Scottish Parliament, 21 June 2000

309 contributions from 41 members. The official report.

Introduction

Time for Reflection

David (None, Lothians)

We welcome to lead our time for reflection today Rev David Anderson, the general secretary of Evangelical Alliance Scotland.

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

David (None, Lothians)

Our first item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions. I call Tom McCabe to move motion S1M-1029, which proposes the order of consideration of stage 3 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill this afternoon.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

If members have any concerns or questions about the motion, I am happy to try and address them.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the order in which the amendments to the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Bill be disposed of at Stage 3 of the Bill be altered so that the amendments to each schedule are considered immediately after the amendments to the section which introduces it.

David (None, Lothians)

Mike Russell has asked to speak.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Not on this motion, Presiding Officer. I want to speak to motion S1M-1036.

David (None, Lothians)

You were too quick in pressing your button.

The question is, that motion S1M-1029, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The second motion is motion S1M-1030, in the name of Tom McCabe, which proposes that decision time should begin at 7.05 pm today.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The same format applies, Presiding Officer. If members have any concerns about the motion, I will try to address them later.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that under Rule 11.2.4 of the Standing Orders, Decision Time of the Meeting of the Parliament on Wednesday 21 June should begin at 7.05pm.

Motion agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

I call Tom McCabe to move business motion S1M-1036, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the timetabling of the stage 3 debate of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Once again, Presiding Officer, if there are any questions, I will try to address them.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the time for consideration of Stage 3 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Bill be allotted as follows, so that debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion on the expiry of the specified period (calculated from the time when Stage 3 begins)— Section 1 to section 22 - up to 2 hours Schedule 3 to after section 24 - up to 3 hours Remainder of the Bill - up to 4 hours Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 4 hours 30 minutes.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I understand that Mr McCabe and you have been made aware of my decision to oppose motion S1M-1036. Members will remember that, two weeks ago, when we had the stage 3 debate on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, Donald Gorrie was wise enough to suggest that such motions were unnecessary in this chamber because of the Presiding Officer's powers and the possibility that we might lose the vigour of debate. That suggestion was unanimously opposed in this chamber.

However, many of us, having shared in that initial decision and then experienced what took place that afternoon, believe now that Mr Gorrie was right. There is no doubt that the advisory nature of timetabling motions is helpful to the Presiding Officer and to members in how they use their time for debate, but the mandatory nature of such motions is not helpful. It means—as it did during the stage 3 debate on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill—that we lose the vigour of debate on many amendments. Some members were being called to speak for 30 seconds on some amendments, there was a ministerial reply and then a division.

The SNP believes that, although the consultative steering group principles called for ordered debate, they did not call for constrained debate. It is necessary to have an open period of debate on all important bills at stage 3 that is not constrained and cut up in such a way that—by the nature of the motion—were the timings to go wrong, we could lose debate on important amendments.

That is important, today of all days. For many months, people have been asking members whether they will debate section 2A. The answer has always been that the Parliament has not yet addressed it. This afternoon, we will address it; and, according to the timetabling motion, we shall have an hour to do so—not a moment more. That is letting down the people who have asked for that debate. I say that as someone who has argued for repeal of the section for many months; has said that he will vote for repeal; and who will vote for repeal.

Given those circumstances, we should oppose the timetabling motion, which in future should come as advice to the Presiding Officer. There should be a freedom, not a curtailing, of debate in the chamber.

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

As a Parliament, we should be against guillotines in principle. The motion is nothing other than a guillotine. Although guillotines are justified when, for example, there has been protracted filibustering on a piece of business or when there is very good evidence that there will be filibustering, there has been no such indication of filibustering so far. I do not think that debates on any of the other bills that we have considered so far under timetabling motions would have been extended by any great extent had there been no motion.

I simply point to our experience of the previous timetabling motion in the chamber. Even after allowing for the interruption caused by the power cut, the Presiding Officer basically ignored the timetabling motion and the debate on many sections were extended so that members could speak. It strikes me that either we have a timetabling motion that is followed by the Presiding Officer to the letter or we have no such motion. We must not get into an in-between situation.

We are a new Parliament, setting off down the road of democracy. We should start with the presumption that, within the usual speaking limits, members should be allowed to have their say, rather than be arbitrarily curtailed by such a motion.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I have much sympathy with the points made by Alasdair Morgan and Mike Russell. However, the powers that be have produced a more realistic timetable on this occasion and perhaps we should give them a chance, to see whether they can deliver on that timetable.

The principle of whether there should be a timetable is important. Perhaps we should debate that principle separately at some other time. On this occasion, I am in conciliatory mode and I am prepared to give Tom McCabe and co a chance.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It should be instructive for Mr Russell if I have the endorsement of Mr Gorrie—that should be enough for him. I thank Mr Gorrie for that vote of confidence.

Mr Russell has misunderstood fundamentally the purpose of the timetabling motion. In the next few minutes, I hope to inform him better of the purpose of the motion and, after that, I am sure that he will withdraw his opposition to it.

I emphasise that the purpose of a timetabling motion is not to restrict debate. In fact, its purpose is to structure a debate and to ensure that time is available for the later amendments in the marshalled list. Therefore, far from inhibiting or restricting debate, a timetabling motion exists to structure a debate and to be of some assistance to the Presiding Officer. It has been acknowledged already that a timetabling motion assists whoever is in the chair to ensure that business is conducted properly.

The CSG recommended that the Parliamentary Bureau should timetable debates on bills to ensure that members had sufficient time to focus on the issues. The CSG was aware that it should balance that against the need to ensure that the business of the chamber was conducted efficiently. The motion provides that balance.

The timetabling motion allows four hours for debate on the amendments and half an hour for debate on the motion to pass the bill. That timetable compares with the committee debate, which lasted for around four and a half hours, when more than 130 amendments were considered. By no means can four hours of debate on stage 3 of a bill at a meeting of the Parliament be judged inhibiting when, in committee, just over four and a half hours was spent on dealing with more than 130 amendments.

The Executive has been perfectly open on the matter. We first notified the bureau on 6 June of our intention to schedule the debate on the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill on this date. Members were aware of that, and if they had reservations, they had the opportunity to make representations to us. Seven out of the 16 groupings of amendments—half the business—are concerned with issues that were raised in committee, to which the Executive is merely responding. That should indicate that less time should be required for those amendments. All in all, we have four hours in which to deal with the amendments that have been selected, which is more than ample.

I wish to correct Mr Russell on one point. We will not debate the repeal of section 2A today. The repeal is contained in the bill and there are no amendments to the relevant section.

For one hour, we will discuss one amendment on the subject of marriage. An hour is more than ample for one amendment. Had we allowed an hour's debate on every amendment to the bill, we would still be here in the middle of next weekend.

We have demonstrated that we are more than happy to provide ample time for a particular issue to be discussed.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that motion S1M-1036, in the name Tom McCabe, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 63, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that the time for consideration of Stage 3 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill be allotted as follows, so that debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion on the expiry of the specified period (calculated from the time when Stage 3 begins)— Section 1 to section 22 - up to 2 hours Schedule 3 to after section 24 - up to 3 hours Remainder of the Bill - up to 4 hours Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 4 hours 30 minutes.

David (None, Lothians)

As the motion has been agreed to, we will proceed according to the timetable that it sets out.

Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin stage 3 proceedings, I will make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed. By now, members will be becoming familiar with them.

First, we will deal with amendments to the bill and we will then move on to debate the question that the bill be passed. For the first part of the debate, members should have the bill, which is SP Bill 9A—the bill as amended at stage 2—the marshalled list containing all the amendments that I have selected for debate, and the groupings, which I have agreed.

The amendments have been marshalled in the order that the Parliament has just agreed, with schedules being dealt with after the sections that introduce them. Amendments will be debated in groups, where appropriate. Each amendment will be disposed of in turn, and an amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn by agreement. It is possible for members not to move amendments if they wish.

The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions; I will allow a voting period of two minutes for the first division in each group—I might revise that ruling later if we find that two minutes are not necessary, but we will allow two minutes for the moment.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr McCabe said that motion S1M-1036 was for the guidance of the chair, but its terms seem to be fairly prescriptive. How do you and your deputies intend to structure the debate when you come up against the rigid time limits in the motion?

David (None, Lothians)

We all agree that our previous experience was a rather unhappy one, not just because of the breakdown in the electronics, but because the timetabling was too tight. We think that we can cope with this timetable, and I point out that the cut-off point for each part of the debate indicates a maximum time. In other words, if we do not use the whole two hours for the first part, that will allow more time later. I encourage members to bear that in mind.

The occupants of the chair are bound by the motion that you—members of the Parliament—have just passed. We are your servants, and we will apply the cut-off point as set out in motion S1M-1036.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point relates to your failure to accept for debate at stage 3 the amendment lodged by my colleague, Mr Harding.

For the benefit of other members—

David (None, Lothians)

That is not—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

If I may finish this point— [Interruption.] The amendment was in exactly the same terms as the amendment lodged by Mr McMahon at stage 2, at the Local Government Committee. The amendment raised a key issue of principle, which goes to the very heart of the debate on section 2A—

David (None, Lothians)

But what is the point of order for me?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The point of order is that I think that, in the exercise of the discretion of the chair—by failing to call for debate by 129 members of this Parliament the key issue of principle that goes to the very heart of the bill—you have been in error, and you do the Parliament and the public no service by that decision.

David (None, Lothians)

It is quite clear in the standing orders that the selection of amendments is a matter for the chair—it is totally at my discretion. However, guidance was also issued, to which all parties signed up. One of the elements of that guidance—from memory; I do not have it in front of me—is that, where an amendment has been fully debated and decided on in committee, the balance of probability is that it will not be selected for debate at stage 3. That is not a hard and fast rule, but it is guidance to which everyone subscribed.

As I explained to Mr McLetchie on the telephone, if I may refer to our earlier conversation, in this particular case—I will not always give reasons—everything that was contained in the amendment that I did not select is contained in an amendment that I did select.

There is therefore no stifling of debate. Every member can talk on everything that was in the amendment that I did not select.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

rose—

David (None, Lothians)

With respect, Mr McLetchie, that was not a point of order. The standing orders say that the selection of amendments is at my discretion. You may disagree with my selection, but that is tough. [Applause.]

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

It is frankly scandalous that this Parliament does not get the opportunity—

David (None, Lothians)

Order.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

—to debate an issue that is at the heart of the debate—

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Mr McLetchie, you cannot challenge something that is at my discretion. I am sorry about that: you may feel strongly about it and you can tell me what you like about it in private.

We should proceed, as we are wasting time. The clock will begin at 14:50. Everyone should bear that in mind—it means that the first part of the debate will end two hours from now.

David (None, Lothians)

We move to amendment 2, which is grouped with amendments 16 and 17. I call Wendy Alexander to move amendment 2 and speak to the other amendments in the group.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I will transpose myself. I am not Wendy Alexander.

David (None, Lothians)

I can see that you are not Wendy Alexander, but you can move the amendment all the same.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Amendment 2 is fairly straightforward. The purpose of the amendment is to correct a cross-reference in the bill, which needs to be changed because of additions to the bill's content.

I move amendment 2.

David (None, Lothians)

The amendments are open for discussion. Amendment 2 was moved by Frank McAveety, contrary to what I had been advised.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We move to amendment 3, which is grouped with amendment 4. I call the minister—I had better say that and we will see who gets up—to move the amendment.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

rose

—

David (None, Lothians)

It is Mr McAveety again.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Amendment 3, again, is fairly straightforward, but it is detailed. The increased number of bodies that come within the scope of the bill would have considerable resource implications if they were all to be at the start line simultaneously. To maintain confidence in the Executive and the Parliament's commitment to establishing high standards, it is important that the implementation of the bill is well managed.

The amendments will enable the Executive to provide for different bodies to submit their draft codes of conduct to ministers on different dates. The amendments replace the provision, originally in section 3(1), under which every devolved body would have had to submit its draft code to ministers within three months of the members' model code first being issued. Under the amendments, ministers would have the power to set by order the date by which each body should submit its code. Any order would have to set a date at least three months from the date of the order, thus giving the body ample opportunity to put a draft together.

I move amendment 3.

David (None, Lothians)

What about amendment 4?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

A similar argument would be deployed for amendment 4.

David (None, Lothians)

On each occasion, I would be grateful if ministers spoke to all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We move to amendment 5, which is grouped with amendment 6.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The purpose of amendment 5 is to impose a duty on the standards commission to draw up a general framework document, stating how it will interact with councils and other devolved public bodies. The commission would be required to

"consult such association of local authorities and any such other bodies or persons as it thinks fit"

before issuing any guidance.

The amendment was lodged following the commitment that I gave at stage 2, after members of the Local Government Committee had raised a number of concerns, that the issue of guidance would be reflected in the bill. I know that a number of committee members were particularly keen for the bill to include a specific reference to how local standards committees would relate to the standards commission. The intention of the amendment is to have a general guidance document, which we see as appropriate, which will cover all aspects of relations between the commission and councils and devolved public bodies, including standards committees.

The amendment does not mean that we have ignored the concerns raised at stage 2, about the local standards committees' relationship to the commission. Importantly, the amendment will allow interested parties to have their say in what is contained in the guidance, as they will be consulted and will be able to put their views forward.

On amendment 6, we discussed before stage 2 co-ordination with the local government ombudsman and the Accounts Commission, which have in place appropriate informal arrangements for areas of common interest. Both bodies advised that the number of overlapping cases was few, that the informal arrangement worked well and that legislation on liaison would be inappropriate.

At stage 2, the committee expressed concern about possible overlap of the functions of the standards commission, the ombudsman and the Accounts Commission, and we undertook to lodge an Executive amendment to tackle that. I believe that our amendment addresses the concern. It requires the standards commission to consult the local government ombudsman and the Accounts Commission on areas of common interest. Under the amendment, the three bodies will be required to liaise on all matters of common interest.

I believe that the amendment satisfies the committee's concerns and builds on what the Accounts Commission and the local government ombudsman have told us. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities also supports the amendment.

I invite Kenny Gibson to withdraw amendment 86 when we come to it.

I move amendment 5.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am afraid that I cannot withdraw amendment 86, as it has not been selected for debate by the Presiding Officer.

