Public Sector Jobs Relocation Debate
I indicated earlier that I would get some information on the relocation debate from various sources. On the issue that was raised, I have received a letter from Patricia Ferguson, which I propose simply to read out. She says:
"In light of the Executive's failure to respond within the agreed timescale to your Committee's Report on the Relocation Policy of the Scottish Executive, I am writing to advise you that new monitoring procedures are being put in place to prevent a reoccurrence of this nature.
The Scottish Executive endeavours at all times to comply with the protocols it has with the Parliament and it is a matter of concern to Ministers that this has not been the case in this instance. Please be assured that we take this matter seriously and convey to your Committee my apologies for this failure on our part.
I am copying this letter to the Presiding Officer."
In a sense, we have received a positive response on the question of procedure. However, I have also received an indication that the specific response to our relocation report will not be available until Monday, which is obviously less than satisfactory.
As far as the possibility of changing business is concerned, the Presiding Officer is currently in a meeting, but the informal advice that I have received from clerks is that any move towards trying to pull or change the substance of the debate would seriously disrupt parliamentary business. In any case, it is not within our powers to do so, as any such move would depend on a vote of the Parliament. Instead, I propose to respond to Patricia Ferguson's letter, welcoming the procedural mechanisms that she has indicated will be put in place and registering our continuing disappointment that we will not receive a response before Monday. I am happy to take on board any other points that members wish to highlight.
We should respond to Patricia Ferguson, saying that we appreciate the generous nature of her apology, from which I do not want to detract in any way. We should also indicate that, in the circumstances, we are happy to receive the response to our report on Monday.
We should also say to the Presiding Officer that we are anxious to find out the convention that he will adopt if such circumstances recur. After all, Patricia Ferguson is only reaffirming that the Executive should have met the deadline—as I have said, she has done that generously and we should accept her apology. However, her letter does not deal with the convention with regard to parliamentary scrutiny in such matters, which remains an issue for the Presiding Officer. The clerks should convey to him that we and other committees would find it helpful to know the convention that he will adopt towards parliamentary business if the eight-week deadline is not met and a debate is looming.
As a result, I propose that we reply to Patricia Ferguson by appreciating the generous nature of her apology and indicating that we are looking forward to receiving the response on Monday. Moreover, we should indicate to the Presiding Officer that we hope that in due course he will reach a view on the scheduling of parliamentary business when such a deadline has been breached. Obviously, I do not want to disrupt Wednesday's business.
It is gratifying that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has apologised and admitted that the Executive is in the wrong. However, as well as entirely endorsing Wendy Alexander's proposals, I want to make two other suggestions.
First, in accordance with paragraph 17 of the protocol, an explanation is required to be provided when the two-month deadline is not complied with. Even now, we have received no explanation from the minister, Tavish Scott, of why it was not possible to comply with the usual deadline. The protocol requires us to have an explanation and the fact that we have not received one means that there is a continuing breach, which should be remedied. There might well be some acceptable explanation such as staff absence, illness or change of personnel; nevertheless, we should know what it is and I hope that the minister can be asked to explain why we are in this position.
Secondly, and more important for the future, I suspect that the Presiding Officer will simply say that, because of standing orders, the matter is not within his powers. However, I agree entirely that we should try to establish some convention.
Given that the Parliamentary Bureau has responsibility for setting debates, I suggest that the matter should be raised with it in a letter setting out our concerns and referring members of the bureau to today's debate. I suggest that we invite them to express a view on whether it is appropriate to schedule debates where the Executive has not responded in time and asking them to offer Parliament some comment on whether there should be a minimum period of notice, such as seven days, which would allow Parliament to have the benefit of the Executive response a set period before the debate takes place. It is not only MSPs who are interested in the relocation of public sector jobs; it is plainly a matter of great interest to members of the public. They may wish to see the Executive response and invite MSPs to make representations in the debate, but they will not have much of an opportunity to do so on this occasion.
I hope that, as a matter of practice, members of the bureau will at least consider that suggestion and revert to us after they have done so with the specific recommendation that there should normally be a minimum period between the publication of the Executive response to a committee report and the holding of the debate. That recommendation should be incorporated in the reply. That seems to me to be an appropriate way ahead, but perhaps the bureau could examine the whole issue and come back to us with a considered view.
I would not disagree with a thing that either Wendy Alexander or Fergus Ewing has said. My only addition to their comments is that, as I mentioned earlier, the tone of Tavish Scott's letter, in which he claims that he regrets that
"there has not been better communication between the Executive and the Committee",
implies in some way that that was partly the committee's fault. He seems to be saying, "It's not my fault. It was a problem of communication between us." It should be stressed that any lack of communication was not on the part of the committee, but on the part of the Executive.
Perhaps it would also be useful to know at what time on Monday the Executive plans to give its response. If it is to be at close of business on Monday, that leaves us only one day to put together our contributions to the debate on Wednesday.
On Ted Brocklebank's first point, I am quite clear about the fact that no blame attaches to our staff. We have followed the procedures entirely properly. We published our report and we reminded the Executive at the due date—strenuous attempts have been made to secure a response from the Executive.
I will make a brief suggestion in the spirit of reconciliation that is currently prevailing in Parliament. We have just moved into a new building and there are many reasons why the Executive may not have complied with the rules. However, as a member of the newly formed alliance of independents, I am sure that we could take over that debating time on Wednesday and let the committee have another run at the issue at a future date.
That is a kind offer, John, but I am not sure that it is likely to be taken up.
The suggestions that have been made are generally helpful. I think that, as has been suggested, we should reply to Patricia Ferguson, welcoming the fact that an apology has been made and that new procedures are to be put in place. We should seek further information about when the report is likely to be received and we should stress the fact that, from the point of view of the committee and of members in general, the earlier the report is available, the better.
We should perhaps write to the Presiding Officer highlighting our concerns about the matter and the issues of principle involved. Perhaps we should also take up Fergus Ewing's recommendation and suggest to the Presiding Officer that the matter should be discussed by the Parliamentary Bureau as a procedural issue. It needs to be discussed properly and its ramifications and implications must be thought out.
Will Wednesday's debate now take place?
Yes, it will proceed.
We ought to write to the bureau and suggest that the matter be looked at in principle. I think that that is the burden of members' thoughts on the issue. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
If members are content, a motion will be lodged today. I thank members for attending the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:45.