Children (Performances and Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/372)
Item 3 is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument.
Before members comment on the instrument, I will make one. If you remember, we recently made a comment to the Minister for Children and Young People and her officials about consultation in relation to two instruments; there had been none on one instrument, and on the other there had been consultation but no explanation of what happened as a result of it. Although I have no problem with SSI 2014/372, I am afraid to say that the policy note states that
“A public consultation on the proposals ... took place”
but does not tell us what the outcome of the consultation was nor what was changed as a result of it. We received a promise from officials and the minister that lessons had been learned, or would be learned, and that the approach would be changed. Unfortunately, in this case that does not seem to have happened.
I throw that in there, because committee members and I questioned the minister and officials on the matter when they came before us. Do members have any comments?
I do not think that the minister has passed the test on this occasion and could do better. Given that you raised the issue previously, I would have hoped that the approach would have been corrected and that there would have been something quite different in front of us today. I support your comments.
I should say to members that the clerks approached the Government for a response, knowing full well that we had raised the issue previously. An email response was forthcoming, which explained what had happened in the consultation, what responses had been received and what changes had been made. The fact that that information was available and was given to the clerks makes the situation worse, because it should have been included in the information that we received initially, given the promise that had been made to the committee.
Although such things may be small, they matter. I suggest therefore that we write to the minister to point out that it is, given the promises that we received, disappointing that the same point about lack of information on consultation has arisen in relation to another instrument. Are members agreed?
Are we seeking to annul the instrument?
No. We will write to the minister to make the general point about consultation on regulations.
I agree with that approach.
We should emphasise that the information was available.
Yes, indeed.
That is a relevant point; it makes what happened more irritating, to be honest.
One of the things that annoyed me when I was on the Subordinate Legislation Committee, or whatever it is called now, was the business of timelining things. The Government sometimes did not meet the 40-day rule. I am sure that this is not the first time that this has happened. I think that it is right to write to the minister, but somebody somewhere needs to get their act together.
I am not making a point about this instrument; I am making a general point that we have raised before that has not been addressed in relation to this instrument. I ask for the committee’s permission to write to the minister on that basis. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee agree to make no recommendation to Parliament on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Curriculum for Excellence