Amendment 6 follows on from amendment 123, which I lodged at stage 2. The Executive assured the Local Government Committee that it would come back with a rewording and has done so. However, amendment 6 is less clear than the original wording, in that it does not mark out boundaries, but talks about consulting the commissioner for local administration in Scotland and the Accounts Commission. I resubmitted amendment 123 as amendment 86; I believe that it would have ensured the delineation of workable boundaries from the outset. As amendment 86 was not selected by the Presiding Officer, I believe that members should support amendment 6 as a step in the right direction.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Frank McAveety mentioned the possibility of councils having standards committees. There was discussion of that in the committee. I tried to have council standards committees inserted in the bill and the deputy minister disagreed. If he would make a favourable comment about council standards committees, that would be helpful to some councillors in persuading colleagues who are not keen on the idea. Such committees may not be compulsory, but they are desirable, and I hope Mr McAveety will say that.

One of the points raised by the Law Society was on the need for public consultation; that was not pursued through an amendment. Will the deputy minister say whether he thinks the consultation proposed in amendment 6 could include some public consultation with interested parties? Those two assurances would help to make the bill more effective.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I said to the Local Government Committee that the Executive would encourage the establishment, where appropriate, of local standards committees. Nothing in the bill prohibits that. We think that it is very important to have national standards, to ensure that there is consistency across Scotland. Already a number of local authorities are exploring whether they can include standards committees in the modernisation of their political and management structures. We would encourage that and that is supported by a majority of members of the Parliament, I believe.

I have an open mind on the second point. We want to ensure that everything is transparent and accountable, and one of the recommendations that councils will be taking up is how to engage with the public locally on how they establish standards committees, and what should be expected of those committees. The Executive also supports that.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We now come to amendment 7, which is grouped with amendment 8.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Section 9 imposes a duty on the chief investigating officer to comply with the directions of the commission. Amendment 8 prevents the commission from directing the CIO on the manner in which an investigation is carried out. Amendment 7 is a consequential drafting amendment following from that.

Investigation of alleged breaches of conduct will be dealt with by the CIO, who is independent of the commission. The intention is that he or she can be instructed to carry out and report on an investigation of an alleged breach but will have discretion about the way in which duties are performed. As currently drafted, section 9 requires the CIO to comply with any direction issued by the commission. The amendments maintain and reinforce the CIO's independence.

I move amendment 7.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We come now to amendment 9, which is grouped with amendments 87 and 75.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Amendment 9 requires the chief investigating officer to inform in writing the commission, a person who is the subject of an investigation and the council or body whose councillor or member is under investigation, if he expects that that investigation will not be completed within three months of its start date. The amendment sends a clear signal of the Parliament's intention that, wherever possible, investigations should be completed within 90 days. It is lodged in response to amendment 53, which was lodged at stage 2 and which sought to introduce a 90-day limit on investigations by the chief investigating officer. I recognise the concern that investigations should be carried out quickly and I consider that amendment 9 reflects the spirit of amendment 53.

Supporters of amendment 53 proposed that the commission should approve investigations that go beyond the three-month limit. We have not retained that element of amendment 53, as it created an unnecessary administrative burden for the CIO and the standards commission and opened up the possibility that an investigation might have to be abandoned because of administrative oversight. That would be unsatisfactory not only for the person under investigation, but for the public's confidence in the process.

Amendment 87 appears to have been lodged in response to amendment 9. I believe that its intended purpose is to underline that investigations should be undertaken within three months and that, where that is not possible, the CIO should inform the commission, a person who is the subject of an investigation, and the council or body whose member is under investigation, if it seems that an investigation will not be completed within three months of its start date. However, the effect of the drafting would be to introduce a three-month deadline for all investigations. Where that was not achievable, the CIO should inform the commission, but there would be no scope for investigations to run beyond three months. Members will agree that that route would open up the possibility of investigations coming to a halt either because they were particularly complex or time consuming or because those who were involved in the investigation chose to delay so that it was timed out. That cannot be right.

The issue of legislating for a target time scale was discussed at stage 2. We believe that speedy investigations are achieved not by setting statutory time scales but by more effective practices and by co-operation by those who are involved in investigations. We will expect the CIO to deal with investigations expeditiously and that, wherever practicable, investigations should be completed within three months.

I move amendment 9.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I rise to move amendment 87.

David (None, Lothians)

I wish to clarify that the only amendment that is moved is the first one in the group. Members speak to the other amendments, which are moved at the point at which they occur in the bill.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Amendment 87 is based on amendment 53, which I submitted at stage 2. The Local Government Committee split 5:5 on amendment 53 because some members believed that as it called for all investigations to be completed within 90 days, it could have led to difficulties. As Mr McAveety said:

"People might be able to string out investigations of their conduct and so invoke the time limit"—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 16 May 2000; c 930.]

My view, and that of Donald Gorrie and others, was that the 90-day limit would not be prescriptive but would be an incentive to complete investigations expeditiously. The Executive assured the committee that it would come back with a rewording and, indeed, it has done so—but amendment 9 does not clarify that investigations should normally be completed within three months. It provides merely that the commission should be informed if the investigation is likely to exceed that time scale. Amendment 87 gives more urgency to the completion of investigations by emphasising that investigations

"shall be completed within three months"

although it does not close the door on their taking longer if necessary.

I trust that that emphasis will satisfy the chamber, given that it is in no one's interest for investigations to drag on longer than is absolutely necessary. I ask the chamber to support amendment 87 and reject to amendment 9.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The word "shall" in Kenny Gibson's amendment is a problem. I entirely support the thrust of what he is trying to achieve: there should be maximum pressure on the commission and the investigating officer to finish an investigation within three months. Although I am not a lawyer, I think that the wording of amendment 87 could be a problem and could be interpreted as Frank McAveety suggests. It would therefore be counterproductive. I was encouraged by what the minister said about the importance of getting things done within three months. If he could say that even more vigorously in his reply, I will support him.

Kenny Gibson's choice of the word "shall", which I think was imposed on him by some professional advice, harms his amendment. While I support Kenny Gibson's objective, I do not totally support the wording of his amendment.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I supported Kenny Gibson's stage 2 amendment in the Local Government Committee but regret that I cannot support his amendment today. I believe that the wording is incorrect. Amendment 87 gives a time limit and suggests action thereon, but I believe that that could invalidate the investigation, or bring it to a stop.

I, too, am reassured by what the minister said today. The Executive has addressed the issue; that is what I was looking for. We will support the Executive's amendment.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am delighted to respond to Donald Gorrie. After reading today's Daily Record , in which Donald claimed that perhaps the Parliament was dull and uninteresting, I want to thank him for giving a Glaswegian the opportunity to shout louder in the chamber; however, I will not take up his offer because I am a moderately inclined politician.

I stress that we expect investigations to be carried out within 90 days; we want to send that message, loud and clear, to the chief investigating officer. However, in terms of the practice and operation of the process, the time scale that is proposed in amendment 87 would be too restrictive. That is why we reject Kenny Gibson's amendment.

Presiding Officer, I have spoken about amendments 9 and 87, but I also need to speak to amendment 75. Do you want me to do that now?

David (None, Lothians)

Yes.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

On those grounds, members should support amendment 9 because it takes into account the spirit and process of the debate that took place at stage 2.

My colleague Sylvia Jackson lodged an amendment at stage 2 to require that

"A council receiving a copy of the findings shall consider them at a meeting of the council within three months of receipt."

