in Spain, Transmediterrania, which operates services in the Balearics, appears to be a wholly owned state subsidiary; that SeaFrance is wholly owned by SNCF; and that in countries such as the Netherlands, ports are municipally owned, which means that artificial subsidies are given to them and economies made?

The SNP fully accepts paragraph 11 of the minister's statement, which suggests that benefits such as economies of scale and cross-fertilisation of services will come from keeping CalMac tendering together. As a result, will the minister ensure that the tendering process includes the whole service, not part of it? If that does not happen, there will be a cherry-picking of routes and lifeline services will be neutered and damaged.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome Mr MacAskill's support for the Executive's work in persuading the Commission that we must ensure that the tendering process keeps the logic and integrity of CalMac's routes.

Mr MacAskill made specific reference to the operation in Spain and France of state ferry services. There is no compulsion in the European rules and guidelines to privatise the services; we are asked to tender them. That is what Spain and the other countries in Europe have been required to do. I make clear our commitment to retaining CalMac in the public sector, but we need to tender the services.

We need to engage with the European rules and regulations to safeguard our services. I have launched the consultation paper so that members and the communities they represent can be involved in the process. The process is not straightforward; it is very complex. We must persuade the Commission of our case: that our lifeline services are vital to our Highland and rural communities. I will do that when I make the case to the Commission.

We must work with the Commission on tendering and the bundling of routes. I have made it clear that I absolutely do not want to fragment the routes and services and enable cherry-picking. However, that means that we must put a robust case for the integrity of the services.

I have made it clear that we believe that it could be seen as anti-competitive to have one bundle of routes. Spain has given some practical examples of tendering services. It looks as though we will have to consider carefully the possibility of two or three bundles of routes. That is another purpose of the consultation, which must be transparent. We must bring the communities with us; we must also go in line with European obligations and rules.

The issue is complex, but I am absolutely committed to maintaining the services and their integrity.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for her courtesy in giving me a copy of her statement some time in advance of her delivery of it, which allows me to ask a question about what may have been a slip of the tongue or a significant comment. Paragraph 9 of the printed statement says:

"Tendering the CalMac network as a whole would be regarded as a barrier to competition."

However, the minister said that tendering

"could be regarded as a barrier to competition."

It is important to clarify the matter. Is it the Executive's intention to attempt to retain the entire network of services? Does the minister accept the chamber's support for that objective? It is important to attempt to do that.

Paragraph 11 of the statement says:

"There may be significant advantages in keeping the substantial Caledonian MacBrayne fleet together".

Does the minister accept that there almost certainly are significant advantages in preserving the critical mass of the company and its services? Will she give an assurance that that is how the Executive sees the matter? That is important not least to afford capacity to respond in emergencies. We will be happier to support the Executive when it makes representations to the Commission, if it can give assurances on how it sees such things working out.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Mr Tosh for his helpful and positive contribution. I am happy to clarify that point. It could be that the network could be perceived as being anti-competitive if we attempt to tender it in one block—it could be perceived as such, but it is not automatic that it would be perceived in that way. Mr Tosh is right to pick up on the distinction. It is important that we do not make assumptions in starting out on this exercise.

I do not want to underestimate the challenge in persuading the Commission that we should keep the integrity of the routes. That is why I have made it absolutely clear in the consultation paper, which I will issue to members this morning, that we need to consult on the process. My preference is to look at the integrity of the network. We must look closely at the possibility of two or three bundles of routes. In a sense, we would almost be going back to the pre-CalMac days.

I am anxious to bring the communities fully into the discussion. It would not be helpful to go down the route of tendering every single route separately. That would fragment the network, as members have observed. However, I do not underestimate the complexity of the matter. To meet European rules, we cannot just say that we are meeting the rules; we must meet them in practice.

We have to be able to convince the Commission that we have carefully considered the impact and the competitive nature of offering the routes out to tender. I will explore this matter extremely carefully and I welcome the support from both spokespeople who have asked questions so far. This will require a concerted effort, not just in this Parliament but among MEPs, in making representations in Europe.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the minister for her statement. The communities in my constituency will be stunned to hear today's announcement that the European Commission is interfering in the provision of a lifeline shipping service in the western isles. There will be great concern in the affected communities about the future of the routes and about some of the issues that have already been raised.

I ask for the minister's complete assurance that she will do everything possible with the European Commission to ensure that we are still able to support every route with public money and that no route will be ruled out. We still need to support these routes, because none of them is profitable on its own.

The minister said that she will endeavour to ensure that there is no fragmentation of service provision. That must mean that CalMac is still able to operate the routes after completion of the tendering process. I seek her assurance that CalMac will be given every help in ensuring that it remains the supplier of these vital services to our communities.

On the greatest danger of all, I seek the minister's assurance that there will be no cherry- picking of routes. The greatest concern in many communities would be that private shipping companies will come in and take one route out of the system to the detriment of all the others. The integrity of the ferry route system is crucial for the future.

We must welcome the publication—at long last, after three years—of the Deloitte and Touche report. An awful long time has been taken to write it. I ask the minister to honour the commitment she gave in this chamber: that she will come to Dunoon to discuss the report with the local communities as soon as practically possible.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I will try to work through George Lyon's large number of questions as swiftly as possible. I thank George for his support for trying to persuade the Commission of our strong interest in trying to continue the ferry services.

By opting for public service obligations, we need to be able to demonstrate to Europe that we are fully considering the rules and regulations. We have to make strong representations about the absolute necessity of our mainland-to-mainland services. A careful reading of the rules shows that they are not covered by the regulations. We must make the case that, in some of the areas concerned, the alternative to a relatively swift ferry crossing is a round trip of about 50 miles, using small, often single-track, roads. Taking into account economic competitiveness and the economic and social nature of the communities served, the retention of the services is vital. We will have to work hard with the relevant local authorities to make that strong case to Europe and I welcome George Lyon's support on the issue.

We also need to work hard with CalMac, in supporting it in its examination of its structure and in ensuring that it is able to compete and go through the tendering process. We have the experience of the northern isles ferry service in which CalMac, in the guise of Northlink, is part of the tendering process. CalMac therefore has some expertise in tendering. We need to examine carefully the company's structure.

I want to get across strongly the message that this is a complex issue. We need to lobby Europe in the strongest possible terms and make our case about the lifeline nature of the ferry services for the communities they serve. We must link into Europe's strong support for integrated transport and its strong commitment to social inclusion and strong contacts between rural areas, particularly remote ones, and to mainland areas.

On George Lyon's point about the Gourock-Dunoon route, I am happy to announce today the publication of the Deloitte and Touche report, about which several members have regularly asked me questions. I am happy to announce also that I intend to visit Gourock and Dunoon and to see the ferry service there on Monday 1 May. I do not want any more delay with this issue. It is very important that I am involved in discussions with the local communities and with the local council on how we proceed.

We will have to argue our case on the Gourock-Dunoon route strongly. For the sake of integrated transport and ease of access, we need to keep that route open for tourists, commuters and local people. I will make a strong case for that in Europe, but I stress that the outcome is not automatic. I welcome the support that Mr Lyon has given.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Has the European Union done anything to make itself aware of the special circumstances of the Highlands and Islands before making its decisions?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The onus is on us to make that case. The guidelines and rules apply to every European country and we have to make representations to the European Community about how we intend to bring our services into line. We have had fruitful discussions with other European countries and take their experiences seriously.

The issue is difficult and complex, but we can learn from the experiences of Spain and Denmark. I have spoken with the Danish transport minister and discussed issues such as the way Denmark has structured its tendering process, the length of the tendering process and the legislation that it has in place. The Spanish example weighs heavily on my mind. When Spain put its services out to tender, it advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 23 December, requesting tenders by 31 December of the same year. Europe was not impressed by that. We need to acknowledge what has happened elsewhere while making the best possible case for our own special circumstances.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Despite the minister's assurances, will she concede that she is announcing the potential break-up of the Caledonian MacBrayne network? Will she answer the question about the potential for cherry-picking by private operators on the more lucrative routes?

Paragraph 15 of the minister's statement says that

"fares and levels of service will be protected".

If that is the case, and if the publicly owned Caledonian MacBrayne is left with the routes that need greater subsidy, there are only two ways in which the increased subsidy will be covered: more money from the public purse or an increase in fares. Which one will it be?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We do not want our ferry services to be broken up. I have set out the options in our consultation paper explicitly and I have been clear about the difficulty of persuading the European Commission to let us tender all our routes in one bundle. We must consider carefully the option of having two or three bundles of routes. I do not think that that would lead to the break-up of the network and I stress that I believe that we need to protect the integrity of the services.

I encourage members to read the document. It is clear that tendering each route separately would not give us the benefits of an economy of scale, would not be good for competition and would make no sense in terms of ensuring the integrity of the service. I am resolutely against the cherry-picking of those services. I will be happy to answer further questions in the light of what is said in the document. We must make it clear that we have to maintain the integrity of services while meeting the European Commission's regulations. We must consider the experiences of Spain and Denmark.

With regard to the point about paragraph 15, I am making a clear commitment on fares and service specifications. Our experience of the northern isles ferry service tendering process is that, in putting out a contract for tender, we would make clear the specifications for the route, the quality of service required and the fares.

The point that I shall make strongly to the Commission is that by opting for a small number of route bundles, we can maximise value for money and keep the subsidies at a reasonable level. We must do that to persuade the European Commission of the appropriateness of our proposals. The consultation exercise will ensure that the trade unions, CalMac and the local authorities and communities are fully involved in a transparent process and that we will move forward together. That is the lead that I am giving today, with the publication of our consultation document.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The move to put CalMac services out to tender should cause great anxiety in the communities that use them, especially because of speculation about privatisation and increased fares. It is easy for rumours to start, which can stir up fears. Will those communities be involved at grass-roots level in the consultation? For example, will the consultation document be made available on CalMac ferries and in ferry terminals, and will there be public meetings to explain in detail what is happening?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The point about anxiety and the circulation of information is absolutely critical. That is why it is important that I do not simply introduce a set of proposals, but that those proposals, the options that we have in front of us and the process that we must go through are transparent. I want the communities to be reassured of the levels of fares and the subsidies.

A couple of years ago, the Scottish Office undertook research into the lifeline nature of the services and the sensitivities of our island communities, in particular, to CalMac fares. We know well the fragile economic nature of those communities. In Alasdair Morrison's region, the western isles, the levels of unemployment—particularly of long-term unemployment—mean that communities rely on the services. The fares that are charged are critical, which is why I was happy to reassure Duncan Hamilton that, in tendering the services, fares and the current levels of service are factors on which we can give a commitment today.

I know that there will be anxiety. The best way in which to dispel it is to be open and honest, to explain to people the complex nature of the proposals and to reassure them that we are working with other European countries and doing our utmost to bring our services and subsidies into line with European rules and regulations and to convince the European Community that there are specific circumstances and experiences in Scotland that must be taken on board. However, the onus is on us, not on the European Community, to undertake that work, which is why I hope to enlist the support of all members in the process.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would like to pursue the point the minister made in response to Duncan Hamilton's question. In the northern isles, when the tender period is too short, particular difficulties are created for providing new ships. Will that be a problem for CalMac? Is the minister aware of arguments that she can put to the European Commission to try to extend the length of the tender period? Companies that are considering tendering may face problems in the provision of new ships.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

That is an extremely pertinent point. Spain had a 22-year contract with Transmet, its ferry service operator, but the Commission made it clear that it would not accept contracts of that length. However, anyone who knows anything about ferries and boats knows that the cost of a boat cannot be repaid within five years. If we are to meet the safety of life at sea—or SOLAS—regulations and tackle some of the most challenging sea conditions—particularly up the west coast of Scotland—we must ensure that we have the right kind of vessels. We have had that discussion in relation to the northern isles ferry service and we know just how difficult it can be to achieve.

The consultation paper makes clear that there are ways in which we can address cost issues and link the cost of subsidy into the tendering process. I do not underestimate the difficulty of that and I accept that the five-year limit that the Commission has set does not make our task easy. That is an issue that Denmark and Spain have tried to take up with the Commission. There are other, similar, issues. We must make the best case we can to the Commission. I have set out our views on the length of tender in the consultation document.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Communities' concern about this development has rightly been mentioned. I am sure that that concern is reflected among the Caledonian MacBrayne work force. They will be anxious about its implications for them.

Given the imposition of competitive tendering by the European Union and the time scale announced today, is the minister aware of the importance of maintaining the morale of the work force and of involving and consulting them and the trade unions that represent them throughout the process? The detailed specifications that affect fares and services also affect the work force's livelihood and conditions of service.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am well aware of that point. In a sense, the consultation process that we start today includes not only CalMac and the local authorities, but relates to the work force and the communities of which the work force is a vital part. I do not wish to separate out those two issues.

The jobs provided by Cal Mac are critical, skilled jobs in our most remote communities. I know how important they are. The morale of the work force is also important, which is why I am happy to talk to the work force, to CalMac and to the local authorities to ensure that they understand the process we are about to enter. I am also happy to reassure them that we are making the most robust and best possible case to Europe to ensure that we can continue our subsidies and the operation of these lifeline ferry services.

David (None, Lothians)

I apologise to those members whom I have been unable to call, but I must protect the time available for the main debate.

Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

David (None, Lothians)

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 (Scotland) Bill.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

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 a legal opinion that has been sought, a copy of which I have given to you. The legal opinion challenges your decision to accept as competent the Executive amendment in today's stage 1 debate on the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill. I do not ask you to give a decision now, as the opinion is six pages long, but I bring it to the attention of the Parliament that I have brought that opinion to your attention. I ask that, this afternoon, you outline your position and reconsider your decision to accept the Executive's amendment.

David (None, Lothians)

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.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

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, Donald Dewar announced the Executive's intention to introduce this legislation. Since then, much work has been done: a public consultation, the publication of a draft bill and the efforts of the Local Government Committee and the three other parliamentary committees that have taken evidence during stage 1. Many others have offered views and made constructive contributions.

I particularly welcome the efforts of the Local Government Committee, under Trish Godman's convenership, which culminated in its report on the bill, which recommends that Parliament approve the general principles of the bill. After today, much detailed work remains to be done, to ensure that the letter of the legislation does justice to the underlying principles of fairness, high standards and justice.

