Official Report 465KB pdf
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority Local Office Closures (PE1425)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of two public petitions. I invite comments and views from members on PE1425, on the adverse impact of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency local office closures.
The issue that the petition addresses is typical of the kind of problem that arises in a whole series of Government departments when a transformation from a paper-based approach to an electronic approach takes place.
The petition refers to issues of
“economy, safety and customer service to all Scottish residents.”
I am afraid that the issue of economy is just a consequence of such a change. I am more concerned about issues of safety and customer service.
I am not entirely sure about the associated dangers, although I am concerned to find out more.
Customer service relates specifically to representations that I have had from the motor trade. I might wish to find out more about exactly what the impact of the office closures would be on the motor trade.
I agree with much of what Alex Johnstone has said. I know that, in order to get vehicles back on the road quickly, the DVLA office in the Gyle is used on a weekly basis by many public transport companies. It would certainly be an inconvenience to public transport operators if the DVLA office at the Gyle were to close. I am sure that that view would be replicated across the whole of Scotland.
I note the representations that were received by the Public and Commercial Services trade union. It said that, if implemented, the local office closures would lead to the loss of a total of 119 jobs in Scotland in five offices across the country. That is a significant point.
That is indeed a significant point. We never want to see jobs being lost.
In my original remarks, I was referring to a change in the nature and practice of government that is being driven by technology. It would be irresponsible of us or of any politician of any colour to suggest that government should be kept as big as possible in order to employ as many people as possible. We must always remember that efficiency in government drives economic growth and creates jobs. That efficiency in government is something that we should, in principle, be supporting.
I suspect that, because this area is subject to Westminster legislation, the people concerned are not covered by a policy of no compulsory redundancies, as they would be under the Scottish Government.
It is interesting to note from our paper that we asked for comments from haulage and freight stakeholders on two occasions, inviting them to express any concerns that they had. None has been received. We may wish to point that out to the petitioner.
What would members recommend? Should we close the petition? Does the committee wish to take any further action?
It would be reasonable for us to support the idea that the Scottish Government should make representations on the matter.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the Public Petitions Committee would have dealt with that when it was considering the petition.
We could write to the Public Petitions Committee and tell it that we support its actions.
Support the Public Petitions Committee? That is not really—[Laughter.] Transport Scotland wrote to the Public Petitions Committee detailing its response to the United Kingdom Government’s consultation. I think that all those steps have been gone through.
I would not demur from Mr Johnstone’s suggestion that the Scottish Parliament should urge the Scottish Government to make representations to the UK Government. The question is whether that has already been done by the Public Petitions Committee.
That has been done by the Scottish Government. I draw members’ attention to paragraph 17 in paper ICI/S4/14/16/1. It says:
“A response from the Transport Strategy Unit of the Scottish Government was received on 21 January”,
which said:
“there are no plans to revisit the closures and ... the transformation programme to reduce the DVLA’s running costs will be going ahead.”
That was the response that the Scottish Government must have got from the DVLA—or from the Westminster Government.
The Public Petitions Committee did everything that it could with the petition before it referred it to us.
We should write to the petitioner to that effect and close the petition.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Blacklisting (PE1481)
Does anyone have any comments or views on PE1481?
We discussed blacklisting during scrutiny of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, but there is still evidence of other agencies operating blacklists—motions to that effect have been lodged in the Parliament in the past couple of weeks. It seems to me that there is still more to be uncovered and that, until those who have previously been found to operate blacklists reach agreement on compensation and other such matters with the members of staff who were discriminated against, we should keep the petition open.
Yes, although I remind you that the petition relates specifically to the awarding of public contracts, so we cannot get involved in matters that concern companies that work purely in the private sector.
We have been through a long process in relation to the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, which has completed its passage through the Parliament. The use of the awarding of public contracts to influence companies in the way suggested was discussed at stages 1 and 2 and was rejected for legitimate reasons, so I would go so far as to say that the Parliament as a whole has addressed the matter.
I am totally against blacklisting and the Scottish Government is against it, but we have a bit of a problem in that most of the matter comes under UK employment law. That is, it is reserved to the UK Government—unless, of course, the vote on 18 September goes in the right direction. Therefore, I am not sure what we can do with the petition.
My understanding is that the Scottish Government has written to a number of the unions asking them to provide evidence, so that it can provide future guidance on the procurement process. That is probably the right way to go. There does not seem to be any evidence that any Scottish Government contracts have suffered from blacklisting.
The matter was linked to the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, but there is still an outstanding call for the Scottish Government to conduct a full, independent public inquiry. Gordon MacDonald states that no evidence has been found that Scottish Government contracts have gone to companies that operate blacklists, but the fact remains that there has been no independent inquiry to ascertain whether that has happened.
I suggest that the committee write to the petitioners, ask whether they are satisfied with the actions that the Government has taken through the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill and keep the petition open until we receive a response.
So you want to write to the petitioners to find out whether what the Government has done so far on public contracts is enough. We can do that, I suppose, pointing out that employment law is a reserved matter.
What is the name of the company concerned? It is the Consulting Association, I think. I think that it works under two names. If it went out of business, especially in Scotland, that would be fine, but the matter is reserved, so it is UK-wide.
Do we agree to do as suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2Next
Annual Report