Amendment 75 extends the requirement to consider the findings to devolved public bodies and provides that the council or public body should consider those findings

"within three months of receiving them or within such longer period as the Commission may specify".

A longer period may be appropriate for some reasons, for example if the council or public body's next meeting was not due to take place within the three-month period. The amendment requires that the duty must be discharged by the full council or the full body and may not be delegated to sub-committees.

Amendment 75 is consistent with the intention behind Sylvia Jackson's amendment at stage 2. COSLA is content with Executive amendment 75, which clarifies the earlier amendment.

I move amendment 9, invite Kenny Gibson to withdraw amendment 87, and move amendment 75.

David (None, Lothians)

I will clarify again what I said to Kenny Gibson. Only the first amendment in the group should be moved, although we want the speeches that relate to all the amendments in the group at one time. The other amendments in the group will be moved as they come up on the marshalled list. Let us stick with that procedure.

No one else has indicated that they want to speak on amendment 9 or the other amendments in the group, so I will put the question.

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division, for which I will allow two minutes.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 79, Against 34, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment 87 moved—[Mr Gibson].

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 34, Against 77, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 87 disagreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

Amendment 88, in the name of Kenny Gibson, will be debated on its own.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Just for clarification, I inform Donald Gorrie that "shall" was inserted by the clerks and not, as he said, by me.

Amendment 88 is based on amendment 52, which I lodged at stage 2. At stage 1, the Local Government Committee broadly supported the view that complaints should be in writing, to reduce the possibility of malicious and anonymous complaints being made against councillors and members of devolved public bodies.

The failure to require complaints to be made in writing was described by my colleague Gil Paterson as "a cowards charter", but the Executive and five of the committee members who were present during the stage 2 debate felt that the wording of amendment 52 was, in the words of Michael McMahon, "too prescriptive". I have therefore altered that amendment to include "so far as is possible", which I hope will be acceptable to all members.

Complaints would normally be expected to be submitted in writing, but would not be ruled out if they came from another source. At stage 2, the minister promised to reconsider this issue, but no further Executive amendment has been lodged. I therefore ask the Parliament to support the amendment.

I move amendment 88.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I support this amendment. It is important that we guard against malicious and unwarranted complaints; I know that there may be a large number of them out there. I suggest to members that one not too onerous safeguard would be simply to ask that allegations of misconduct be made in writing. I am sure that that would deal with many unwarranted complaints.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

This is an excellent amendment, which should be supported. The arguments that were advanced against it previously—that some people are illiterate or not good at speaking English—could be countered if they dictated their view to someone else who wrote it down.

There must be some substance behind a complaint, and it should be in writing and signed. The anonymity of the complainer could be preserved in the investigatory process, as someone's job could be in jeopardy—or they may fear that it would be—if it became publicly known that they had complained. This amendment would help to protect councillors from malicious and trivial complaints. I hope that, in the light of the discussions in the Local Government Committee and today's debate, the minister will accept it.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I congratulate Kenny Gibson on coming up with a good wording that should overcome the opposition that was voiced in the Local Government Committee. I hope that the Executive will accept the amendment. Wherever possible, malicious allegations should be discouraged. This amendment is a good way of addressing that issue.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I believe that there are sound provisions in the bill to deal with malicious complaints. The bill provides the chief investigating officer with a sensible amount of discretion as to how he or she carries out investigations. If an allegation is received which appears to be without substance, or if it relates to a matter that has already been dealt with, the CIO will simply decide that there is nothing to investigate. Similarly, if it becomes apparent on investigation that an allegation has no substance, the investigation can simply be stopped.

Having listened carefully to the concerns members of the committee raised at stage 2 and after further discussion with colleagues, we recognise that there should be provision to indicate that allegations should, where possible, be made in writing. My experience is that that does not discourage those individuals who love to write copious amounts in green ink on lengthy pages. We will still receive those communications. It is, however, important to recognise the principle behind Kenny Gibson's amendment and we are happy to accept it.

Amendment 88 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We now come to amendment 10, to be moved by the minister.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

This is fairly straightforward. Amendment 10 would limit the commission's power to compel the giving of evidence and the production of documents to the extent that could be compelled in a Court of Session in civil proceedings. It would bring section 16 into line with section 12 with respect to the investigations carried out by the chief investigating officer.

I move amendment 10.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 75 moved—[Mr McAveety] and agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We come now to amendment 76, with which are grouped amendments 77, 78, 11, 13, 12 and 79. I call the minister to move amendment 76 and speak to all the amendments.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Amendment 76 provides a new sanction to the commission. That sanction, which will be in addition to those outlined at stage 1, will be the ability to suspend a councillor or a member for a period of up to a year from one or more, but not all of, the following:

(i) all meetings of the council or body;

(ii) all meetings of one or more committees or sub-committees of the council or body;

(iii) all meetings of any other body on which the councillor or member is a representative or nominee of the council or body.

At stage 2, the committee considered that a further sanction that would fall between censure and suspension should be added to the bill. I undertook to take that matter forward in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Our amendment has been drawn up in consultation with COSLA, which fully supports it and considers that it provides a suitable fourth sanction that responds to many of the concerns raised during the consultation with local government.

Amendments 77, 78 and 79 are, therefore, consequential drafting amendments. They include relevant references to the new amendment in the bill.

Amendment 11 is linked to amendments 3 and 4 and concerns the proposed gradual application of the bill regime to different public bodies. While amendments 3 and 4 allow ministers to set different times and dates for different bodies to submit draft codes of conduct, amendment 11 would ensure that a person cannot, as a result of breaching the code of one body, be removed from the membership of another body at a date before that other body's code has come into effect. We think that that is a sensible and appropriate approach.

The commission will, in general, have power to remove a person from membership of a body purely on account of breaches of the code of another body of which that person is a member. We would, however, expect the commission, in making decisions of that sort, to bear in mind the contents of the code applicable to the other body—that is, a code that has not directly been breached. If such a code is not yet in existence, that cannot be done.

Amendment 12 would remove the reference to guidance on the representative role of a councillor during a period of suspension and replace it with a much wider reference to all of the councillor's actual or perceived duties during a period of suspension.

At stage 2, Sylvia Jackson successfully introduced an amendment to place a duty on the commission to issue guidance about the representative role of a councillor during a period of suspension. The Executive does not disagree with the principle of guidance but argued that it was unnecessary to legislate in that respect. Amendment 12 therefore extends the scope of the guidance from a narrow reference to the representative role of a councillor to a wider reference to all of a councillor's actual or perceived duties during a period of suspension. The amendment is consistent with the intention behind Sylvia's amendment and is supported by COSLA.

Amendment 13 would remove the reference to consultation of appropriate associations or councils and relevant professional associations and replace it with a reference to associations of local authorities, such as COSLA, and any other bodies or individuals the commission thinks fit.

Sylvia Jackson's amendment required the commission to prepare such guidance in consultation with appropriate associations of councils and relevant professional associations. Amendment 13 would revise that to say that the commission should consult associations of local authorities and any other such bodies or persons that it thinks fit. The revised drafting sets out the duty in conventional form. The amendment is consistent with the intention behind Sylvia's amendment and is supported by COSLA. I hope that the Parliament can support it.