Let me start with the principles. The bill is a vital part of our plans to modernise Scotland. First, we legislated for major constitutional reform, not least through the creation of this Parliament. Today, we match that constitutional modernisation with civic modernisation, introducing effective anti-sleaze measures, which will bring greater transparency to our political affairs. The bill aims for high standards all round, not just for local government. The old ways—whether of backroom deals in councils or the old-boy networks in public bodies—will be subject to a new searchlight: justice not just done, but seen to be done.

The bill also ensures that the legal framework under which councils or public bodies operate is not tainted by other outdated prejudices.

Let me deal with some of the issues raised in the Local Government Committee's report.

The bill will put in place consistent and transparent arrangements for ethical conduct by councillors and other members of public bodies. The new codes of conduct make clear the standards that are expected from members. Members will have to demonstrate publicly that they meet those standards, and adherence to those standards will be monitored.

As the Executive and the Local Government Committee have acknowledged, a legal framework will never be sufficient on its own. If we are to meet the new standards required for a new democracy, Scottish local government and public bodies will themselves play an important role in helping their members to meet those high standards. We look forward to detailed discussions in the weeks ahead.

The bill already provides that investigations into allegations of misconduct will be undertaken thoroughly, quickly and confidentially by the chief investigating officer. The Local Government Committee has proposed that the bill should set out time scales for those investigations. We can debate the detail on time scales at stage 2, but the Executive shares the committee's concern that investigations should be carried out as swiftly as possible. That detailed debate will be about whether statutory provision will help or hinder more timely investigations.

If such an investigation reveals a cause for concern, the chief investigating officer will report to the commission. Any individual whose conduct has been investigated will have the right to explain their position in advance of any report, and will also be able to comment on an adverse report before it is sent to the commission. On receipt of a report, the commission will then hold a hearing. Again, the individual will be able to present their case as part of the hearing process.

The Local Government Committee's report proposes that the procedures for any such hearing should be laid down in secondary legislation, rather than the commission developing its own rules of procedure. Again, that is a point for debate at the next stage.

We have also listened to representations by interested parties on the draft bill. In response to the consultation exercise conducted in November, we have made changes where we believed it was right to do so. I shall run through some of them.

First, there are changes on parity of treatment. The principles of this bill apply both to councillors and to members of devolved public bodies. It is therefore right that, wherever possible, the same arrangements should apply to both. It will be for the commission to impose sanctions on councillors and members of relevant public bodies alike. The only exception is the case of Crown appointees, where Her Majesty has indicated that she wishes to retain responsibility for the final decision.

Secondly, there are changes on the right of appeal. In keeping with the fundamental principles of fair and open arrangements, it is proper that there be a right of appeal against decisions by the commission. We will bring forward amendments at stage 2 to provide for that right.

Before I conclude on this section of the bill I would like to deal with the range of bodies that have been included in the bill. This is an area that the Local Government Committee has commented on. The bill deals with elected councillors and members of devolved public bodies. Of course there are other organisations, including charitable trusts and private companies, which also handle public money, and it is vital that their activities are properly regulated. However, there is a proper distinction between private individuals who serve as members of such organisations and the special responsibilities of people in public life. That is also a matter on which we will require further detailed discussions at stage 2.

I now turn to part 4 of the bill, which deals with the repeal of section 2A and a new general duty on local authorities to have regard to the value of stable family life in delivering services principally for children.

From the very beginning, the Executive's proposal to repeal section 2A has been a matter of principle. The principles of justice, equality and inclusiveness have motivated us to ensure that Scottish local government operates within a legal framework that is free from discrimination. Much of the discussion has focused on our schools, and Sam Galbraith will deal in his summing-up with some of the detailed points arising. But, behind and before, that area of concern is the kind of society in which we all want to live in the new Scotland, because the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill is about the whole spectrum of Scottish public life. The bill proposes repeal of section 2A because that section has no place in a just, equal and inclusive country. That is what I believe all of us in this Parliament want for Scotland.

Of course there have been those who said, "Why bother with repeal? Why not just leave well alone?" To them I say, that way lies dishonesty and hypocrisy. If we just sweep it all under the carpet, it will be there to continue to fester and pollute. Dormant discrimination is still discrimination.

We have sought to deal with the issues openly and up front through public and parliamentary consultation. The consultation paper in November fully acknowledged the possible concerns about unwelcome influences over children. We committed then to review the existing procedures, sure in the knowledge that

"prior to the introduction of section 2A no inappropriate material was used in Scottish schools, none is used today and none will be used in the future after repeal."

That is a testimony to the professionalism of Scottish teachers. The scare stories are just that. Repeal of section 2A will do one thing and one thing only—remove an ugly constraint on the powers of local authorities.

I want to dwell for a moment on consultation, because, when properly conducted, it is all about discussion, debate, seeking views and listening, and that is what this Parliament and its committees are engaged upon. Consultation is not about listening to whoever shouts the loudest, or whoever employs the most sophisticated public relations machines to steamroller; nor is it about pulling out the largest cheque book. Scotland's Parliament and people must together learn the ways of effective and genuine consultation.

Over the past months we have listened to those who made their views pointedly and stridently; to those who came calmly and convincingly; to those who shamelessly badmouthed a process that they did not even respect or participate in; and to all those who wrote from both sides of the argument. They are all part of a long list of those who have been involved in the process of consultation in the committees of the Parliament on the proposed repeal.

Much of what emerged from the process of consultation was good and sound and helpful. The list of those who participated is long, and some of those who support repeal are the key organisations concerned with the welfare of children, including Save the Children, Childline Scotland, One Plus, Children in Scotland and many teachers organisations.

We listened carefully to the concerns raised. On 24 February we announced, and have since incorporated into the bill, a new general duty on local authorities, when delivering services principally for children, to have regard to the value of stable family life in a child's development and to ensure that the best advice is available to parents and teachers.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that stable family life includes marriage, which plays an equally valid role to non-married stable relationships in Scottish society?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Absolutely. I am happy to confirm everything that the member said.

We have also acted to ensure that the best advice—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 and consider putting marriage at the core of the guidelines that she proposes? Does that mean that she may even consider what her colleagues are doing down south and invoke a statutory protection for the public if section 2A is repealed?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

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 now established in today's society; therefore, the new section puts the focus on the child's family and the quality of parenting without judging its worth or its status. That is the best way to proceed.

We are keen to ensure that the best advice is available to parents and teachers, therefore we set up a working group on which Churches, parents and teachers were represented, to look at the range of material dealing with sex education. Its report, published on 7 April, concluded that

"the package of safeguards is sufficiently complete, wide-ranging and robust to meet the concerns of the public, parents and teachers about the repeal of section 2A."

That considered view is very convincing.

The working group will continue with its remaining work, which will include summary guidance for teachers, advice on consultation with parents and a package of advice for parents. As we have said before, those materials will be issued for consultation, and we will not bring the repeal of section 2A into force until that work has been completed.

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee will consider these matters further in the context of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill.

There are, of course, those who disagree with repeal. They understand the issue, and they want to keep the clause despite its being discriminatory. Many others disagree because they have been exposed to a lot of pressure to protest against all sorts of imagined horrors.

Yet section 2A cannot remain on the statute books, except by claiming to protect one group of people at the cost of stigmatising another group of people. That is the unequivocal price of keeping the clause. Sadly, in the past months, we have surely all recognised that billboard negotiations are no negotiations at all. Simplistic and misleading allegations have been paraded, and questions that have been calculated to inflame rather than elucidate—a campaign very expensive to mount, but perhaps with a cheapness all its own.

Next out of the till is a privately funded opinion poll, promoted by those with a partisan point of view, who are, in effect, planning to demand of fellow Scots that some of them justify their lifestyle. That is not the best way for Scottish democracy to proceed. It is sometimes the unlooked-for way of these things that the tone and tactics used have revealed why repeal matters. We seek a Scotland that looks to the future and that does not allow itself to be dragged back to an indifferent and intolerant past that had too little room for inclusion and human solidarity.

We have listened, we have consulted, we have offered legislative protection, and we have sought advice. Local government and public bodies will have a modern legal and ethical framework, and we will move towards repeal. We look forward to a new future for all our people.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The Conservative party welcomes the bill in principle. It certainly makes a start in the tortuous process of restoring public confidence in our local authorities. That public confidence has been battered and dented by a litany of Labour sleaze and mismanagement in local government. The public have been sickened and angered by instances such as allegations of jobs for the boys in Monklands, direct labour organisation mismanagement in North Lanarkshire Council and East Ayrshire Council and the malaise of apathy surrounding collection of community charge and council tax arrears, which has put a huge and unfair burden on responsible council tax payers across Scotland.

Sadly, there is a universal cynicism that certain councils in Scotland operate to serve their own first—a preoccupation that is perceived as a primary obligation before provision of services to anyone else is contemplated. That is a regrettable set of circumstances but one that is being addressed by the bill.

It is a matter of regret to me that the atmosphere surrounding local government in Scotland has become a stale and fetid stench. Some means had to be devised to let fresh air blow through it; the bill is a start.

We support the principles behind the changes proposed by the Parliament's Local Government Committee—to which tribute has, rightly, been paid—during its consideration of the bill. In particular, the suggestions that it made concerning the creation of a standards commission, with a wide range of meaningful sanctions, represent a positive set of proposals. Those sanctions will be acceptable to the public. Also sensible is the suggestion that the bill should extend to all devolved public bodies, including local enterprise companies.

The Conservative party feels that the role of the standards commission could be achieved by streamlining existing procedures and bodies, without necessarily creating further, new bureaucracy in the form of a separate commission. That is an aspect that we shall consider carefully during stage 2.

Much of the content of the bill is good, is needed and is overdue. It is a matter of regret for the Conservative party, therefore, that we find ourselves unable to support the bill. The aspect of the bill that is unacceptable to the party is section 25, which seeks to repeal section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 or, as it is more familiarly known, section 28.

Repealing section 28, if that is what the Executive is hellbent on doing, has no place in this legislation. It is a hastily conceived add-on, which is unconnected to the rest of the bill. If repeal of section 28 is to be pursued by the Executive, it should be the subject of separate legislative proposals and separate debate. The approach has all the hallmarks of a furtive ruse to slip something into the statute book in the hope that no one will really notice.

The proposal was, after all, neither a Labour nor a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment. It was not in the Executive's programme for government; it was not in the partnership agreement; nor was it contained in any statements by ministers on this very bill.

Opposition to the repeal of section 28 has already been debated in the chamber, at the instigation of the Conservative party. While we lost the vote to retain that section, there is no doubt that, by being the only party in the chamber to stand up for them, we won the argument decisively as far as the people of Scotland were concerned.

The Scottish Conservatives have been resolute in their opposition to repeal. Interestingly, during the Ayr by-election campaign, the Scottish nationalists rather wavered in their position, which had been one of unstinting support for the Executive, which proposed repeal. They decided that they ought to consider statutory guidelines. The party that remained resolute in its beliefs, the Conservative party, happened to win the Ayr by-election.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

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 not remain so resolute. Would she care to comment on the fact that the party that gained most in that election was the Scottish Socialist party, which has been firmly in favour of repeal of section 28? It has never done us any harm.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 figurative expression of speech, of course.

In returning a Conservative member, the electorate knew precisely what it was doing. It is for that reason that not only does the Conservative party maintain its objection to the bill being used as a vehicle for repeal, but it maintains its objection to repeal. Although I listened carefully to the minister and noted the particular arguments that she advanced—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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? She talks about the Conservative party being resolute in its opposition to repeal of section 28. During the stage 1 debate on the bill in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, Brian Monteith was at pains to point out that the Conservative party did not oppose repeal of the section and that he was happy to sign up to a stage 1 report in support of its repeal. There seems to be confusion on the Conservative benches—perhaps Miss Goldie can explain why.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 understanding is that our position—as represented by Mr Monteith—has always been that we should maintain our opposition to repeal of section 28 and that we would relax our view only if we were satisfied that acceptable safeguards were being put in place. I am strongly of the view that that is the point that Mr Monteith was advancing when he debated the subject.

I return to the seemingly twofold arguments that the Executive has sought to advance in support of repeal of section 28. The reasons that the Executive proffers for repeal of the section are that repeal will stop bullying in schools and that it will facilitate discussion and education about homosexuality in our schools. I am sorry to say to the minister that in the earlier debate on the matter in the chamber, I found those reasons unconvincing and unproven—I still consider that to be the case. The Scottish Executive's anti-bullying website admits that there is no legal bar to preventing teachers from explicitly condemning homophobic bullying, or discussing pupils' concerns about sexuality—a position that my party endorses entirely.

The current Scottish Executive development department guidance to local authorities makes it clear that section 28 will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor will it prevent the counselling of pupils who are concerned about their sexuality. That is also a position that the Conservatives support entirely.

There is no need to repeal a legally enforceable safeguard for our children—that is at the heart of the concerns of so many people in Scotland. When repeal is mentioned in the context of sweeping away protection to replace it with something that is not enforceable, naturally parents become deeply concerned. I know that the minister does not share that view—her view is that we can trust educationists, that we can trust local authorities and that we can trust those who provide information to our schools. Many parents feel that, in the absence of some form of protection, that is not a satisfactory reassurance.

There is, therefore, no need for repeal of the section. The arguments that the Executive has advanced are, as I said, not proven. The people of Scotland do not want repeal. According to a recent ICM Research poll, 64 per cent of people do not want it, and a MORI poll in January indicated that 60 per cent of head teachers do not want it.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

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?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 the constraints that it imposes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

How many times?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The section has been there as a guardian of fundamental right.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

How many times?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

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 continue, Miss Goldie.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am grateful.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will Miss Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 it is there to deter. The evidence from down south is that material was available that, in the absence of section 28, might have been advanced for circulation—no one has illusions about the nature of that material or the intentions of certain bodies in circulating it.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Will Miss Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 views that the Executive appears to be interested in are, amazingly, those of the British Potato Council and of the Deer Commission for Scotland. Unbelievably, however, the Executive is not interested in the views of school boards.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Miss Goldie take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 unenforceable waffle is, frankly, unacceptable to the Scottish Conservatives and to the majority of people in Scotland. Political posturing, political correctness and juggling with parents' emotions must stop. Common sense must prevail. Public opinion matters, and as one eloquent advocate of repeal observed in the House of Commons on 17 May 1994:

"It is a sad occasion when the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers totally ignore public opinion. There can be no greater and more sinister development in any democracy than when the gap between the Government and the governed grows so large with no prospect of being bridged".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 May 1994; Vol 243, c 747.]

