Official Report 283KB pdf
At its meeting on 12 May, the committee raised concerns about the absence of consultation on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Part 2 Extension) Order 2015.
The order was drawn to the Parliament’s attention under the general reporting ground. The committee was not satisfied with the justification offered by the Scottish Government for not having consulted, and we consequently agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister on this matter.
The Deputy First Minister has now responded to our concerns, and members have a copy of his letter. Do members have any comments?
As well as discussing the order at this committee, I was at the Finance Committee when we discussed it with the Deputy First Minister. I have to say that I am not completely satisfied with the arguments; the Government just seems to have held firm to the points that it was putting forward previously, which I do not think answer the points that we raised.
Specifically, paragraph 5 of the Deputy First Minister’s letter suggests that a consultation would not have made a difference to the order. I accept that it would not have made any difference to anything internal in the order, but it might have made a difference to whether the order came forward in the first place. The issue was controversial when the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill was discussed, and it would have been interesting to hear what some of the outside bodies thought—whether they have been reassured by what has happened in the past five years, or whether they still have concerns. I do not feel that that was a strong argument against a consultation.
Secondly, paragraph 6 refers to other public bodies. In the past, such bodies have been prepared to state their opinion on the public record despite the fact that they are subject to ministerial control. Again, therefore, I do not think that the Government makes a particularly good argument. I remain unsatisfied, although I did not vote against the order at the Finance Committee.
I agree with John Mason. I adhere to my view of last week that the Government should consult when it has been set out that it will do so, and I am concerned about the precedent that this move sets for the future. Is the Government now going to decide when it will consult? Notwithstanding the reasons provided in the letter, I think that an uncomfortable precedent has been set that the Government will decide when it will consult and when it will just say how something is going to be because there is no point in consulting. That puts us on a very slippery slope.
Thank you for those comments, which I am sure will be read by the appropriate authorities.
That completes item 7, at which point I move the meeting into private.
11:41 Meeting continued in private until 12:05.Previous
Pensions Instruments