I move amendment 76.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I want to question the minister on amendment 76. The committee expressed a desire to have a gradual sequence of censures or punishments that the commission could impose on the councillor or other person. That is fine, but I find bizarre the fact that the amendment debars the councillor or the member from some of the things that they would go to, but not others. What is suspended is the entitlement to attend

"one or more but not all of the following—

(i) all meetings of the council or body;

(ii) all meetings of one or more committees or sub-committees of the council or body;

(iii) all meetings of any other body on which the councillor or member is a representative or nominee of the council or body."

Debarring someone who has committed a serious offence from some meetings but not others is a bit like allowing someone who has committed a serious driving offence to drive on Mondays and Tuesdays but not the rest of the week. Can the minister explain the logic behind it? A gradual approach is a good idea, but this does not seem sensible.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I support amendment 76, which addresses some of the committee's concerns about the jump between censure and suspension.

On Donald Gorrie's point, I understand that the amendment is supported by COSLA and was proposed after full discussion with that body. I understand that it would apply only to relatively minor breaches of the code; any major breaches would result in suspension or disqualification.

The amendment is an example of the Executive's working with the committee, which has introduced several ideas during its detailed scrutiny of the bill.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the amendment. In the committee, I raised the issue of lesser sanctions for lesser wrong-doing. The amendment, along with the explanation the minister will give Donald Gorrie, will go a long way towards addressing my suggestion about removing special responsibility allowances and so on for things such as non-attendance of committees.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I understand the point that Donald Gorrie has raised but I do not accept his conclusion. To keep the motoring metaphor going, I would say that the issue is not whether the person is banned from driving but whether they receive penalty points. There would be a gradation of penalties.

As Bristow Muldoon said, we arrived at our position after considerable discussion with COSLA and local government representatives—not only elected representatives but local government officers from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and General Managers, for example.

We felt that it was important to find a medium level before reaching more severe penalties.

The amendment addresses the concerns that were raised by the committee and will give a signal to local government that we recognise that there are different ways in which those who err can be dealt with. On those grounds, we should be supportive of the position that I put forward earlier.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Amendments 77, 78, 11, 13 and 12 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We come now to amendment 14, which is to be debated on its own.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

At stage 2, Kenny Gibson introduced an amendment that placed a duty on the commission to make it clear to those facing a hearing both its rules of procedure and the range of sanctions that might be imposed. This amendment clarifies that the commission will be required to set out in writing the procedures that will be followed at the hearing and to advise the councillor or member of the sanctions that might be imposed. It is consistent with the intention behind Kenny's amendment. Again, following consultation, COSLA is supportive of this amendment, which clarifies the original amendment.

I am happy to move amendment 14.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As the minister said, this amendment is based on amendment 77, which I submitted at stage 2. It was originally opposed by the Executive, but was unanimously agreed by the Local Government Committee. I am pleased that the Executive has seen the light on this issue, has abandoned its preference for it to be dealt with by guidance notes and has accepted the need to have written notes of procedure and possible sanctions for individuals who are in alleged contravention of the councillors—or, as it may be, members—code, as incorporated in the bill. To that end, I support amendment 14.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

I call the minister to move amendment 15.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

At stage 2, Gil Paterson introduced an amendment to provide that where a councillor or member of a devolved public body was entitled to receive allowances, those allowances should not be affected by the imposition of an interim suspension. That amendment received the support of all members of the Local Government Committee. In response to that interesting contribution at the committee, I am happy to announce that in this amendment the Executive clarifies which allowances will not be affected by interim suspension, which is consistent with the intention behind Gil's amendment. COSLA is also content with the clarification that our amendment provides.

For councillors, the amendment provides that an interim suspension will have no effect on either the basic allowance or the special responsibility allowance that would normally be payable. For example, an SRA that is dependent on a councillor attending meetings would continue to be payable if he or she were unable to attend such meetings because of an interim suspension.

For members of devolved public bodies, the amendment provides that an interim suspension will have no effect on any salary or daily allowance that is dependent on their attending meetings. The arrangements do not apply to payments for the reimbursement of travelling, subsistence or other allowances or expenses for councillors or members of devolved public bodies.

I move amendment 15.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I wish to speak briefly in favour of this amendment. At stage 2, Gil Paterson submitted amendment 140. The Executive originally opposed a councillor's being entitled to receive special responsibility allowance while suspended. The Local Government Committee unanimously agreed to support Gil's amendment, believing in the main that failure to do so would create an anomaly, whereby a suspended housing convener could lose a large proportion of his or her income whereas a back-bench councillor or a housing director would lose no income as a result of suspension. In industry, that would be unacceptable and against natural justice.

The Executive has, to its credit, not only taken on board this issue, it has in effect enhanced amendment 140 to ensure that members of devolved public bodies in receipt of an honorarium or other periodic allowance are similarly protected. Thus, I am happy to support amendment 15.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We now come now to amendment 80, which is grouped with amendments 81, 82 and 83.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Members will recall that, at stage 2, the Executive introduced amendments providing for appeals to the sheriff principal under sections 19A and 20A. That fulfilled an earlier commitment.

Amendments 80 to 83 seek to extend the right of appeal. A person aggrieved by the decision of a sheriff principal on the initial appeal will be able to appeal that decision to the Court of Session.

The amendments strengthen the appeals provision under sections 19A and 20A. The Executive, in lodging this series of amendments and asking that they be supported, is reassured to know that the additional right of appeal has the support of the senior judiciary.

I move amendment 80.

Amendment 80 agreed to.

Amendment 81 moved—[Mr McAveety]—and agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

Amendment 18 is in a group on its own. I call the minister to move it.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Amendment 18 is pretty straightforward. It is a technical amendment to correct an omission in the draft bill. It provides that the definition set out at section 22 will now apply to part 3 of the bill as well as to parts 1 and 2.

I move amendment 18.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

That brings us to an end of the first part of the timetabling motion. I note from the clock that we have done extremely well. To respond to Mr Morgan's earlier point of order, that means that we have time in hand.

The next part of the debate, which was scheduled to last for an hour, can in theory go on until 17:50. If it does not do so, we will have longer for the debates at the end.

We now come to group 13. The group is the large one, from amendment 23 to amendment 74 and including amendment 22.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister has just referred to the introduction of orders to include further bodies under schedule 3 and disqualification under the Scotland Act 1998. What is the Government saying to Parliament about the position of local enterprise companies? Is the minister saying that, because of the Scotland Act 1998, there is no question that local enterprise companies might come under the provisions of schedule 3, or will that issue be further considered when the orders are introduced?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The best things come to those who wait; my next paragraph will specifically address that concern.

I recognise the concerns of many members who would like to see public bodies that are limited companies brought within the framework created by the bill—for example, local enterprise companies and companies set up by local authorities. I have already said that we will review the full range of public bodies before returning with further proposals. I can confirm that our review will cover public bodies constituted as companies.

We considered local enterprise companies in detail at stage 2. In that respect, we recognise that members are reviewing the enterprise network—a matter in which John Swinney is centrally involved. We are aware of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's view that LECs should become fully public bodies rather than be constituted as companies. If that approach is followed, it will be possible to include such bodies in the schedule 3 regime. However, we must await the outcome of the review before bringing forward detailed proposals on LECs. Having discussed the matter with my colleagues, I am not unsympathetic to the concerns that Mr Swinney has raised. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to await the outcome of the review in order to process that information and to make progress on the matter.