That accurately describes the situation in Scotland today: there is a yawning gulf between the view that the Government insists on advancing and the feelings of the majority of people in Scotland.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

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 today. The people of Scotland will be grateful if he does.

It is with regret that the Conservative party is unable to support the bill because we perceive that it has a fundamental flaw. We are unable to agree to the repeal of section 28 in the absence of any satisfactory reassurance that it will be replaced by meaningful and enforceable guidelines, which will be of comfort to the people and parents of Scotland.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

In view of Annabel Goldie's remarks about her colleague, if she were on the other side of the argument, some of the publicists on this issue would run headlines saying "Conservatives Support Cannibalism". A problem with this debate is that there is a great distorting element.

The bill contains two distinct elements: first, the improvement to the regulation of councils and other public bodies; and, secondly, the repeal of section 2A. The Liberal Democrats are entirely in favour of both components of the bill, although in due course we will support amendments to improve the first.

Most of the bill relates to the principle of external regulation of people in public life, such as councillors, and people on quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations and all other sorts of bodies. In almost every organisation—whether it be the Church, the police, lawyers, business people, the City, or politicians—self-regulation has proved faulty in practice. There has to be an external system of regulation; the question is how to introduce as fair a system as possible.

I will deal first with the other element of the bill, which addresses the question whether we should end the discriminatory section 2A. The Local Government Committee has been united and positive on the issues, and has heard evidence from many people that the section has been discriminatory and has had an adverse effect, and that its removal would have a beneficial effect. Two of the representatives of the Association of Directors of Education made a positive contribution to the discussion. If the sort of information that they gave were circulated to people, we would get on much better.

The Scottish Council for Single Homeless, speaking on behalf of a swathe of housing organisations, said that there was evidence of prejudice against homosexuals, to which the section contributes; it inhibits councils from addressing it. If people had the opportunity of hearing such evidence, they would accept that section 2A should be deleted.

I was especially struck by a remark by a director of education:

"The future is not what older people think, but what younger people do."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 14 March 2000; c 708.]

That is a salutary thought for people of my age.

We accept that there has to be a much better effort by the Executive and the Parliament to put over the facts of the matter and to persuade people that the scare stories are not correct. Those of us who wish to delete section 2A must launch a truth offensive. In particular, we must talk to and listen to young people. The evidence that we have had shows that, when young people have been consulted, they favour getting rid of the section and are relaxed about the whole thing.

We must try to clarify what public opinion actually is. Annabel Goldie claims that public opinion is on her side, but I believe that that is extremely doubtful—it all depends on what question is asked and what propaganda is put out. We must put our side of the argument more strongly throughout the country and listen, especially to young people.

The bill mainly concerns improving public life. If we accept that self-regulation does not work, we must set up a regulatory system. The Liberal Democrats share the unanimous view of the Local Government Committee that the proposals should apply to all those who are paid from the public purse and hand out money from the public purse. It is not acceptable for some people on public bodies to be governed by the regulations while others are not. As the bill stands, in an organisation that consists of a mixture of councillors and non-councillors, the councillors will be subject to the standards commission whereas the non-councillors will not be. Moreover, some bodies will not be regulated while others are—the structure is rather arbitrary. Liberal Democrats believe in the simple proposition that the bill should apply to all people who are paid by the public purse and give out public money.

It is unfortunate that the bill does not deal with surcharging. I hope that an amendment can be lodged to rectify that. The measures on surcharging are totally absurd and unjust—they are never used anyway, so they should be got rid of.

We believe that the bill should positively encourage the establishment of local standards committees. As local democrats, we do not want to compel a council to have a local standards committee if it does not want one, but we believe that such committees would sieve out many of the malicious complaints that have been mentioned. People in public life get shot at sometimes correctly but often unfairly. There are people who are locally well known to stir things up, making allegations without any great basis in fact. Local committees could sieve out malicious complaints or, perhaps, complaints that were intended to destabilise a council with a narrow political balance.

We want reassurance on the impact on the proposals of the European convention on human rights. The Executive gave an assurance that the bill was clean, so to speak, in relation to the convention, but I have since had representations from councillors saying that, as the standards commission will be appointed by the minister, it will be in the same position that other legal people find themselves in—for example, councillors who are justices of the peace are no longer allowed to sit in court, so it is not clear whether people who are appointed by the Government will be able to sit in justice over councillors in a quasi-judicial fashion.

We must consider whether the proposed procedures are fair, not only under the convention, but in accordance with natural justice. Kenny Gibson dealt with one or two points on that, but there is concern about how fair the procedures will be to the councillors who are governed by the system.

There is strong, all-party support for the main provisions of the bill, although there is obviously a separate argument about section 2A. The bill will be an interesting example of how well the Parliament and the Executive can deal with an issue on which there is general consensus but a desire for improvement. It will be a test of whether we can work together to improve the detail along the lines suggested by the Local Government Committee.

We hope that the Executive will not go into a concrete bunker to defend the bill. We hope to keep party animosities out of it and to produce a really good bill. It is important for Scottish local government that we can re-establish confidence and give a fair deal, to both the public and the councillors. We welcome the bill and look forward to dealing with it in detail in committee. The Liberal Democrats are solidly behind the principles of the two elements of the bill.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We now move to the open part of the debate.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I thank the Local Government Committee for its commitment and work in producing the report. I also thank the officials who helped us. The problem with being the committee convener is that people get to speak before me and so steal my speech; members might have to put up with some repetition.

The bill is a necessary piece of legislation if we are to begin to restore public confidence in politicians and public institutions. It is important that the public can have confidence in all tiers of government—all public bodies—and the bill should be viewed as starting the process of rebuilding such confidence.

To date, extensive consultation has taken place and the Executive has moved significantly on some areas—on the right of appeal, for example.

However, I want to talk about the areas that have not been taken on board. As has already been said, local enterprise companies, college councils and university senates are not on the list of outside public bodies, yet they spend millions of pounds of public money. I was pleased to hear Wendy Alexander say this morning that that would be considered again at stage 2. That shows that the Executive is listening, not only to the committee, but to others with an interest, and has taken a step forward.

The standards commission should be able to deal with all aspects of conduct across the public sector, local government and the Parliament itself. I have said that MSPs should be included in the bill; the Local Government Committee supports that position. Although I accept that that would duplicate the role of the Parliament's Standards Committee, I do not believe that it is beyond our ability to find a way to ensure that MSPs are working to the same standards as councillors and other appointed public servants.

The Local Government Committee hopes that the Standards Committee will use the bill as a template for MSPs and will ask the Executive to consider what arrangement or legislation is needed to ensure that we have the same expectation for the conduct of MSPs as we have for others across the public sector. We have to be seen to be equal right across the board.

The committee felt that when a complaint has been made against an individual, it is very unfair to allow the investigation to continue without a time limit. We suggested that 90 days is a reasonable limit for any investigation and that any extension should be agreed through application to the standards commission. Again, I was pleased to hear Wendy Alexander comment on that this morning; she told us that that would be considered at stage 2.

I started my comments by saying that one or two people—who shall be nameless—stole my speech. I do not wish to go over things that have already been said, but I would like to comment on section 2A. The Local Government Committee supports the position of the Executive. Indeed, we believe that it would be wrong—and that it is wrong—to discriminate against any minority grouping. However, I have to say that like many people in the Parliament and elsewhere in the country, I have been disturbed and disappointed by the tone of the debate.

When, in 1988, the Thatcher Government introduced the legislation, there was no justification for it. In 2000, there is still no justification. Its presence on the statute book, directly or indirectly, creates a climate of confusion, fear and intolerance. Section 2A was introduced not to protect, but to discriminate. The view that by ending discrimination one is somehow attacking the family and family values is not only utter nonsense, but dishonest. To end discrimination anywhere is to support people everywhere.

The Executive has a strong case for repeal, and the inclusion of section 26 shows its determination to promote the value of a stable family life in a culture of tolerance and equality. However, the Executive must show more determination to be proactive in promoting this anti-discrimination legislation, and should provide clarity where it is needed. The promotion of sexuality, racism and agism is neither appropriate nor acceptable in schools; good practice should be a good school-parent partnership in all aspects of children's personal and social education.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No; I am winding up.

I have identified a number of concerns, many of which I hope will be addressed during the bill's passage. Overall, the Local Government Committee agrees that Parliament should approve the general principles of the bill.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will concentrate my remarks on the repeal of section 2A. Let me make it clear from the outset: the Scottish National party supports repeal, although it recognises that this is an issue of conscience for some people. The SNP supports repeal because section 2A is a discriminatory piece of legislation that has no place on the statute book of the Scotland that we want to live in.

Section 2A was not enacted to protect children. In the previous debate on the issue, the Tories were challenged to cite just one example of the promotion of homosexuality in Scottish schools prior to the enactment of section 2A. They were unable to do so then, and still are now, because no such examples exist. Furthermore, there have been no examples since the section was enacted.

I can see that Mr Monteith is dying to get to his feet; I am happy to give way and allow him to cite examples now.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member is being disingenuous. We have argued all along that the fact that no teachers or local education departments have been prosecuted under section 28 is not an argument that the law is not needed. In fact, the law has been working, which is why we want it to be retained unless other safeguards are put in place.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If Mr Monteith had been listening, he would have known that I was referring to the period before the enactment of section 2A. If the Tories' argument is based on the fact that section 2A was enacted to protect children, they must be able to rely on some examples of the promotion of homosexuality in schools prior to that enactment. However, they cannot, which gives the lie to their basic argument.

The fact is that section 2A was not, is not and never will be about protecting children. It is simply about discrimination; it is about isolating people in one section of the population and labelling them as unacceptable in a way that would have been unimaginable had it concerned any other minority in Scottish society.

That said, many people in Scotland have expressed fears about the repeal of section 2A, which is not surprising, given some of the misinformation that has done the rounds in the past few months. However, the majority of those people are not prejudiced or anti-gay; they just have a natural desire to protect children and are scared about what might happen after the repeal of the section.

However, the natural desire that we all have to protect children must not become confused with support for legislation that legitimises intolerance and prejudice. Intolerance, prejudice and discrimination are exactly the kinds of sentiment that we should be educating our children to reject. Instead, we should be protecting children against exposure to inappropriate material of any description. As section 2A has never done that, the question is how we ensure such protection and provide the reassurance that many people seek.

We should not forget the first line of defence against inappropriate material in schools—Scottish teachers. Their professionalism, good sense and judgment protect children against threats and dangers of all varieties every day of every week of the year. Our teachers deserve our trust. However, we also need clear, non-discriminatory guidance for the protection of teachers as well as children. The SNP has welcomed Labour's earlier commitment to consult on and introduce guidelines on sex education prior to the repeal of section 2A. That said, people still take the view that guidelines are not sufficient; although they trust teachers, they do not trust local authorities to pay heed to guidance.

The Government has found the answer to that problem, although so far it has refused to recognise it. Section 12 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill obliges local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by ministers. A similar section in this bill would oblige local authorities to have regard to guidance on sex education.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am winding up. For the avoidance of doubt— [Interruption.] Mr Monteith may laugh, but he did not take the opportunity to make constructive use of his previous intervention, so he should not expect another this late in my speech.

For the avoidance of doubt, the SNP is not talking about statutory guidance, which, as the minister pointed out, is a contradiction in terms, or a move towards a national curriculum—let me make it clear that the SNP will never support any moves towards a national curriculum. What we are suggesting is, quite simply, in the words of Judith Gillespie of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, public accountability.

The SNP's suggestion, which we will lodge as an amendment to the bill at stage 2, provides a solution. It provides a real way forward towards repeal of a despicable piece of legislation, towards new, non-discriminatory guidelines and towards vital reassurance for parents.

The Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee, in its stage 1 report on the bill, asks the Executive to give consideration to that suggestion. I urge the Executive to follow that advice. The SNP will support the bill at stage 1.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that a bill that undoubtedly has some merit should be used by the Administration as a Trojan horse to pursue its much-vaunted aim of deleting section 2A from the statute book. Frankly, the Administration has demonstrated time and again that it is hellbent on scrapping that legislation and on giving a metaphorical two fingers to Scottish public opinion. If the Executive is prepared to follow that line, it should have had the political courage to deal with the matter under a separate piece of legislation, rather than putting it into this hotch-potch bill.

In the time available to me, I want to deal with the local government issues raised by the bill. The bill is largely cosmetic and anodyne.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

However, we do not share the view of those critics who say that the bill is unnecessary. Clearly, it is necessary. Annabel Goldie narrated a series of events from the recent history of Scottish local government that underline the necessity of the legislation—Monklands, Glasgow City Council and direct labour organisation mismanagement.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will take Robin Harper's.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I speak for the Scottish Green party, which too increased its vote at the Ayr by-election.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It was not hard.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

No, it was perhaps not that difficult.

The Scottish Green party has consistently opposed section 28 and campaigned for its repeal. Does Mr Aitken agree that the issue is a matter of principle? Section 28 is discriminatory—it introduces discrimination into schools. Speaking of matters of principle, may I ask the member whether he agrees that, if those people who opposed hanging had not stuck to their principles, we would still have hanging in this country?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I agree totally with Mr Harper's submission and underline the fact that, if the result of the Ayr by-election were to be repeated throughout Scotland at the forthcoming general election, I would be a lot happier than him.

Let us return to the issue and consider the legislation that is in place to deal with the matters that I have outlined. First, there is the sanction of the police and the procurator fiscal acting under the Prevention of Corruption Acts. There is also the local government ombudsman and the Accounts Commission. Our very real fear is that there is now a degree of overlap. The minister should address that when he sums up and at stage 2. When the matter comes back to the chamber, we will be tempted to lodge an amendment to deal with the overlap.

There are superficial attractions in having local government standards committees in each local authority, albeit under the supervision of the local government ombudsman. However, there are other issues that the legislation does not deal with. Donald Gorrie was correct to raise the matter of arm's-length companies and there is clearly an inconsistency and unfairness if elected councillors can be subject to the sanctions under the bill whereas those who are not elected could be found guilty of the same misconduct with no sanction available to be used against them.

