Finance Committee, 08 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Official Report 262KB pdf

---

Public Sector Pay

The second agenda item is to consider the response from the Scottish Government on the committee's report on public sector pay. I invite comments from members. Are there any comments, or are we satisfied?

No, we are not satisfied. I am deeply disappointed in the lack of response from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth—he has hardly taken up any of our suggestions. He has sort of answered some points, but the answer on several points seems to be, "Thanks for the report, but no thanks." We suggested that formal negotiating machinery be set up, but the Government's response is that it does not believe that we need that. We asked about low pay, but the response is that that is up to individual bodies and that the Government

"welcomes the efforts of local authorities".

The response goes on in that vein. I have highlighted various points. One answer is:

"This is a Local Government issue",

or, "Not for me, guv." On human resources advice, the response is, "Nah, forget it—we can get that if we want it." That was an issue that arose a lot during our inquiry. To be fair to the cabinet secretary, he states:

"The pay policy team would be ready and willing to discuss any specific proposals for flexibilities that public bodies might want to bring to them",

although not the committee, naturally.

I am disappointed by the response, because we went into the inquiry full of good intentions. [Interruption.] Who is snorting? Joe FitzPatrick? I thought it might be. We went into the inquiry full of good intentions to try to sort out issues that witnesses raised with us. As I say, the response is disappointing.

Linda Fabiani wishes to comment.

Yes—and you will be delighted to know that I will not snort.

We must be a bit fairer to the cabinet secretary. He has responded to some elements of our report by saying that the Government is considering the issue—for example, low pay and bonuses—and that it will report back to the committee. We cannot expect the Government to say that it will do this or that when it has an investigation on-going. I am not as disappointed as David Whitton is. I think that the response is fairly positive.

On the comments that certain issues are local government responsibilities, the fact is that we have a relationship with local government in which local authorities are responsible for what they do and for their budgets. It is healthy that we are moving away from centralisation and from telling local authorities what to do.

David Kelly—sorry, I mean James Kelly.

I was nearly renamed there.

The response is pretty inadequate. We had several evidence sessions and we put a lot of work into the report. We talked seriously about the recommendations to try to improve the process. We heard several criticisms of the process and a few suggestions on how to improve it. I accept Linda Fabiani's point that the Government is considering bonuses, but in general the cabinet secretary is not taking up any of our points. I certainly regret the element of saying, "It's nothing to do with me—it's down to local government," which has become something of a theme. The response is not adequate or helpful, particularly given the amount of work that we put into the report.

I have two specific points. One is on the human resources element, which I confess was not a big issue for me during the inquiry. The reply is identical to what the officials told us. The cabinet secretary has simply signed off what the officials have written, which I think is discourteous. We made a genuine point, which has been sidestepped. The committee should not accept that.

My second point is on bonuses. It is interesting that the Government is considering setting up a review group, which should be welcomed. However, the response states that the Government will

"alert the Committee once recommendations have been produced."

I am not sure whether that means recommendations to set up a group, or recommendations by a group that the Government might set up. I simply do not know, because the reply is not clear, and nor does the reply address the specific point that the committee made, after much discussion, that bonus arrangements should be altered or brought to an end when appointments come up for renewal. I recall that the point was made less strongly than I wanted, but it was nevertheless a unanimous view. The Government has simply ignored that. Given that all members signed up to the point after much discussion, it is not appropriate for the cabinet secretary to ignore it. We have justification to go back to the Government on those two specific points. Other points are a matter for debate—and they always will be.

We can seek clarification on that. There is some dissatisfaction. There might be some satisfaction with the content, but there is clearly no complete agreement on it—and there are some on-going issues. Members' comments have been noted. I suggest that, bearing in mind what has been said, the clerks write to the minister and raise the issues that have been discussed. [Interruption.] It is being suggested that I write to the minister. I am very happy so to do.

The cabinet secretary has addressed the bulk of what we discussed in our report. He has thanked us for the report, which he clearly found to be useful. We either agree that local authorities have the right to take decisions or we think that the Scottish Parliament should take all the decisions for them. I happen to agree with the cabinet secretary that we have a relationship with local government and that some things are local government's responsibility. For us to start dictating would be fundamentally wrong. I know that there is a difference of opinion on that, but it is perhaps best to accept that we will always have differences of opinion.

I am sorry—I missed the earlier conversation, so I hesitate to contribute, but I heard the comment that the cabinet secretary had addressed the recommendations and I feel that that has fundamentally not been done. To me, it smacked of a Sir Humphrey sort of response, meaning "We know best, and the committee has nothing to say to us on these issues." We got a repetition of the evidence that was given, with no real assimilation of what the committee had actually said. I am fundamentally disappointed. Without intruding on who has a relationship with whom in terms of local government, I am disappointed that the Government has ignored a parliamentary committee report. If that is the nature of the conversation that we have been having by letter, I would be pleased with the proposed course of action.

I suggest that I write to the minister, pointing out what the committee has said.

We have a decision to make. Does the committee wish to bid for time in the chamber to debate its report?

Yes.

There is a reference in the Government's response to a debate on 17 September. Is that a members' business debate?

Yes.

It is a members' business debate, you say?

Yes. It is the living wage debate.

I suggest that we await the response to the letter that you are going to write, convener, and then take a decision.

We can get some advice from the clerk.

Could I make a suggestion? The convener could write to the minister, seeking clarification on the points that Jeremy Purvis made, referring the minister to the Official Report of today's meeting and asking him to respond to our discussion. We could then wait for a response to that.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 16:43.