Our review will also examine ways in which public bodies that remain constituted as companies could, for example, adopt a binding code of conduct consistent with the reservation of company law. One possibility that we are examining—although we have not yet reached a conclusion—is whether the articles of association of such bodies could be amended to require their members to observe a code similar to that set out in the bill. Our review will consider that possibility in more detail.

Amendments 26 and 34 honour the commitment I gave to include area tourist boards and further education colleges under schedule 3. That is a substantial advance from the initial position in the bill. Some minor amendments to the wording have been used to achieve that.

Taken together, the amendments form a substantial package, which adds to the bill's initial provisions and shows that the Executive has listened to the arguments that were so powerfully and eloquently put by the committee at stage 1 and stage 2.

I move amendment 23.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I take on board what the minister has said. He has moved some distance, but I have some further comments on the whole group. It is fair to say that the Local Government Committee was fairly unanimous in its intention to include every devolved body, wherever possible. We wanted a system that would be well understood. We believe that we need a catch-all, rather than catch-some, approach if we are to improve the system. The standards should be uniform and should apply to all.

If we agree to the amendments, we will end up with a mixed bag of measures. If we want to encourage transparency, we should look to the old saying, "Make it simple, stupid." The Local Government Committee is of the opinion that no one should escape the net. Unfortunately, if the Parliament agrees to the amendments, there will be a number of different measures and many bodies will escape the net.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I want to follow up on the issue that I raised with the minister in my intervention. I understand the points that he makes and the legitimate difficulties to which he refers. However, Gil Paterson made the important point that, if we are creating a regime that is to apply across as many public authorities and bodies as possible, that regime should apply across the full range of organisations. There are practical difficulties that must be wrestled with, and it is necessary to ensure that some of the organisations and bodies that provide public services do so in the right context and the right environment, but the public have an overriding need for accountability and transparency in the conduct of business.

I welcome what the minister said in his response to my intervention, but I hope that he will work in the spirit of the comments that he has made today to Parliament and ensure that as many organisations as possible are captured by the regime that is set out in the bill.

I am concerned that, if bodies can be added to schedule 3 by order, they can also be removed from it by order—if it is easy for them to go in, it must also be easy for them to come out. It is important that the minister responds in the spirit of this legislation and ensures that the Parliament receives a guarantee that the Government is moving to create an open, transparent and accountable climate in our public authorities. We must not allow any organisations to escape the rigour that many of us believe is long overdue.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

The general principle to which the Local Government Committee aspired was that all public bodies should, as far as possible, be covered by the code of conduct. The only disagreement in the committee concerned the way in which the names of many bodies were produced almost as a list, without their having been properly consulted. As the minister has pointed out, there are difficulties in applying the code to some of those bodies because of the legislation that governs them in other areas.

The Parliament should welcome the fact that, at every stage of the bill, the number of the bodies to which it applies has been increased. As the minister indicated, he has now added area tourist boards and the boards of further education colleges to the list of bodies that come under the bill. He has also given a strong commitment to examine ways of including as many other bodies as possible. The Parliament should recognise that the bill now covers the vast majority of public bodies in Scotland and their expenditure. We should unite behind that position and accept the minister's word that he will examine every possible way of enhancing the scope of the bill in future.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

At this stage of the debate, it is difficult to say anything original on this issue. However, it is important to reiterate the fact that, throughout our discussions, members of the Local Government Committee were enthusiastic about making the bill as all-embracing as possible. The minister appears to have caught the spirit of that, even though he is not intending to go about it in the way that we planned at stage 2.

It is important that the bill applies to everyone. Some members may recall that the Local Government Committee wanted it to apply to MSPs—that was deemed impossible, as we have our own Standards Committee. However, the same rules should apply to everyone. My experience in local government and in a part of Glasgow indicates that the more overarching and all-embracing the regulations governing community organisations and arm's-length organisations are, the better things can be. Although there may be technical reasons for removing some bodies from the list, the overarching principle should be that everyone is included.

I draw members' attention to the matter of LECs, with which there is some legislative difficulty. By nine votes to one, the Local Government Committee favoured including the LECs. I appreciate that the existence of an ethical standards act, and its conditions, may deter some people on the fringes of public life, but that should not prevent us from including as many people as possible. It should be a sine qua non of public life that everybody aspires to the highest possible standards.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Conservatives support, with some reluctance, the Executive amendments to exclude LECs, public companies and arm's-length council companies. We would not wish to take the bill beyond the Parliament's power to legislate. We also accept the reasoning behind removing school boards from the scope of the bill.

When I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, they were supported. I lodged those amendments in good faith. I believe that we should investigate procedures to determine whether amendments are legally competent before acceptance. We have received conflicting advice on that issue. However, in view of the minister's assurance that he will review the matter, we shall support the Executive's position. That is rather difficult, as we support some of the amendments and not others.

As regards other bodies, I want the widest possible range of public bodies to be drawn within the scope of the bill's provisions. The minister's argument about non-consultation is not sufficient, in my opinion. He appears to have included tourist boards and colleges of further education—again, at my instigation—without consultation. We shall therefore vote against the amendments that affect the other bodies. Do you want me to list the amendments that we support and those that we do not support, Presiding Officer? It would take rather a long time.

David (None, Lothians)

You do not have to do that. We shall come to that later.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I would like to add to what Bristow Muldoon said, because those who are not members of the Local Government Committee may not know which bodies have been added. As Bristow said, we added en masse such groups as the Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People, school boards, children's panels and university senates. Some university senates were established by papal bull, which makes it very difficult for this Parliament to undo the arrangements and bring them under the terms of the bill.

Although the committee was clear that as many bodies as possible should be listed, including LECs, we appreciate that a review will take place to consider LECs as a separate issue. As Donald Gorrie said, we also wanted the bill to cover MSPs, but we realise that we have a Standards Committee, which will consider the standards for MSPs in the light of the standards that will apply to councillors if the bill is passed today. Although I accept that there are some areas of dispute, we must be clear that some of the bodies on the list are really not acceptable.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I beg your indulgence, Presiding Officer, because I hope to speak at some length on this issue, which is the real meat of the bill, as it covers the bodies that can be incorporated.

David (None, Lothians)

You have four minutes.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I shall try my best. May I point out to Trish Godman that Scottish Homes, with 700 staff and a budget of £363 million, will, under the Executive's proposals, be excluded from the bill's scope? However, the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, with one member of staff, will be included, so I do not think that the amount of money available is necessarily a criterion. I should also point out to Keith Harding that amendments that are not competent would not be accepted at stage 2 of a bill.

"The Executive and this Parliament expect the highest standards throughout the public service."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol 1, c 879.]

So said Wendy Alexander on 2 July 1999, when she announced the extension of the ethics bill to include public bodies.

"However, the Committee remains unconvinced that the argument against including the maximum possible number of public bodies in the legislation stands up to scrutiny . . . all devolved public bodies, including Local Enterprise Companies, operating in Scotland and spending public money, should be included within the provisions of the legislation."

So says the Local Government Committee's stage 1 report.

The central argument about which bodies should and should not be included in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill is covered by those two quotations. The Local Government Committee's stage 1 report reaffirmed the essential ambition of the Executive, as set out by the Minister for Communities on 2 July 1999. At the stage 1 debate, I quoted that debate when I stated:

"The minister did not say part of the public service but 'throughout the public service'."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 91.]