What about unpaid council tax? I am well aware of the data protection legislation, but the bill should have addressed the issue of unpaid tax. Mr Gibson will no doubt recall from his days at Glasgow City Council how frequently questions were asked about the financial relationships involving Labour councillors, the authority's finance department and unpaid arrears. Surprisingly enough, the answers to those questions were not given until a short time after one council member defected from Labour's sinking ship to join the SNP. Lo and behold, those financial affairs then became public knowledge very quickly. That was of more than passing coincidence. Surely the bill should deal with the real scandal of unpaid council tax.

Aspects of the bill deserve, and will receive, support. We recognise that, unfortunately, some of the legislation is necessary. In a perfect world, it would not be, but the world is far from perfect. Much of what is proposed is common sense, and we will be supporting the vast majority of the bill's provisions at stage 2.

On the vexed question of section 2A, it is unfortunate to say the least that the Government is not prepared to listen to the opinion of the vast majority of the Scottish public, who believe that the measure should stay in place. It is unfortunate that section 25 detracts from the basic principles of what is otherwise an acceptable bill.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

A number of members wish to speak in the debate; if we are to accommodate anything like the majority of them, it will be necessary to stick a bit more closely to time.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I very much welcome today's stage 1 debate on the. Unlike Bill Aitken, I believe that the bill is important. It provides for the introduction of new codes of conduct for local authority councillors and members of relevant public bodies. It imposes on the organisations concerned a duty to help their members to comply with the codes of conduct.

Very important, the bill establishes a standards commission for Scotland to oversee the new framework and to deal with any alleged breaches of the codes. The bill will help to establish clear standards of behaviour among elected councillors and members of public bodies; it provides for a much-needed system for the investigation of complaints of improper conduct.

The bill contains a number of welcome initiatives. One is a code of conduct issued by ministers. That code is to be approved by us, the members of the Scottish Parliament, together with a model code to which each public body will be expected to adhere. The establishment of a standards commission is very welcome, especially as it will be a commission with teeth. The bill creates the post of a powerful chief investigating officer, whose duty will be to provide the commission with information and to conduct investigations.

The bill provides for the introduction of a register of interests, which every council and devolved body—as diverse as the Accounts Commission, the Crofters Commission, health trusts and the Scottish Arts Council—will set up, maintain and make available for public inspection. The list of bodies could be expanded at stage 2.

The bill brings real, welcome developments, which come hard on the heels of the Parliament establishing its own code of conduct, following on from the "Register of Members' Interests" that was established under the Scotland Act 1998. The Standards Committee of this Parliament is already well on its way through an inquiry into the various models of investigation that are available. I do not want to pre-empt the committee's findings and the wishes of the Parliament, but I believe that the committee may well recommend a system for the investigation of complaints similar to the one proposed in the bill, either through a parliamentary commissioner or through a standards officer or standards adviser.

Members of the Local Government Committee have suggested that MSPs could come under the remit of this bill, as the bill sets out standards for public bodies. The Standards Committee has considered the issue in some detail. Evidence that was submitted to the committee strongly supported the view that regulation of the conduct of MSPs was a matter for the Parliament and that it would not fit well with the system proposed in this bill. The Deputy Minister for Local Government said:

"I am not convinced that fastening onto the system set out in this bill would be appropriate, the main difficulty being that the bill establishes a regime specially designed for councillors and members of public bodies, it provides for the codes of conduct, the members of the commission and the investigating officer to be appointed by ministers. I am not certain that MSPs would be content that any of those provisions would apply to the regime regulating their conduct—having members subject to a code set by the Executive and policed by a body appointed by the Executive would be rather odd."

I could not have put it better myself.

This bill is, without doubt, a major step towards cementing the bond of trust between the community and its public representatives. I am convinced that it is an important milestone in the development of our democratic society and will strengthen public confidence in our local government system. My only disappointment is that the major reforms, on which the Executive should be congratulated, are being overshadowed by the disproportionate attention being paid to section 25 in part 4 of the bill. I will resist the temptation to add further to that attention.

I am conscious of the time so I will conclude by saying that I welcome this debate. I congratulate the Executive on producing the bill quickly and urge that it receive overwhelming support from the chamber.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

This will probably be the only thing on which I agree with Bill Aitken today, but I, too, think that it is unfortunate that most of the content of the bill has gone virtually unnoticed due to the inordinate amount of attention given to the repeal of section 2A.

As one who was a council leader for seven years, I support a framework that will ensure that the highest standards are adhered to in councils and other public bodies. I stress, however, that it is my experience that high standards already exist in the majority of councils.

It is to be hoped that, as the bill progresses, more attention will be paid to the substantive issues that it deals with. That is not to say that the repeal of section 2A is not important. As a principle, it is extremely important and, as evidence of the Parliament's commitment to mainstreaming equality in Scotland, it is crucial. Unlike Annabel Goldie and Bill Aitken, I do not think that the majority should be allowed to discriminate against the minority—discrimination against any minority should not be acceptable. I remind the chamber that, if politicians had listened to popular opinion, the Race Relations Act 1976 would never have been brought in.

As Trish Godman said, the standard of debate from those opposed to repeal has been disappointing. There has been a campaign of misinformation, cynically intended to cause alarm and fear. We have recently found out that that will culminate in an opinion poll to find out how effective the campaign has been.

Because of this issue, I have over recent months met many gay and lesbian people. It is ludicrous to suggest that such people or their personal lives are dangerous to our children. I suggest that other people's obsession with those ordinary people's sex lives is more damaging to society than is teaching our children about diversity and respect.

I am sure that the concern for our children is genuine, but I suggest that the resources and energy that has been put into the Keep the Clause campaign would have been better spent on projects and campaigns to address real issues that face young people, such as problems of sexual health, sexual identity and self-esteem. People should be more alarmed about the rates of teenage conception in Scotland, which are the highest in Europe—Dundee has the highest rate in Scotland—and about the early sexualisation of our children. Those are the areas in which we are failing our young people badly.

There has been a suggestion that we repeal section 2A and replace it with a measure that not only discriminates against same-sex relationships but extends discrimination to every relationship other than heterosexual marriage.

Although I have been happily divorced for many years, I have great respect for the institution of marriage. I respect equally lone-parent families, grandparents who bring up their grandchildren, same-sex families, foster carers and the carers of children in residential homes or schools. Whatever the type of family situation or circumstance, I respect it if it provides happiness and security and allows a child to reach their full potential. Any situation can be good or bad; it is not the institution that dictates that, but the individuals who are involved.

Finally—as I know that time is short—I return to the so-called referendum. Vast sums of money have been spent on misinforming the Scottish public about the repeal of section 2A. The so-called referendum will be useful for the people who have spent that money to gauge how successful that expenditure has been—that matter is entirely for them. However, I do not intend to dignify that opinion poll by responding to it. When I receive my ballot paper, I shall put it straight in the bin, and I urge every other fair-minded person in Scotland to do the same.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I speak as a member of the Local Government Committee—a remarkable committee in as much as it has never voted on anything. If members want to see how a committee can work consensually, they should attend that committee. I would like to pick up several points that have been touched on. If I appear to reiterate a point, I urge members to take it as a re-emphasis.

All public bodies that operate in Scotland and spend public funds should be covered by the bill's provisions. I do not believe that the minister has any objection to the spirit of that intention; her objections are of a practical or legal nature. None the less, local enterprise companies, college and university boards, area tourist boards, housing associations and other similar bodies should be subject to the same standards as councillors and quangos. For a variety of reasons, there has been a mushrooming of arm's-length companies, such as recreational trusts and other businesses, which are also notable by their absence from the bill.

I hate to cross Mike Rumbles—who has left the chamber anyway—but, in a thoroughly inclusive spirit, the MSPs in the Local Government Committee took the view that MSPs should be included in the terms of the bill on two counts. First, MSPs should be obliged in principle to maintain the same standards as everyone else. Secondly, if there were equality in expected standards, that would create more confidence in the relationship between MSPs and others. Without that equality, MSPs could be regarded as imposing a regime on others that did not apply to themselves. That would not be good politics and it would not foster good human relations.

I am absolutely confident that the whole Parliament wants to achieve the highest possible standards in public life and that it will make every effort—through its committees and legislative processes—to cast the standards net as widely as is humanly and legislatively possible.

I now refer to the vexed question of the surcharge on councillors. Councillors are overworked and often under-appreciated. They are in the front line of day-to-day politics and deal with the immediate concerns of citizens. Most of them carry out their duties for a derisory sum of money, and it is quite unforgivable that we as MSPs should be free of the threat of anything like surcharge while they are liable to major financial penalties. It is ludicrous that people who serve their immediate communities for so little have the threat of a surcharge hanging over them.

I would like to quote from a meeting of the Local Government Committee—I am happy to use this quotation, as it is from my own speech. [Laughter.] Well, we must get a wee laugh in somewhere.

"Most of us have been councillors, which was probably the least well paid of the activities most of us have indulged in—and we were liable to surcharge. Having moved through the political system, we are no longer under threat of surcharge. I am curious to know why the Executive has not given its thoughts on that matter. We would like surcharging to be removed."

To be fair, the Deputy Minister for Local Government, Frank McAveety, indicated that he shared the Local Government Committee's view. He said in response to my point:

"We are in discussions with the Accounts Commission and other organisations to determine what would be as effective if surcharging were abolished. It is about working with folk. We have had good submissions from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, and we hope to bring something forward in due course."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 28 March 2000; c 755.]

I welcome what the minister said. It is fitting that not only the same standards should apply to everyone in public life, but that the penalties for transgressing those standards should be uniform.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Colleagues, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, because I feel that the issues raised by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill are central to what our new Scottish Parliament should be about and to the ethos of what we must achieve.

Our people expect us to create a more accountable system of government, so we must deliver one. This Parliament has made excellent progress in ensuring that high standards in public life are at the core of its work. We have a strict code of conduct for MSPs, an open register of interests and a powerful Standards Committee. I am pleased that we are considering the extension of those same high standards to our staff, who support us in our work.

However, our job as parliamentarians is not only to ensure the highest standards in this chamber. We must distil public confidence in all areas of public life, from our local authorities to health boards, local enterprise companies and beyond.

I am pleased at the introduction of the bill and at the establishment of a fully independent standards commission for Scotland, headed by a chief investigating officer. I am pleased at the introduction of a national code of conduct for local authorities and a statutory code for other public bodies, and at the provision under which local authorities and public bodies are to establish and maintain a register of members' interests, which will be open to public inspection.

We recognise that there are genuine concerns that the current ethical framework does not allow for open and transparent investigation of allegations of misconduct. The measures included in the bill will go some significant way towards tackling the lack of trust in and cynicism about politicians and public officials that is felt by many of our people.

It is important that, in introducing this bill, we take with us the good will of local councillors and other public figures. The bill must not be seen as an attack on local government; rather, it should be seen as an enhancement to it. Local government is central to the good governance of Scotland, and the bill will assist local government in the process of modernisation, thereby enhancing public confidence in its operations. The bill will provide a consistent framework of standards, which will allow for the protection as well as the investigation of public representatives. That move will be welcomed by many of the decent, hard-working councillors with whom I work day in day out, particularly those from South Lanarkshire Council and North Lanarkshire Council, which are in my constituency.

The bill will also help to ensure high standards in other areas of public life, as a new, statutory code of conduct will be introduced and adapted to suit the circumstances of each body. As a member of the Local Government Committee, I was pleased when Frank McAveety, the Deputy Minister for Local Government, said:

"Councillors are elected and members of public bodies are appointed; but both serve the public. It is right that they should be seen to be governed by the same standards."

The Local Government Committee welcomes the general principles of the bill. We are pleased that, in light of responses to the consultation process, the Executive has made several changes to the draft bill, including the extension of the powers of the standards commission to cover members of relevant public bodies as well as councillors. We are also pleased that the commission will have the power to impose sanctions on those individuals who are found to have breached the code.

However, 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.

I noted with interest the minister's comment that the operational framework of some LECs, boards of further education colleges and the like is autonomous from the Executive, but I would welcome Executive amendments to the bill to make appropriate arrangements for appointments to such bodies. It must also be noted that the three public bodies appointed by the Crown—the Mental Health Commission, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission—are excluded from the bill's provisions. In the spirit of accountability for all public bodies, it is important that representations are made to the Crown to allow those organisations to be brought within the remit of the bill, by whatever arrangements can be found.

Public confidence in standards in public life is an important issue and one that is central to public bodies, local authorities and this Parliament. It is a matter for each and every individual in public life. I urge members to support the bill.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Like Mike Rumbles, I am a member of the Standards Committee. I welcome the bill and I congratulate the Local Government Committee on its thorough scrutiny of it at stage 1. The committee's report raises a number of interesting questions, one or two of which I will address today.

The bill provides for the establishment of a national code of conduct by the Executive in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I appreciate the input of local government into the bill and I cannot overstate the importance of ensuring that elected members in local government are primarily responsible for drafting the code. The ownership of a code of conduct by councillors is crucial to its success, inspiring adherence to its letter and spirit.

The bill should be viewed in the context of a partnership between the Parliament and local authorities, with this chamber having due respect for the work of democratically elected councillors throughout the country. The bill encourages councils to assist their members in achieving high standards in public life, and it is my firm belief that the work that some councils have already undertaken in establishing their own standards committees could be beneficially applied across the country and should be promoted.

Partnership should not be merely a one-way street. I am aware that arguments have been presented that members of the Parliament should be brought under the scrutiny of the proposed national standards commission. Those arguments tend to be furthered by questions such as the following. Should not parliamentarians be required to meet the same standards that we expect of our councillors and of those who serve on other public bodies? Why reject self-regulation for councillors in favour of an independent commission, when a committee of MSPs is charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints against fellow members?

With no disrespect to colleagues, I believe that such questions betray a misunderstanding of the standards framework within which MSPs operate. That framework is built on the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—formerly chaired by Lord Nolan and chaired since 1997 by Lord Neill—which defined the seven principles of public life. Those principles have become the template for public standards regulation and are common across all tiers of government.

It must be emphasised that MSPs are not self-regulating. The Scotland Act 1998 sets the standards regime for this Parliament. Incorporated in our code of conduct are no fewer than 124 paragraphs based on statute regulating our standards. The Standards Committee's role is to ensure that members' behaviour in relation to that code of conduct is monitored.

Why is that a better solution than an independent commission? The fact of the matter is that, as the bill clearly stipulates, such a commission will be appointed by the Scottish Executive. Members should ask themselves whether such a commission could really be described as independent of this Parliament when commissioners and the chief investigating officer are appointed by ministers.

Would the Lobbygate inquiry launched by the Standards Committee last year ever have got off the ground if such a commission had been in place? Remember that the Executive's first inclination was to resist a public inquiry. Surely it is better that we as MSPs should have a politically balanced parliamentary committee that can undertake investigations into the conduct of members, however exalted, and that can be seen to do so without fear or favour.

I commend the bill to Parliament and I acknowledge the work and consultation that has gone into bringing it before members today. However, as for the struggle to drive standards in Scottish public life ever higher, we must be aware that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Wendy Alexander spoke about the spirit of modernisation; that spirit is at the heart of the bill. People had, and I hope still have, great expectations and high hopes for the Scottish Parliament. It is imperative that the Scottish Parliament lives up to its aims of openness and accountability. Trish Godman spoke about public confidence. It is important that the public have confidence not only in MSPs and how they conduct themselves, but in the wider public sector, which includes councillors and devolved public bodies. The bill is at the heart of the way in which those in public service conduct themselves, so it is important.

Kenny Gibson raised an important issue, which has been discussed at great length in the Local Government Committee—the range of bodies that should be covered by the bill under the title public service, or those bodies that receive public money. Trish Godman also alluded to that matter, which will need to be considered further.

Two main issues arise. First, can MSPs be included in the bill as it is presently drafted and, if not, what alterations would be needed? Secondly, should this bill be extended to cover the other bodies that have been mentioned, such as local enterprise companies, governing councils of further education bodies, university governing bodies and the area tourist boards? Correspondence has called for the ATBs to be included. The general feeling from the evidence is that as far as possible the bill should address those issues. However, the fact that a chief investigating officer and standards commission appointed by ministers would be looking at MSPs is causing difficulty, as it would mean that there was no independent person to oversee MSPs. There is something wrong with that; perhaps Frank McAveety will say how we can address that difficulty.

At the very least we need to have, and I hope that the bill will provide for, a national code of conduct for all those engaged in public service. The code will have to be tweaked to meet the needs of different bodies, but an issue arises from using the same mechanism across the board, as that would have implications for MSPs.

I will quickly raise a few other matters. First, the Local Government Committee discussed the appeals procedure at length. I am glad that Wendy Alexander said that she has taken that on board and that the matter will be examined further. Secondly, an Educational Institute of Scotland submission called for the minimisation of harassment and malevolent claims against members. That must be looked at during the bill's later stages. The submission called for the range of sanctions that are available to the standards commission to be widened, and for the roles that the standards commission, the local government ombudsman and the Accounts Commission will take on to be examined—a point that was raised earlier. The criteria that apply to those bodies need to be tightened up. The submission also mentioned the protection of employees and other public servants from excessive investigation. Again, that must be looked at later. Thirdly, the Commission for Racial Equality made the important point that when we are drafting the code of conduct we ought to consider racial equality and equal opportunities.

Donald Gorrie made some excellent points about section 2A. He alluded to the evidence from Gordon Jeyes and Bob McKay from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. Gordon Jeyes said that

"repeal is no longer the sole issue. It is a signal that we make to civil Scotland and, more important, to tomorrow's citizens . . . Therefore, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland wishes to make a commitment to resisting prejudice and ignorance."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 14 March 2000; c 708.]

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The ancient Greeks tied ethics to morals, but today standards are tied to benchmarks of good behaviour.

I first became a councillor in 1964. The then Glasgow corporation supplied me with a lovely green council diary, in which were the names of councillors and officials and the times of committee meetings.

In the 1970s, standing orders pages were added. In the 1980s, a declaration of interests section was added. Finally, in the 1990s, we received 13 pages of the national code of local government conduct. In addition, Glasgow City Council set up a standards committee on which five parties were represented, as well as a number of outsiders, including Professor Alan Alexander. Some of the standards committee members are here today as MSPs. One difficulty that I foresaw at that time was this: where did internal party discipline of members end and the standards committee begin? To this day, I have never received an answer. Perhaps Frank McAveety or Trish Godman could give me an answer, because I wonder whether such a situation could arise at any level of government.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life, which used to be chaired by Lord Nolan and, since 1997, has been chaired by Lord Neill, defined the seven principles of public life as selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Over the past few months, section 28 or 2A has taken up many hours of media time. Virtually every MSP has been deluged with mail on the subject. I believe that the vast majority of the electorate does not want section 28 to be aborted. However, it is interesting to read that the European convention on human rights may be being thwarted in some ways. In the opinion of a QC, and contrary to the claims of the Executive, there is no legal right of withdrawal for parents. The QC also indicates that a letter sent by Sam Galbraith to, I believe, a Christian institute in Scotland—it was a draft circular—does not constitute guidance for the purposes of convention law. So difficulties could arise surrounding section 28.

I turn now to gay and lesbian rights. We had a gay and lesbian working party on Glasgow City Council. Its representatives, quite rightly, wanted to have the same opportunities as the rest of the population. No one in here would quarrel with that. However, one thing that puzzled me was that they then established a gay and lesbian business centre in the city, which would appear to conflict with their original request.

I agree with Kenny Gibson and others that it is unfortunate that section 28 has overshadowed the bill that is under discussion. The Nolan committee's first report, in May 1995, dealt with three broad areas of public life—members of Parliament; the Executive's ministers and civil servants; and quangos. Kenny Gibson mentioned the problem of malicious whistle-blowing, a point that had previously been highlighted in a committee report of November 1997.

All quangos are expected to be open, accountable and effective, yet the likes of members of national health service trusts—unlike councillors—do not have their names displayed in, for example, libraries. I asked nine intelligent and knowledgeable people whether they could name their MP, MSP and councillor. Eight named their MP, six named their MSP, and four named their councillor. No one knew any member of their local NHS trust, so it appears that they are not very open.

An independent team of investigators directed by a chief investigating officer, or CIO, has been mentioned. The sanctions relating to councillors, including suspension from attending meetings for up to 12 months, or disqualification from office for up to five years, cause me some concern, especially the latter. Ministers of the day will appoint the CIO. Irrespective of which party may be in power, I think that that holds elements of danger. If a councillor has been elected, there are only two ways in which they should be removed—at an election, or by law. I am not at all happy with the sanctions.

A water industry commissioner has also been mentioned. I recommend that members refer to the letters column of The Herald today and read the correspondence on that subject.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I apologise for being absent at the beginning of the debate—I was having transport difficulties—and missing some of the opening comments. I should also declare an interest: my husband is a councillor in Glasgow City Council. I understand that some people believe that that may prejudice what I say. I find that hard to believe, but there we are.

I broadly welcome the bill and am encouraged by the view that people have been taking on the importance of establishing confidence in people who serve the public, whether in councils, public bodies or elsewhere. There was a clear consensus in the Local Government Committee on a broad range of issues. Many of the concerns that were expressed in the committee have already been rehearsed and will be revisited at stage 2.

Aspiration is the easy bit—the devil is in the detail. We must re-examine seriously some of the concerns. I welcome the Executive's willingness to engage in debate and dialogue through the committee process. I hope that that will continue and that it will commend that approach to other members of the Executive at other times.

Specific concerns raised in the Local Government Committee include the problem that MSPs are not included in the bill. We must address that, not least to minimise the opportunity for cynicism about what we are doing. If we establish processes to regulate others but choose not to regulate ourselves, that will increase rather than decrease cynicism. Adam Ingram's concerns about the way the system might work would apply equally to local councils and us. I am not comfortable with regulating myself but demanding other standards for others; I hope that Parliament will look at that at a later stage.

The committee was also concerned at the exclusion of groups such as local enterprise companies and bodies regulated by company law. It felt that that threw up contradictions and it did not find the Executive's response convincing. We need to cohere national ethical standards rather than to splinter them.

A lot of the debate has been on section 2A. As a member of the Local Government Committee and of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I heard a great deal of the evidence, much of which I found compelling. A clear recommendation of the Local Government Committee stage 1 report is that section 2A should be repealed.

It is evident that there is not one voice speaking for parents or for children. There are huge concerns for children, but they are not the monopoly of one group or one side in the debate. In the Local Government Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee, Labour members welcomed the support of Liberal Democrat and SNP members in understanding the principles involved and supporting the Executive's moves to draft a section that focused on the needs of children.

I was disappointed that the willingness to meet the broad political challenges thrown up by the debate was not matched by the SNP education spokesperson, who could not resist opportunism and seeking party political advantage. This morning, I heard her saying on the radio that the distinction between the SNP and Executive positions lies between the guidelines being written into the bill or anchored in it. I presume her point is not so much the distinction as to show that there is one.

I draw members' attention to the Keep the Clause campaign's evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee. It partially accepted that the section should go, that it discriminates and that there is no evidence of plans for gay sex lessons or of groups awaiting the opportunity to invade our schools with homosexual propaganda. That showed me that the Keep the Clause campaign is more comfortable arguing on billboards, in misleading petitions and through a referendum that will falsely polarise the debate than in dealing with the complexities that the debate has revealed.

Particularly today, when we are trying to encourage girls to challenge some of the roles currently apportioned to women through bringing our daughters to work, I hope that the current discussion on guidelines for education in sex and relationships will provide an opportunity to raise the widely held concerns about the early sexualisation of our children and about some young boys' attitudes towards the legitimacy of using violence against their girlfriends.

The horrifying findings of the Zero Tolerance Trust on the attitudes of some young men—and indeed some young girls—about what is acceptable in a relationship and our concerns about early sexualisation surely give far greater cause for concern than the false fears that have been generated in the debate. I hope that the Executive will pursue concerns raised by Zero Tolerance in developing discussion with young people in schools.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am disappointed that we have to have this debate at all. It would have been wonderful if we had in public life people of such upstanding character that the issues could be addressed through self-discipline. There have been calls for self and peer-group regulation, but I recognise that that also is unacceptable these days.

We have before us a bill that deals broadly with the public's concerns. I support the aspects that deal with ethics and standards in public life. I am a little concerned about a couple of aspects of the bill, in that the range of sanctions available to the chief investigating officer is not broad enough. The opportunity to suspend or remove a councillor from office is almost as bad as the arrangements for a surcharge, which was a blunt instrument. We should consider a broader range of sanctions as we go through stage 2.

The sanction of removing special responsibility allowances while someone is under suspension and still just under investigation is extremely unfortunate. We have encouraged people to put themselves forward for public office. They, and others, may depend on that income. They may suffer a substantial drop in income, which will not be rectified afterwards if they are found to be innocent. That matter should be examined closely.

I am also concerned that there appears to be an overlap of the functions of the chief investigating officer, the standards commission and a number of other bodies. The Accounts Commission has a role in this area, as does the local government ombudsman—I cannot remember what that individual's grand title is. We must ensure that there is not duplication and that the roles of those bodies are clarified. I look forward to the Executive introducing some clarity on that point at stage 2.

I broadly welcome the bill. I hope that, at stage 2, we can make progress on the issues that I have mentioned.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Like Johann Lamont, I will start by declaring an interest: my wife is a councillor. Also like Johann Lamont, I was delayed due to transport problems, so I was not in the chamber at the start of the debate. I apologise for that.

Kenny Gibson said that the Local Government Committee has scrutinised this bill extensively, in its pre-legislative phase and at stage 1. The outcome of that scrutiny is that the Local Government Committee broadly welcomes the bill and recommends its general principles to Parliament.

This bill plays a part in restoring public confidence, which has fallen in recent years. One of the disappointing aspects of today's debate has been the attempt by Conservative members, on occasion, to use it as an opportunity to attack local government in Scotland. Public faith in politicians and politics is not just about local government; it also extends to Parliament. Every member, if they were honest about it, would be able to think of members of their own party who have fallen short of the standards that the public has a right to expect. Kenny Gibson struck the right tone when he said that we should not try to attribute blame for the fall in public faith, but examine ways to restore it.

The Executive, to its credit, has improved the bill in several ways. The welcome extension to cover all public bodies, not just local authorities, is supported by COSLA. I also welcome its commitment to lodge amendments to introduce a right of appeal for councillors who face dismissal from their post. That was missing from the original bill, has been called for by a wide range of bodies and is supported by the Local Government Committee.

A couple of issues remain to be addressed at stage 2. I do not wish to go over all the points that my colleagues on the committee have already made. However, 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. My understanding is that, as it stands, the bill would apply to councillors on those bodies, but not to other members. We should ensure that there is a consistent procedure for councillors and other members of those bodies.

The Local Government Committee expressed concern that the bill does not outline established rules of procedure for the standards commission. While I recognise that it is not necessary for such rules to be part of the bill, the Executive should consider a means of establishing them so that anyone who faces investigatory action or a hearing by the standards commission will know how the commission will go about it. It is only natural justice that, in any form of disciplinary procedure, people understand the procedure that they will face.

The bill represents a contribution towards re-establishing the public's faith in politics and government at all levels. I welcome the Executive's open approach towards many of the suggestions that have been made by committees and by bodies outwith the Parliament. I trust that that open approach will continue through stage 2.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Scotland has a proud tradition of public service, which will be enhanced by the provisions in the bill to establish a framework for the fair and equitable application of a set of ethical standards for people in public life. Those underlying principles of fairness and equity make the bill a particularly appropriate vehicle for the repeal of a previous piece of legislation—section 2A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1986—that is neither fair nor equitable.

Article 2 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights establishes a right to education; article 8 upholds the right to respect for family and private life; article 14 prohibits discrimination in the application of the other rights. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that article 14 applies to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The European convention on human rights is incorporated into Scottish law by the Scotland Act 1998.

Using a criterion that is an illegal basis for discrimination, section 2A singles out members of one group in the population and labels them and their relationships as unacceptable. For that reason alone, it requires to be repealed. However, there are other reasons.

The perception that section 2A offers protection to young people is wrong. Section 2A, if we read it literally, is meaningless. It has never been invoked in law. While I see the force of Miss Goldie's argument, I understand that in England and Wales it has not been applicable to schools for several years, since responsibility for governing schools passed to school boards from the local authorities through which the legislation applies.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The reason for that is that school governors in England have, I believe, a power of consideration of material and of veto, which is not, as I understand it, currently available to school boards in Scotland.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I thank the member for that expansion.

As it is a useless and meaningless piece of legislation, why bother about section 2A at all? The answer is that it has a number of negative and even harmful effects. Just having the sort of discriminatory and hateful wording of section 2A on the statute book at all signals the implicit legitimisation of intolerance, which could be extended, in some people's minds, to tacit acceptance of homophobic bullying or even violence.