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will Mr Gibson give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I cannot give way. I have been given only four minutes. I am sorry, but I cannot accept interventions. I have written a 15-minute speech, would you believe? [MEMBERS: "We believe it."] My concerns about the bill are shared by my party and by my colleagues on the Local Government Committee.

I went on to say:

"That issue must be addressed. We cannot have a two-tier system in which some public bodies are included and others are not. This chamber legislates in this area and it should be able to legislate for all who live in this country and hold public office."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 94.]

Our position is that all bodies that were added to the bill at stage 2 should be retained; the position of the Executive is that they should all be removed, with the exception of area tourist boards and the boards of further education colleges. Our view is that a quango is a quango is a quango.

It should be noted that all but three of the 49 devolved public bodies that were added by the Local Government Committee at stage 2 were approved unanimously. Donald Gorrie said to the committee on 23 May that

"the list seems to be a good attempt to cover what are, in common parlance, quangos. The bodies spend public money or advise on the spending of public money. They have an impact on people's lives in the same way that a councillor does and the argument is that they should be treated in the same way."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 23 May 2000; c 957.]

In his stage 1 speech on 27 April, Michael McMahon said:

"I join the committee in expressing reservations that a number of advisory bodies, such as local enterprise companies, further education colleges, housing associations and tourist boards, will be excluded from the proposals. As we know, individuals in those organisations are responsible for the management of considerable public funds and, like councillors, make policy decisions. The public must have confidence in the integrity of those officials."

Bristow Muldoon added that

"we should ensure that the bill covers arm's-length companies, such as leisure companies, and industrial and provident societies established by local authorities either to spend public moneys or to manage public assets."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 113 and 121.]

I hope that I can count on those colleagues to vote to reject the Executive's amendments in this group. The Executive has shown its faith in the Local Government Committee by accepting much of what we said at stage 2. The Local Government Committee must show that it has faith in itself and in its own decision making at stages 1 and 2.

I will miss out a few pages of my speech. In paragraph 10 of page 3 of the policy memorandum that accompanied this bill, the Executive said:

"The Executive does not believe that a statutory system would be seen as a deterrent by anyone genuinely committed to public service values."

Touché. If a statutory code would not be a deterrent to members of Executive non-departmental public bodies, why should it be a deterrent to those who serve on advisory non-departmental public bodies?

The only other pertinent argument is that an extension of the powers of the bill to include advisory committees would be disproportionate to any value that their inclusion would bring. That runs contrary to the spirit of the legislation. If all public life is to come under one scheme, the issue of whether the value of including any particular body is proportionate should not come into it. The ethics bill is about restoring public confidence in public bodies. That means all public bodies, and any argument about proportionate value should be set aside.

A number of Executive NDPBs have been excluded. According to the Executive, their regulation is a reserved matter under section C1 on business associations in part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, and is therefore outwith the competence of the bill. Section C1 lists as reserved matters the

"creation, operation, regulation and dissolution of types of business association".

The Executive argues that that means that the NDPBs are excluded from the bill. However, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Brian Jamieson, in evidence to the Local Government Committee on 9 May, did not seem to agree. In a specific reference to LECs, he said:

"That is why I said that the Scottish Enterprise board, which has discussed the matter, is entirely open to the suggestion that—so far as is practicable—we should impose all the provisions of the statutory code on the local enterprise companies. However, we would like to do that in the way in which we have proposed, instead of going down the statutory route."

The deputy convener then asked:

"Are you saying that this cannot be done, or that it ought not to be done?"

Brian Jamieson replied:

"I am not aware of anything that would make what you suggest a constitutional impossibility."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 9 May 2000; c 904-05]

Mr Jamieson, while not wanting LECs to be included in the bill, is not hiding behind company law and reserved powers. I spoke to him yesterday and he confirmed that LECs could be included provided that their model code reflected that they were bound by company law. That view is supported in paragraph 24 on page 6 of the Executive's own policy memorandum, which states:

"Similar codes of conduct will be introduced for members of relevant public bodies . . . Because these bodies do not form a homogeneous group it will be necessary for each body's code to reflect the type of work that it does, its composition, and the responsibilities and duties of its members. Accordingly the Bill provides for a statutory model code of conduct for members of relevant bodies; and for each of the relevant bodies to adopt a version of that code which is suited to its circumstances."

It is clear from the policy memorandum that public bodies that are limited companies would be able to adapt their codes to reflect that reality. There is no question of changing company law, so the issue of company law being a reserved matter is a red herring.

The Executive has also objected to the inclusion of a number of bodies such as tribunal NDPBs and university courts. We have yet to hear a clear argument from the Executive as to why those bodies have been excluded. Housing associations are also to be excluded; again, no clear reason has been given. Housing associations argue that, like universities, they are not public bodies. We do not accept that argument. They also argue that they are regulated by statute through Scottish Homes. However, that could be incorporated into their model codes.

We are unclear on the Executive line on this, but nationalised industries either operate in the same company law climate as limited companies, or act as public corporations, in the same way as the water companies that are included in the bill. Either way, they should be included, especially given the fiasco over Caledonian MacBrayne.

The last line of attack from the Executive is that there has been no time for consultation with the bodies that it is proposed are added to the bill. That argument could be applied to the late inclusions—area tourist boards and college boards—yet there has been the same time for them to be consulted as there has been for everyone else. That was flagged up in the committee some five months ago. The Scottish National Party feels that it should oppose the Executive's attempt to withdraw all the public bodies introduced at stage 2.

David (None, Lothians)

I allowed extra time because others have taken less than four minutes.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As I am a member of the Local Government Committee, it is my turn on this subject.

This is a contentious issue, but one area, although the committee debated it seriously, was seen less as a matter of contention than as a matter of wrestling with what we all identified as a problem. At that stage, the discussion focused especially on the role of LECs. We were anxious that the activities of bodies that have access to significant public moneys and that have an important role at a local level should be transparent and accountable.

Kenny Gibson says that the problem is that company law will not change. My understanding, however, is that the Parliament will consider LECs and their role. It is possible that the role of the LECs will change—I hope that that is possible. The committee as a whole was clear that the LECs and their role as public bodies were an issue, but other committees in the Parliament are addressing that. I hope that we can return to this subject at a later stage. We should have defined the bodies that we were dealing with; bodies would then fall within or outwith that definition. However, we started with a list and, through the committee procedure, realised that some bodies did not appear to be on it.

There is no easy way to solve that. We can take either Gil Paterson's catch-all position or the Executive's position, which is to deal with the narrower group now and to consult on the broader group. However, the intent remains the same. We should maximise the bill's coverage of bodies that can deal with public moneys, are publicly accountable and relate to the same ethical standard. That should apply to MSPs as well.

All sorts of bodies—small, localised bodies, children's panels and so on—have expressed anxieties about this matter. The best way for us to hold the position on a national standard is for people to commit to it through discussion and consultation. I therefore support the Executive's position, which is to consult those bodies further. My anxiety is that, if we do not consult, people will not sign up to the code of conduct.