The section has had an inhibiting effect on teachers' ability to answer questions from their pupils on issues around homosexuality. Young people who are gay or think that they may be gay have been denied proper support and counselling. The underlying motivation for homophobic bullying has gone unchallenged.

There has been a well resourced advertising campaign to keep the clause, but no real evidence has been produced that the repeal of section 2A will result in any harm to our children. The professionalism and decency of Scottish teachers will ensure that sensitive issues will continue to be taught in our schools in the appropriate way. National, local authority and in-school guidelines are in place and they are being reviewed to ensure that parental concerns are being met. Parents in Scotland will continue to be consulted about all teaching materials that are used for sex education in schools. Any Scottish parent may, if they wish, withdraw their child from a lesson—that option will remain.

Those are the safeguards that are in place for pupils and parents now, and which will be in place after section 2A goes. Liberal Democrats opposed section 2A at its inception and have supported its repeal ever since—as we do now. A society that demands high ethical standards is a society in which section 2A has no place. I applaud all aspects of the bill.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Local Government Committee for its efforts in taking evidence on the bill. Although there has been much talk about the consensual nature of the committee, it is worth noting that on matters that concern the repeal of section 2A, Keith Harding, the Conservative member on the committee, noted his dissent. However, he did offer his support for other aspects of the bill.

The Conservatives agree with some 95 per cent of the bill, so it is with some sadness that we feel unable to support the bill today on account of our amendment not being accepted for debate. This is the second time we have submitted an amendment at stage 1 that has not been accepted for debate, but today we find that an Executive amendment to a member's bill has been selected. Although I understand that the Presiding Officer does not need to give reasons why he does not select certain amendments, it would benefit members to have guidance on whether there is any purpose in lodging amendments at this stage of consideration of bills.

The Conservatives believe that reform is required and, therefore, we offer our support for much of the bill. We support the purpose of a standards commission, but we reserve our position on how its establishment might be achieved.

It is with some sadness that I note that the debate about the bill has concentrated on section 2A, but that is no surprise given the way in which the debate has developed. Section 2A was introduced in the late 1980s to deal with a genuine concern. There was no evidence of any prosecution previously because the legislation did not exist; its purpose was to deal with concerns that were raised by specific evidence in the metropolis of London.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will carry on—I have a great deal to get through and I would like to make my points. If I have time, I will allow Mr McAveety to intervene later.

Members will be familiar with "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin". In a sense, that document encapsulated the arguments in favour of the section.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

Will Mr Monteith take an intervention on that subject?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

rose—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member has indicated that he will not take any interventions. Please carry on, Mr Monteith.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The act and the guidelines that accompany it deem such documents inappropriate. It is important that the Executive and the SNP—who suggest that they have some alternatives in mind—tell members whether they think documents such as "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin" would be inappropriate and whether they can reassure parents with new guidelines and a new clause.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am going to carry on.

When it comes to the arguments against the section and for repeal, bullying and discrimination are consistently mentioned. The guidance makes it quite clear that bullying and discussions of all natures of sexuality can be dealt with in schools. There is undoubtedly discrimination in the letter of the law—discrimination about what can and cannot be promoted in sex education in schools. In that sense there is a rationale for the repeal of section 2A, which I will touch on in a minute.

However, has that legal discrimination been malicious? As I have outlined, the accompanying guidance allows teachers to deal with the issues of sexuality and homophobic bullying. Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network said on "Good Morning Scotland":

"I am sure that things are getting better. There has been a big change in attitudes towards gay people in Scotland over the last ten years".

Tim Hopkins, who supports the repeal of section 2A, accepted that even in the period in which the section has been in place gay rights have advanced.

The purpose of section 28 was not to attack homosexuals or their homosexuality; it was purely to deal with a particular problem then.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No; I am very near to finishing.

If section 2A is removed, adequate reassurance must be put in its place. That is why we have submitted amendments to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill that allow for—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am coming to a point on which Nicola Sturgeon will be able to intervene.

Our amendments would allow for the explicit right of parents to remove their children from sex education and would give school boards the power to consider the material and curricular nature of sex education in schools.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Please wind up.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Certainly.

In finishing—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If members had tried to make fewer interventions, I might have got through my speech quicker and had time to allow an intervention.

In winding up, I pay tribute to Wendy Alexander. Although she has made misjudgments in much of the handling of the issue, she has persevered and battled on and has gained a great deal of respect for the way in which she has put forward her views.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Come to a close, please.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the SNP, which has tried to ride two horses at once. Only yesterday in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Come to a close, please, Mr Monteith.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Peacock made it clear that section 12 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill cannot be used to introduce statutory guidance. Therefore, unless there is support for our amendments to that bill and to the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill, and unless adequate reassurance is given to parents, with some sadness we will have to vote against this bill.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As a member of the Local Government Committee, I, too, begin by welcoming the bill, and by thanking all those who have worked so hard to produce the proposals that we are considering today.

I hope that the breadth of debate that there has been gives an indication of the range of issues that the committee has considered. The interest that there has been in this debate is a tribute to those in local government and across civic Scotland who are determined that we should have the highest standards in public life.

I congratulate the Executive on most of its work on the bill. I exclude from my congratulations the Executive's handling of section 2A. I would fail in my duty as a committee member and as a member of the Opposition if I did not point out that, as a consequence of the Executive's actions, the section 2A debate has been allowed to overshadow the bill and the other major subjects it covers. However, that matter has been adequately dealt with by Nicola Sturgeon and I do not intend to return to the detail of it.

From my work at all levels of public life in Scotland—first as a councillor and now as a member of the Parliament—I am confident in the determination and ability of the vast majority of people in the public domain to maintain high standards in public life. Repeatedly, the committee has heard evidence of how the thoughtless or selfish actions of a self-serving or careless tiny minority can tarnish and undermine dedicated public work. Repeatedly, the committee heard arguments for mechanisms to bring a halt to the actions of the few that taint the work of the many and lose the confidence of the people. The sentiment of the bill largely satisfies that aim and I am pleased that, as a committee, we have been able to draw together the strengths of experience from across our nation to ensure a framework to secure best practice for all.

I said "largely satisfies", but there are shortcomings, which have been mentioned today. This is the hard part of my speech—I will have to read my own writing. Representatives of four parties—John Young, Michael McMahon, Kenny Gibson and Donald Gorrie—all spoke of the need for public bodies that operate, and spend from the public purse, in Scotland to be covered by the legislation. The bill should be a catch all, rather than a catch some.

Colin Campbell and Bill Aitken spoke about the problem with arm's-length companies. At present, when such companies are established by local authorities, the situation is rather anomalous. The Local Government Committee also feels that it is anomalous that a councillor, for example, would be the only one to be held responsible, while others in the company would not be treated in the same way.

Kenny Gibson and Brian Adam mentioned interim suspension, about which I, along with the Local Government Committee, have some difficulty in relation to loss of income. Many of our councillors, across the parties, are full-time and put a lot of time into their work. I repeat my words from a Local Government Committee meeting, which best describe my feelings on the matter:

"If a councillor on responsibility payments were suspended, you would, in effect, be taking their employment and their salary from them. If the person turned out to be innocent and the suspension were lifted, that person would have had an unfair burden placed upon them and there would be no way of giving them back the income they had lost. A better way to proceed would be to treat them equally and pay them until they were proven guilty, as happens in the private sector."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 28 March 2000; c 751.]

I think that we would all agree with that. The minister mentioned that there may be something on that in the future stages of the bill, and I hope that he takes that point on board.

Colin Campbell talked about surcharging. Why are councillors alone singled out and subject to surcharging? It is a penal instrument of the dark ages and should be dumped now, as is about to happen in England.

I praise the standard of the work that is undertaken in Scottish public life, in particular in local government. I draw Parliament's attention to the Nolan committee's 1997 report, which states that

"we have found an enormous number of dedicated and hardworking people. We are of course well aware of the relatively few, but highly publicised, cases where things have gone wrong or people have behaved improperly. But it is important to set such cases in . . . context".

In Scotland, that context is a huge majority of dedicated, hard-working individuals, who selflessly work for their local communities and for the nation's benefit. The bill will protect their work and enhance their reputation. A little further consideration will ensure that such protection is broad and comprehensive. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

First, I add my thanks to the Local Government Committee for its considered review of the bill, and for its many suggestions and comments. I thank, too, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which also considered the bill and made a number of points. It asked me to consider those points further, which of course, as always, I am willing to do.

The bill, which sets the new ethical standards for local government and other bodies, is based on the principles of openness, fairness and trust. The codes will allow councillors and members of public bodies to demonstrate publicly the highest standards of conduct. Any failure in those standards will be dealt with fairly and firmly. The new ethical framework will bring to light the very high standards to which most councillors and members of public bodies adhere.

I was sorry to hear Annabel Goldie's speech, because she is always most fair and measured in her comments. However, her attacks on local government and councillors were quite inappropriate. We should recognise the considerable contribution, including the long hours and the consequent disruption to family life, that many councillors make with little thanks and subject to abuse from all quarters. It does not behove any of us to use a few examples to attack that general principle. I hope that we will hear nothing further of it. I hope that the proposals in the bill will remove any shadow of suspicion and allow councillors and members of public bodies to get on with the business of local government and administration.

Mr Gibson made several points, most of which we will certainly consider. I was slightly puzzled by some of those points because, as Mr Gibson knows, we have moved considerably in the bill in response to the constructive comments that have been made. Many of the matters that we will need to discuss further are technical.

Many members spoke about the question of which bodies are covered by the bill. On that matter, we should adhere to principles—it is an issue for serious debate. There is a question about drawing a line. I heard Mr Gorrie say that we should include bodies paid from the public purse and which hand out money from the public purse. That can be taken to a reductio ad absurdum. Are we talking about charities such as Help the Aged and other voluntary organisations? They are paid for out of the public purse. We must consider the problem of where we draw the line. We should not just draw the line against the folk we do not like. We must use logic in that and must be careful not to lose the good will that it out there.

Mr Campbell raised the question of surcharge. We are in extensive discussions on that and it is a matter of process rather than of principle. That is something that we will want to go back to in a further local government bill. Mr Paterson and others mentioned the special responsibility allowance. The SRA is given for the job that one is doing at the time. If a person is not doing the job, they are not entitled to the allowance. However, that is a point that we can debate. The basic allowance remains.

I turn to section 2A and its repeal. At Westminster, where I am still a member, I have heard several very important speeches. A couple of those were given by the late John Smith, who made some tremendous speeches at the time of the European debate in Parliament. Another seminal speech was the one given by Geoffrey Howe. I remember listening in awe, because we could not believe that he was saying what he was saying. However, the one that really struck me was the resignation speech of Norman Lamont. He said of the Major Government that its trouble was that it was in government, but not in power. I vowed that when I was in government, we would be in power.

Norman Lamont's criticism was that his Government spent too much time chasing the next day's headlines, being run by tabloids and other pressure groups, rather than deciding what was right and being accountable for it. That is why we are elected: to arrive at a decision based on our best judgment of the opinions and advice that we can get and to see that through. Tabloids and rich people change their views from day to day and are not accountable. They do not have to live with the consequences. Although it is important to listen to their comments, we must decide these matters for ourselves.

We have been accused of not listening to the public about section 2A. Indeed, at the end of my road, there were three of those posters saying that I was not listening and showing me with my fingers in my ears. By the way, my girls were not so sure that it was me on the posters; that man was too good-looking and his tie was tied perfectly—and I agreed with them. But such posters are an example of the kind of sophisticated, mature discussion that we have had on this important issue.

The Executive has listened to the public. People have said that they do not want gay sex lessons or gay role-playing in our schools. We agree. There is no question of that happening. They have said that they do not want pornography in our schools. Again, we agree. In fact, that is a criminal offence. We have listened to the arguments against what we are doing, and none of them stand up. Furthermore, we have tried to meet parents' demands for statutory provisions: section 26, for example, recognises the importance of family life and the content of instruction.

A further argument about statutory guidelines was reiterated in this morning's debate. I am grateful that Nicola Sturgeon has pulled back from her earlier extreme position on this matter and is now talking about statutory guidance instead. She raised the very telling point with the Tories that there had been no problems before section 2A was introduced; however, she should remember that there were no statutory guidelines then either, so the logic of her argument about introducing such guidelines now does not stand up.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Sorry, I am in my final two minutes.

I also remind Nicola Sturgeon that, when we asked the working group that was examining the existing guidelines to investigate the package of safeguards that were in place, it was content that the safeguards were sufficiently complete, wide-ranging and robust to meet the concerns of the public, parents and teachers. That group was made up of teachers, representatives from parents' groups such as the Scottish School Board Association and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, the Catholic Education Commission and the Church of Scotland. We have listened to that group's recommendations, and introduced the necessary safeguards.

The Local Government Committee's report gives sound endorsement to our proposal to repeal section 2A and to introduce a new duty on local authorities in respect of their functions in relation to children. The repeal of section 2A will do one thing, and one thing only: it will remove an ugly constraint on local authorities. Section 2A has never protected our children. As Nicola Sturgeon said—quoting from me, I hope—our children are protected by the professionalism of teachers and education managers; by the partnership between schools and parents; and by the national and local guidelines. We set up a working group to examine those guidelines and, as I have already said, the package of safeguards was sufficiently complete, wide-ranging and robust to meet the concerns of the public, parents and teachers about the repeal of section 2A. The group will now continue with its work.

We have listened to people's comments on this issue and have acted accordingly. I commend the bill to the Parliament.

Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill

Business Motion

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-776 on the business programme, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, as set out in the business bulletin.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I advise the chamber that the Conservatives have indicated that the subjects for their debate on Thursday 4 May will be education and the provision of services for the elderly, which will be a separate debate. I also advise members that the Executive business on the afternoon of Thursday 4 May will be a debate on the role of sport in social inclusion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees

(a) the following programme of business Wednesday 3 May 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Business Motion to include timetabling of Stage 3 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 3 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-750 Gordon Jackson: Govan Shipyard Thursday 4 May 2000

9.30 am Non-Executive Business - Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-626 Margaret Ewing: Glenrinnes School Closure Wednesday 10 May 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Non-Executive Business - Scottish National Party followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-769 Mr John Munro: The Cuillins Thursday 11 May 2000

9.30 am Ministerial Statement followed by Committee Business - Transport and Environment Committee Report on Telecommunications followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time followed by Debate on Special Educational Needs followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-737 David Davidson: A90 Upgrade and (b) that the Stage 1 of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill be completed by 24 May 2000.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that motion S1M-776, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You will be aware that the legal opinion, sought at very short notice and delivered to you this morning, suggested that your agreement to accept the Executive's amendment to today's stage 1 debate on the member's bill in my name was contrary to rule 9.6 of standing orders on the conduct of debate at stage 1 on members' and other bills.