We want a commitment from the Executive that this is not the final word on the matter. Kenny Gibson wants to characterise the proposals as the Executive excluding people from public accountability; he wants the code to be all-embracing. However, it is clear that other bodies can be included at a later stage. It would be unacceptable if this issue were not addressed in the near future. By shifting on this, the Executive has acknowledged the political issues that have been identified, has made a commitment to moving forward with the bodies that are included on the list and has taken off the list travelling people's organisations and so on, which should not be included in the scope of the bill.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The Executive, and especially Frank McAveety, deserves credit for some of the welcome concessions that have been made. Mr McAveety's amendment 22, to set up a new structure to bring more organisations within the ambit of the bill, is to be welcomed.

However, I have serious problems about the issue of excluding various quangos from the list. If Mr McAveety honours his commitment—as I am sure he will—to bring all such issues to the forefront as soon as possible, most of my colleagues will accept that; however, I am not at all happy with his argument.

It is not a personal issue, but the way in which we deal with bills needs serious examination. For example, when amendments are lodged at the last minute, nobody is able thoroughly to examine them, whether they are Executive or other amendments, and to discuss rationally whether it is sensible for a certain group to be included in the list.

The committee set out its stall quite early on this issue. However, the Executive did not really give ground and the committee, in a majority vote, went its dinger on the whole matter and included many organisations on the list, some of which should perhaps not have been included. That is not really a rational way of dealing with amendments, and we should improve the procedure.

I suggest that, with all due respect, Frank McAveety and his colleagues have received bad advice on this particular issue. As Kenny Gibson pointed out, we are told that the Scotland Act 1998 prevents us dealing with the matter, but the Scotland Act 1998 mentions only companies and business associations. We are talking about regulating the individual behaviour of individuals as directors of companies that dispose of public money. It seems only proper to allow that.

I am encouraged in this view by a briefing note that came from the Executive, or from the Scottish Parliament information centre or some other neutral source. The briefing note says that LECs

"discharge functions . . . through the provisions of an operating contract, renewed annually . . . The Operating Contract requires compliance with a range of measures that the parent organisation itself abides to by statute or by management control through the Scottish Executive . . . LEC Board Members already have to comply with either a Code of Corporate Governance . . . or . . . a policy of Accountability . . . both of which contain many of the features of the proposed code of conduct".

Those statements have been advanced as arguments for not needing the code of conduct. However, the fact that regulations similar to the code of conduct have already been imposed on these people totally demolishes the argument that we cannot impose our code of conduct on them as individuals. The Executive position is absolute rubbish on the issue.

Furthermore, if committees carefully study pieces of legislation and reach certain conclusions only to have the Executive not accept those conclusions and push the legislation through on a whipped vote, that raises a serious issue about why we are here at all. Why bother? As I said, the Executive did listen to the committee on other issues, which is very welcome; however, on the basis of duff advice, ministers are pushing through things that they should not be pushing through.

There are serious anomalies in the Executive's proposed list—the Scottish Arts Council, for example.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I just want to clarify a point about the committee's role in this matter. Other committee members and I voted against the committee's final position on about the first 10 amendments, after which it became clear that we would not have a majority on the committee.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Only the first two amendments.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The votes were quite clear and the rest of the amendments went through on the nod. Mr Gorrie and I know that there is no way that those amendments would come to the chamber and be whipped through against our conscience. We made the political case in the committee, and were defeated.

David (None, Lothians)

Mr Gorrie, could you respond and wind up, please.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I entirely accept that Johann Lamont and others voted in a particular way. However, I feel that we must address the serious issue of the interaction between committees and the Executive.

I will limit myself to one example of the anomalies in this list. The Scottish Arts Council is on the list as an organisation to be regulated; Scottish Screen, which is a very similar organisation that deals with films, is not. That is one example of the foolishness of the Executive's list. The committee's list should be accepted in place of the Executive's and we can sort the matter out later. I am very unhappy about how this aspect of the bill has been dealt with.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Following on from Johann Lamont's comments, I want to focus on the critical issue, which is that we did not have a definition of devolved public bodies when the committee discussed which bodies should be included on the list. The issue hinges on which public bodies are appropriate.

To add to the examples mentioned by Johann Lamont, some of the recreational trusts that councils have established cover extremely minor matters, such as running a playground in a rural area. Is it necessary that the burdens imposed by the bill should apply to such trusts?

There is also confusion around the position of school boards—that matter was raised earlier. School boards are advisory and do not have the executive budgetary powers that some people may think they have. Including bodies such as school boards in the provisions of the bill would result in fewer people coming forward to sit on school boards. In some areas of Scotland, it is growing increasingly difficult to encourage people to come forward.

I am confident that no one on this side of the chamber wants LECs excluded from the provisions of the bill. However, having said that, we should take on board the Executive's point. I do not often disagree with what Donald Gorrie says on the Local Government Committee, but from his comments today, I almost detected a shade of "Because you are not quite agreeing me, I will not agree with the Executive." We must take on board the Executive's comments. It will not be too long before LECs are included in the bill's provisions, particularly given the work of John Swinney and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I hope that they will arrive at the necessary conclusions.

David (None, Lothians)

I call Bristow Muldoon.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am sorry, but I did not press my button, Presiding Officer.

David (None, Lothians)

In that case, I ask Frank McAveety to respond to the debate on this group of amendments.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division, for which I will allow two minutes.

While members are voting, I can inform them how I propose to handle the rest of this group of amendments. There are 52 amendments after amendment 23. Clearly, if we take them individually, that will occupy valuable debating time. I will therefore put the questions on the amendments en bloc.

Before I do so, however, I will ask anyone who wants to vote on a particular amendment to indicate that by pressing their request-to-speak button. I will then take a note of which amendments are to be put separately. In the meantime, we will continue the vote on amendment 23.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 63, Against 49, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

I now invite members who wish to vote on any particular amendments in this grouping to let me know.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Could we take the votes on amendments 26, 34 and 22 separately, Presiding Officer?

David (None, Lothians)

Amendment 22 will be taken separately anyway.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We wish to take the votes on the following amendments separately, Presiding Officer: 26, 28, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42, 45, 47, 48, 53, 55, 59, 63, 65, 69, 71 and 22.

David (None, Lothians)

In that case, we should perhaps take them individually, because it will be very difficult to make sense of any groupings. However, if members concentrate, I will try to group them as best I can.

Are amendments 24 and 25 agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

No? I thought that Kenny Gibson told me that amendment 26 was the first that he wanted taken individually, but it seems not. We will take them one by one.

Amendment 24 moved—[Mr McAveety].

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 63, Against 50, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

I invite the minister to move all the remaining amendments in the group en bloc to save him getting up each time. I will then put the questions individually.

Amendments 25 to 74 moved—[Mr McAveety].

David (None, Lothians)

In the interests of time and as everyone is here, I will reduce the voting time to 15 seconds.

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 65, Against 50, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 64, Against 50, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 80, Against 36, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 66, Against 51, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 66, Against 51, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 64, Against 51, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 31 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 80, Against 36, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 66, Against 49, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 63, Against 48, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 35 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 77, Against 35, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 62, Against 51, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 79, Against 36, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 64, Against 53, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 66, Against 52, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 40 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 62, Against 50, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 75, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 67, Against 51, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 43 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 65, Against 51, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 83, Against 35, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 45 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 66, Against 52, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 83, Against 35, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Would it be in order to move that the rest of the amendments be taken en bloc?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That would be helpful to the chamber.