The legal opinion makes it clear that the Executive's amendment draws into the debate issues that are beyond the remit of the bill and that would have been more appropriately dealt with at stage 2, when detailed amendments will be considered. The Executive has the opportunity either to move that the Parliament refers the bill back to the lead committee for further consideration of any issue that the Executive feels needs further consideration or, alternatively, to vote against the general principles of the bill.

Presiding Officer, you have allowed the Executive to abuse the standing orders of the Parliament by allowing it to put forward a statement that justifies it voting against the general principles of the bill. Like the Conservatives, the Executive does not deserve the opportunity to put such a statement forward. It has the right to vote for or against the bill or to refer it back. You are creating a special case for the Executive. It does not augur well for the future conduct of debates on members' bills if the Executive is to be allowed to interfere in this manner.

David (None, Lothians)

I assure Mr Sheridan that I have given this matter careful thought during the morning. I must rule that there is nothing in the standing orders to prevent notice from being given of an amendment to a motion to agree to the general principles of a bill. Notice of amendments can be given at any time after a motion has been lodged. In this case, the rules relating to giving notice of motions and amendments have been complied with fully.

I will write to Mr Sheridan to respond in detail to the points raised in the legal opinion that he passed to me. However, the main argument in that opinion relates to the information contained in amendment S1M-772.1, which, it is argued, introduces matters outwith the scope of the general principles of the bill. The amendment to the motion does not attempt to amend the bill or the general principles of the bill. That is the point. It is my ruling, therefore, that there is nothing to prevent such information from being introduced in the debate this afternoon.

It is quite true that the Executive could simply oppose the general principles of the bill, as the member suggested, but there is nothing out of order in its lodging a motion giving its reasons for opposing the motion, which is what has been done.

That is my ruling. I will write to the member in detail.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order similar to that raised by Tommy Sheridan, I would like you, Presiding Officer, to address the wider issue of whether the key principles of the constitutional steering group report, which underpins the ethos of this Parliament, have been breached.

The CSG report is clear that

"the Scottish Parliament should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Executive."

The effect of accepting the Executive's amendment will be that no member's bill will ever become law unless it has the explicit support of the Executive. That is unacceptable, intolerable and flies in the face of what the CSG anticipated and what the people of Scotland expect.

Like Mr Sheridan, I do not believe that under standing orders it is competent to accept an amendment that changes the general principles of any bill.

David (None, Lothians)

I must interrupt on that specific point. My point is that the amendment does not change the general principles of the bill, which is why I have given my ruling.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that an amendment such as that lodged by the Executive is not explicitly ruled out by standing orders. However, it is my view that, for all the reasons given by Tommy Sheridan and me, it should be. Will you therefore, Presiding Officer, raise this matter with the Procedures Committee as a matter of urgency so that the Parliament can have confidence in itself and its procedures, and so that the spirit of the consultative steering group report is upheld?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Further to that point of order, Sir David. Rule 9.6.4 of the standing orders says that

"the Parliament shall consider the general principles of the Bill in the light of the lead committee's report and decide the question whether those general principles are agreed to."

The amendment in the name of Mr Jim Wallace introduces material that the lead committee has not considered. There would therefore be a clear breach of rule 9.6.4 if the amendment is ruled to be in order.

David (None, Lothians)

I am afraid that that is a misunderstanding of the rule, Mr McAllion. This is the point that I have been trying to address to Mr Sheridan. The fact that the standing order refers to the stage 1 debate being conducted

"in the light of the lead committee's report"

clearly does not prevent any other matters from being introduced. That is the legal advice that I have had. I think that it is correct.

On the wider issue as to whether those matters should have been introduced at an earlier stage and debated in committee, I have a great deal of sympathy with what members are saying. However, that is a matter of political argument in this afternoon's debate, and indeed outside this chamber; it is not a matter of order for me in the chair.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On a point of order. I take what you say, Presiding Officer, but is there not something fundamentally suspicious and perhaps incompetent about an amendment that says that it agrees with the principle of what a bill is trying to achieve but goes on to say, in the same sentence, that it disagrees with the principles of the bill? I have never seen an amendment phrased or couched in such a manner in any of the Parliaments that I have been in. Is there not something fundamentally suspicious about an amendment that tries to take the standing orders and have it both ways?

David (None, Lothians)

That is a point for perfectly legitimate political argument this afternoon. With regard to a point of order for me in the chair, I have simply to rule whether the amendment is in order or not in order. I have to rule that it is in order, and I will give my reasons in much greater detail in a letter to the original complainer, Mr Sheridan.

That, I am afraid, is all that I can say on the matter, and I suspend the meeting until—

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Presiding Officer, will you refer the matter that I raised to the Procedures Committee?

David (None, Lothians)

I apologise. I forgot to respond to that specific request. The answer is that it is not always for me to refer matters to the Procedures Committee. Members are free to do so themselves, and I encourage Tricia Marwick to raise her point with that committee.

I am currently in correspondence with the convener of the Procedures Committee as to whether I should be referring matters to it. Any member is entitled to do so, and I think that Tricia Marwick raised a fair point which the committee ought to consider.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin question time today, I am sure that members would like to welcome the group of Norwegian parliamentarians, led by Gunnar Skaug, who are in the gallery to observe our proceedings. [Applause.]

Question Time — Scottish executive

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to review the current duties of local authorities in relation to rehousing convicted paedophiles and other sex offenders, especially in small rural communities. (S1O-1556)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I will be absolutely delighted to answer that question, as soon as I get my bearings.

Detailed guidance on housing of sex offenders was issued to local authorities in April 1999. At present we have no plans to review local authorities' duties.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for his answer, which he just managed to get in. Will he confirm that he has received representations both from my colleague David Mundell and from the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council, which I fully support, about the severe problems that are being experienced at present in that region with regard to rehousing of former paedophiles? Will he agree to meet Dumfries and Galloway Council and the other agencies involved to discuss the problem, as they have requested as a matter of considerable urgency?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I repeat what I just said: we think that appropriate measures are already in place to address the concerns that have been raised by the elected members. I should be delighted to discuss the situation with members from the area. If the local authority wishes to make a submission to my office, I will be happy to deal with it. However, essentially this is a matter of local concern, to be addressed locally within the framework that the ministerial team has outlined so far.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I hear what the minister is saying, but does he accept that when an individual gains a profile in a rural community, it is not possible to deal with them under existing arrangements? Does he also accept that the Scottish Executive both has a duty and should want to assist the local authority in dealing with that issue?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I reiterate that I should be happy to meet David Mundell and other MSPs from the area to discuss the matter. At the moment papers are being produced for discussion across ministerial areas that will address many of the concerns that have been raised.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive why it has withdrawn funding from the Scottish Council for Research in Education. (S1O-1562)

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The Scottish Executive has not withdrawn funding from the Scottish Council for Research in Education. For a number of years, the council has been funded on the basis of an annual service level agreement to provide the Executive with a range of research-related services. A costed list of services was tabled by the council on 6 April, and officials are now drafting an offer of contract to ensure continuity of services in 2000-01.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Can the minister give an assurance that the SCRE or some other body will continue to provide the Executive with the services that the SCRE currently provides, as a national clearing house for research, interpreting foreign research in a Scottish context, advising ministers on research priorities and disseminating research results to teachers?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

What we require of research in education is diversity, quality and a certain degree of independence. A body that was consistently funded by us, and on which we would have board members, would not fulfil all those conditions. Research is changing rapidly in the educational community, especially now that colleges, with their ethos and background in research, are part of the university system. I look forward to continuing good relationships with all the bodies that are involved in research.

Student Finance

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to amend the Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations 1995 to allow local authorities the discretion to make awards to students living outwith their boundaries. (S1O-1549)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

There are no plans to make such a change. If Kenneth Macintosh has information about particular problems, the Scottish Executive will be prepared to consider the situation further.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the minister aware of the difficulties that are caused by the insistence of the law on residency within a local authority? In my area in East Renfrewshire, I know of one young man who has been at the same school for four years, and who would like to stay on for fifth and sixth year, but who, because of family circumstances, needs to earn some money. He would normally qualify for a bursary, which would encourage him to continue with his education, but because his family now lives just outside the East Renfrewshire area, the local authority does not have the discretion to award him that bursary. Does the minister agree that that is not an especially good example of joined-up government, and that we should keep that area of the law under review?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I was unaware of that problem until today. The Executive is anxious to encourage young people—especially those from deprived families—to stay on at school for a sixth year. The education maintenance allowance trial in Ayrshire is about trying to achieve that. If there are problems with the operation of the regulations, the Executive will wish to take action on that. If Kenneth Macintosh gives me the details, I will investigate further and write to him in due course.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether its housing policy will preserve the right to rent with equal importance as the right to buy. (S1O-1559)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Our top priority is attracting new investment into rented homes. That is why our new housing partnership programme is expected to leverage over £2,000 million into homes for rent. We will also continue to recognise aspirations to home ownership.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is the minister aware that, in part of my constituency, in the old Kincardine and Deeside District Council area, the council housing stock has, since 1980, been reduced from 4,450 houses to just 2,900, and that there is a real fear that the proposals, as they stand, to extend further the right to buy might seriously reduce the availability of affordable rented housing in rural areas? Does the minister accept that maintaining affordable rented housing is vital to support rural communities, especially if we want to encourage young people to stay in the areas in which they were brought up?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

It is precisely because we share some of those concerns that I can confirm that Aberdeenshire Council has been awarded money under the new housing partnership programme that will deliver 184 homes for rent at low cost, and that Scottish Homes will approve a further 200 homes for rent in the next year, making a total of 384 homes for rent. That vastly exceeds the 120 additional sales—associated with the extension of the right to buy—that are estimated for the whole of Scotland.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress there has been on talks to secure the roll-on-roll-off ferry contract and the type 45 destroyer contract for the BAe Systems yards at Govan and Scotstoun. (S1O-1565)

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The awarding of those contracts is a reserved matter. We understand that on current plans the Ministry of Defence intends to place contracts for the ro-ro service and for first of class of the type 45 destroyer later this year. The Scottish Executive has ensured that the United Kingdom Government is fully aware of the importance of those contracts to BAe Systems shipyards on the Clyde.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I thank the minister—but he has not said where the contracts are going. Will he let me know the extent of military use to which the ro-ro ferries would be put? What would the percentage be? We need the truth, and not more damaging leaks, which deliberately play down military use and aid competitors with the Clyde yards. I trust that the minister agrees that the Parliament must prevent the Clyde from being sold out, and must protect thousands of Scottish jobs. Will he support an investigation by the Scottish Parliament into the secretive procurement methods of the Ministry of Defence in London and its outrageous and arrogant disregard for Scottish jobs?

David (None, Lothians)

The military aspect is a reserved matter.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

As a matter of courtesy to Dorothy-Grace Elder, she asked me what progress was being made, not where the contracts had been laid.

Everyone in the chamber is fighting to make sure that the Clyde gets orders to sustain capacity in the longer term. I defy anyone to argue against that. I like to think that we are unified; we are working very hard with the Scotland Office to ensure that every representation possible has been made. In a statement in the House of Commons on 17 April, the Secretary of State for Defence outlined the timetable, which is now extending—that is in our interests. Govan and the Clyde will be heavily involved with the type 45 destroyers.

It is vital to push the campaign forward. The work force and the trade unions are doing that. Today is the first opportunity that the Parliament has had to unite around the fact that we want work for Govan. We want it for two reasons. First, we fought hard to win for the yard last year, and with the skills, commitment, energy and determination that have been put in, it deserves a future. Secondly, the United Kingdom needs warship capacity in the medium to long term. It is in the interests of the UK, of the work force and of Scotland that we unite to win.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his words of support. He will be aware, however, of speculation that Govan might build only one of the roll-on-roll-off ferries required by the MOD. Is he aware that that would not in itself be enough to keep the yard open for the two years until it is due to start work, with Scotstoun, on the type 45 prototype? Is he further aware that what Govan needs to fill that gap is work equivalent to 28,000 tonnes of steel—that is equivalent to four roll-on-roll-off ferries? Does he agree that that calls for the entire contract to go to the Sealion consortium? Will he confirm that is what he will press the UK Government to deliver and that anything less would be a betrayal of the work force at Govan?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

It is a pity that such questions are laced with words such as betrayal. Is it not true that everyone in this chamber, no matter their political party or whether they are part of the Executive, wants to see success? I say to Nicola Sturgeon that there has been much speculation—it is time for us to stop speculating and to continue, with the Scotland Office, the hard work. We met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence. Everything conceivable has been done.

Let me make it quite clear: we want to retain shipbuilding capacity on the Clyde. We are doing everything possible to secure that and we should be optimistic that discussions are taking place at Westminster in which all the issues are being dealt with. I would like to think that the Scottish National party would put country before party and just say that it wants to support the work force to win the orders.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I declare an interest as a River Tweed commissioner.

To ask the Scottish Executive what controls are in place to prevent the release of genetically modified salmon or other GM fish species into the environment. (S1O-1557)

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am not a River Tweed commissioner.

Any proposal to release GM fish into the environment would be subject to consent from the Scottish Executive under the strict EU and UK regulatory framework. No application for such a release has been submitted, and we are not aware of any plans for such an application.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the minister for his reassuring reply. He will know of concerns that escaped farmed salmon can dilute the gene pool of salmon and sea trout in our rivers. Will he bear that in mind if there are any applications to farm GM salmon in Scottish waters?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Yes. Wild salmon fisheries are important to the Scottish rural economy. It would be fair to assume that the either deliberate or accidental introduction of very large alien fish into rivers such as the Tweed could threaten wild fish stocks. I am certain that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment would take account of that consideration in determining such an application. The Scottish Executive would certainly take account of such considerations.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Does the minister agree that if the issue arises, it should be brought to the Parliament before any decision is made?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Any decision will be made under the regulatory framework that has been established by the United Kingdom and the European Union. The final authority, as far as Scotland is concerned, will be the Scottish Executive, which is answerable to this Parliament and rightly so.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I thank the minister for his reassuring answers. I am not one of those commissioners either. In a constituency such as mine, the rod and line industry is jittery. Will the minister convey his reassurances, via suitable channels, to that industry?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I acknowledge the importance of angling interests to the Scottish rural economy in constituencies such as Jamie Stone's.

I draw members' attention to the consultation document that I published on Tuesday this week, on protecting and promoting Scotland's freshwater fisheries and fish. This is an important issue for the whole country. I hope that members will encourage angling associations and clubs to contribute to that consultation. This is an industry and an interest with great potential for our rural economy. It is important for our environment, and we will take that into account in all our decisions.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the planned improvements to the A75 and the time scale for their implementation as outlined in the A75 route action plan are sufficient to prevent any further losses of ferry traffic from the Loch Ryan corridor to other routes such as Holyhead. (S1O-1584)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The transfer of traffic between routes from Eire and Northern Ireland will be influenced by a number of commercial factors beyond improvements to the A75.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I think that we are all aware of that, but what would the minister say to the Labour leader of the Dumfries and Galloway Council coalition, who said that he was disappointed at the time scale, and the number and scale of the proposed improvements? What would she say to the route director of Stena Line, who said that the proposed changes would have minimal impact?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I would say to both of them that we have invested heavily in that route over the past few years. A number of major improvements have been carried out; the Glen was the most recent one.

In the announcement that I made on trunk road and motorway maintenance work a couple of weeks ago—£444 million over the next two years—I made it clear that the next two schemes, Cairn Top to Barlae and Chapelton to Bush o' Bield, will be constructed over the next three years. The estimated costs of those schemes are £4.5 million. There has been a huge amount of investment in that route. I know that the council would like us to make more investment; that point is raised every time that I meet the council. I would be keen to tell it that we are moving ahead with the route action plan work and making investments in the current programme. Beyond that, we will consider the next set of route action plan improvements that are required in the next round of decisions on the maintenance of our trunk road and motorway network.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The A75 is an important route for the economies of not only Dumfries and Galloway, but Northern Ireland and northern England. What plans does the minister have to discuss the upgrade requirements with the local council, elected representatives from Northern Ireland and the UK Government?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The main priority that I have established is working with Dumfries and Galloway Council to ensure that it knows what is happening with the route action plan. When I recently published the route action plan, I ensured that the council and local members who expressed an interest received a copy, so that they could see what progress had been made and where we intended to take the plan further.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase expenditure on private sector housing in Scotland. (S1O-1591)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Responsibility for expenditure on private sector housing lies principally with the owners. The Executive will continue to support investment in private sector housing consistent with our broader housing policy objectives.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his answer. Does he agree that the cut in home improvement grants in Scotland from £101.256 million to £38.483 million over the past four years—a cut of more than 62 per cent—represents a failure of successive Governments to address the crisis in Scotland's private sector housing stock? Does he further agree that unless the Executive acts to remedy the situation urgently, it will represent a comprehensive failure to meet the needs of home owners and private renters, and will be proof positive that the Executive's failure on housing policy is not confined exclusively to the public sector?

David (None, Lothians)

I think that there was a question there somewhere.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Or a press release.

Until April 1986, responsibility for private sector housing grant lay with a spend allocated from the Scottish Executive. At the request of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, that was discontinued, so local priorities have determined how resources are best dealt with.

I reassure members that we treat seriously the issue of private sector housing investment. In fact, one of the reforms that we wish to point out, in relation to the new housing developments, is the allocation of grant to those in need. For the first time, income rates will determine how people receive support for house improvements. That will mean that we can target that support much more effectively than the indiscriminate way in which it is being done at the moment.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress new community schools in Scotland are making. (S1O-1578)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Thirty councils have established 37 new community school projects, involving over 150 schools. Each project has its management structures in place and has embarked on its planned work programme.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the minister for his answer, but does he agree that the success or failure of new community schools will very much depend on how they engage with other agencies, with pupils and with parents, in the development of every child's education? Furthermore, what monitoring is taking place to ensure that all the schools in the pilot projects are true community schools and are not simply schools with extra resources?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Karen Gillon raises important points. I assure her that because those projects are a new initiative, we are monitoring their development. We hope that they will make a significant difference to education and to the integration of services that serve young people and the wider community around the schools. We want genuine culture change in those schools. I chair a group—made up of a range of professionals who are involved in the projects—that monitors the projects' progress.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Will the minister ensure that legislation is in place to ensure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools inspects those community schools in an holistic manner and not simply on narrow, educational performance indicators?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As Cathy Peattie knows, at yesterday's Education, Culture and Sport Committee, when it discussed the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, the Executive agreed to introduce an amendment at stage 3 to provide for a code of practice in relation to the inspection of schools. One of the reasons why we agreed to do so is that Cathy Peattie and others have argued that we are developing a new form of education and that we require to ensure that it is inspected appropriately. I can give her the reassurance that she seeks.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what impact the "Health of the Nation" target has had upon death rates from lung cancer among women. (S1O-1567)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The "Health of the Nation" was an old policy document that set targets for England and did not apply in Scotland. The Scottish Executive's targets are set out in the white paper, "Towards a Healthier Scotland", which was endorsed by the Parliament last September. The latest figures show that mortality from lung cancer in Scottish women under 75 fell by 5.2 per cent between 1995 and 1998.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

I thank the minister for her reply. Does she agree that the most effective method of preventing lung cancer is to continue to educate the public on the dangers of smoking? Is she aware of the work of Health Promotions in Aberdeen, which has been successful in achieving lower levels of smoking among women, especially in the 25-to-34 age bracket? Does she agree that continuing to put more resources into health promotion is probably the way forward?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am very much aware of the work of Health Promotions in Aberdeen; indeed, I visited one of its premises recently, where its efforts were directed not towards smoking but towards diet. I was pleased to taste some of the samples that were offered by it and by the fishing industry that day.

The work that is carried out by Health Promotions and others shows precisely the activity that has to take place if we are to involve young people, other groups and other communities in taking steps to improve health. Not smoking is one area; diet and exercise are two others. We know that there has to be improvement in Scotland. The Government has made it clear that we are committed to prevention as well as cure. We have backed that with record levels of investment, a record amount of commitment and—I think—record effort and record energy. We will continue to do that.

The truth is that all of us as individuals have to take steps to improve our health. I hope that that joint effort of individuals, the Government and the Parliament will, over time, make a real difference.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister will be well aware of Scotland's especially poor record on survival rates for lung cancer. In light of that, will she explain why only around 5 per cent of patients in Scotland receive drug treatment for lung cancer, while in the United States, more than 50 per cent of patients receive drug therapy? The American five-year survival rate is more than double that of Scotland. Are not there lessons that we can learn from practice in the United States?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

There are always lessons to be learned, but I am not sure that the United States is the first place that I would look to for lessons on health care systems.

Some casual and erroneous international comparisons regarding health have been thrown around. We have been through the spending issue before, and figures on survival rates are compiled on different bases in different countries. I am not saying that they were not often good fakes, but for that reason, I would caution against the use of such comparisons.

There are often differences in clinical practice. Of course, we can learn lessons, but let us also remember that clinical decisions about the care of individual cancer patients—as in the care of any patients—are about the right and appropriate treatment for the individual. With regard to the development and delivery of the strategic direction of cancer services in Scotland, the work that the Scottish cancer group is spearheading is at the leading edge of examination, not only of drug treatments and therapies, but of the range of other treatments that must be considered in the development of high-quality cancer care.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to learn from the experience of drug courts in the United States. (S1O-1579)

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I looked at a wide range of policies and practices on drug misuse during my recent visit to the United States, and I am sure that some lessons from the American experience would bear further examination. The Scottish Executive will explore how it might try to incorporate the key lessons from America into our own justice system during the coming weeks and months.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank the minister for that reply. Will he assure me that, although we need effective enforcement measures, we must also search for alternatives to incarceration? Perhaps he can tell us of one or two ideas that he might try to take forward that arise from practice in the United States.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The principal purpose of my visit to the United States was to examine the treatment, care, rehabilitation and education side of the drug misuse equation, rather than the enforcement side. One of the key messages of my experience was that an approach that uses a combination of enforcement and rehabilitation might bear further examination, with a view to promoting such an approach in Scotland. That will mean ensuring that offenders have the quickest possible access to a full range of drug treatment facilities in the community. I am glad to say that that is already at the heart of the drugs strategy that the Scottish Executive is pursuing in partnership with drug action teams throughout Scotland.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I wonder whether I should congratulate the minister on being more open in his attitude to new ideas, wherever they come from.

Is the minister prepared to undertake further research on why there is such drug use and abuse in Scotland, and on why drug abuse is still so misunderstood after all the time and money that has been spent on researching the matter, as indicated in the evidence that was given yesterday in the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee? Does he agree that the best way in which to find out who is using drugs, why they are using them and what drugs they are using might be to form a special commission? I have lodged a motion on that and have been asking for such a commission for a number of months.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

One of the heartening lessons that I learned from the United States arose from examination of the approach that has been taken there in the past 10 years. That approach demonstrates that research is a key priority for institutions in the United States when they determine practice in treatment and rehabilitation. That is heartening, because the Scottish Executive is pursuing exactly that tack. We have already asked the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drugs Misuse research sub-committee to prepare a draft programme for research. That programme will be published in May. The Executive is funding—to the tune of about £300,000—research on the incidence of drug misuse throughout Scotland. Such an evidence-based approach is crucial to ensuring that the treatment and care facilities that we put in place tackle the drug problems that we have, rather than those that we think we might have.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive when detailed guidance will be given to universities and colleges as to proposed arrangements for the new maintenance grant and graduate contribution scheme to be introduced in 2001. (S1O-1560)

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

We are very aware of the interest of universities, colleges and students in the arrangements for the new scheme and we are publishing a consultation document next month. Detailed guidance will follow the consultation period and the necessary legislative process.

We have set up a website to hold the up-to-date information, which can be found via the Scottish Executive website.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware that many students, particularly at colleges, will make decisions this year that will be influenced by their knowledge of the financial regime that will operate in 2001? Does he accept that there is a need not just for the arrangements that he suggests but for detailed guidance and information on the proposals, to be given to students and staff at colleges and universities throughout Scotland? That should be done with immediate effect, as decisions have been made in principle on some of the important issues.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am happy to give reassurance on that. As well as producing the consultation document, which will be a full document that will eventually go to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, we are involved in a number of bilateral discussions, and material will be issued very soon. We are conscious that students are taking decisions early—even for next year.

Members should remember that we have responded to Cubie with proposals and have dealt with the Quigley anomaly relating to fourth-year students from down south, that we are publishing a consultation document and that, of course, we have instructed the Student Awards Agency that tuition fees will be abolished from autumn this year. Much work has been done in a short time. We will respond to the need for urgency on the matter.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Before giving guidance to universities and colleges on the implementation of the student finance regime, will the minister give further consideration to addressing the anomaly that has been created for Scotland-domiciled students who are studying at colleges and universities in England and Wales? Will he consider extending the financial regime to address the needs of students who attend courses that are available at universities and colleges in England and Wales but are not available in Scotland? The Liberal Democrats were committed to that at the elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am happy to acknowledge the work that John Swinney's committee has done in this area. I assure him that the consultation on which we are about to embark will address those issues. Since the publication of our response to Cubie, there has been much debate on a variety of issues, such as on the payment of maintenance grants to students who are going down south, and those matters will be part of the wider consultation. It is important that we speak to Scotland. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will be involved in that consultation.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive what guidance it provides to sheriff courts on granting bail to offenders who are awaiting sentence, having admitted multiple offences such as theft by house-breaking and robbery. (S1O-1588)

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

None. It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Executive to issue guidance to the judiciary on a matter that relates to the exercise of its discretion.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I understand that legal point. However, does the minister understand the anger that is felt in communities such as Seaton, Linksfield and Old Aberdeen in my constituency, when people see known serial offenders, such as serial house-breakers, walking away from court, free while awaiting sentence to commit exactly the same type of offences? Does he agree that the courts as well as the police have a role to play in tackling the growing incidence of drug-related theft, robbery and assault in city-centre communities in Aberdeen?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I certainly appreciate the sense of frustration that Lewis Macdonald describes. However, it is for the courts to determine whether to grant bail in the circumstances of a particular case. In doing so, they have to have regard to the well-established principles and precedents governing the exercise of that discretion that are set out in common law.

It may be of some comfort to know that the Executive plans to review the current law, the effectiveness of the new powers to impose aggravated sentences on bail offenders and the extent to which those powers are being exercised by the courts.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that the import of European convention on human rights legislation—it is likely that there will be limitations on the refusal of bail—is likely to add greatly to his colleague's concerns?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

We have been considering whether bail exclusions are compatible with the ECHR. We have said that we intend to introduce legislation in the near future to deal with certain ECHR issues. That question may be addressed in that legislation.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To follow on from Lewis Macdonald's points, with which I am happy to associate myself, is the minister aware that worrying statistics, released yesterday, show that Aberdeen has the highest level of recorded crime in the country and double the national average for house-breakings?

Does the minister accept that we cannot divorce those statistics from the fact that Grampian's police force has the second lowest funding in the country, and that recent funding announcements for the police have been wholly inadequate? Furthermore, Grampian police have special responsibilities for policing Balmoral and North sea installations.

Will the minister respond positively to those worrying statistics by announcing adequate resources, so that we can put more bobbies on the beat in Aberdeen and prevent the crimes to which Lewis Macdonald referred?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I would not want to pre-empt the conclusion of the budget discussions that are taking place within the Executive; the member will have to wait for announcements following the conclusion of those discussions.

On Aberdeen, as for other parts of the country, we should all pay special attention to the impact that effectiveness in tackling Scotland's drug misuse problem could have on criminal activity and crime statistics. There is no doubt that drug misuse accounts for a tremendous proportion of attendant criminal behaviour and crimes committed. [Interruption.] If we are successful in reducing the number of individuals in Scotland who have drug misuse habits, we will certainly be successful in reducing attendant levels of crime.

David (None, Lothians)

I remind members that all pagers and telephones should be switched off in the chamber.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the genetically modified trial crop at Daviot will be planted. (S1O-1551)