Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 01 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 1, 1999

Official Report 288KB pdf

---

Improvement in Scottish Education Bill

Item 6 is the improvement in Scottish education bill and the abolition of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee. Nicola asked whether this item could be placed on the agenda.

Contrary to what the agenda says, I did not ask for this item to be put on the agenda in order to consider in detail the legislative proposals. I raised the issue last week as I am concerned about the process that is being followed and about the lack of consultation over the provision in the draft bill that deals with the SJNC. We have had an extensive consultation exercise on the draft bill and it is fair to say that that exercise was in line with the consultative steering group's recommendations. We now await the outcome of that exercise.

However, a couple of weeks ago, a letter issued to a limited range of people said that the bill would include a provision to abolish the SJNC. The letter gave a deadline of less than two weeks for comments and stated that comments should not relate to the policy, but only to

"the technical aspects of the provision".

At no time has there been any public consultation on the abolition of the SJNC, which is an approach that runs completely counter to the CSG's recommendations and to standing orders. It is worth noting that the committee was not sent the letter so that it could comment on the draft section; the letter was sent to the committee for information. The committee should express its disquiet at that approach, even if we do not go into the merits of the policy, about which I am sure that we would not agree. We should say that this is not the standard of consultation that we expect from the Executive.

I share your concerns about the consultation period and the restricted number of people who are being consulted. I suggest that we get back to the Executive in order to note our concerns about who is being consulted on this policy, as it is important that as wide a range of people as possible is given that opportunity.

Although I agree that the time scale is rather short, I prefer to allow those people who are being consulted to make their submissions. If we find that people say that they have not had time, we will raise that with the Executive, but at this stage, knowing the pressures that we are under in terms of responding to the bill, I prefer to allow the consultation process to continue.

I am not suggesting that we respond to the letter—in any event, yesterday was the closing date for comments, so the deadline has passed. All I am asking is that we put on record our disquiet about the lack of consultation—the fact that the proposal was not included in the original consultation exercise and that it has been introduced at a later stage without any opportunity for public comment.

Are you happy to proceed as I suggested? We will say that we are concerned about the time scale and about the restricted number of people who have been asked to provide comments, but that we will await the outcome of the consultation exercise to see whether those who are being consulted raise that issue.

We know the outcome of the consultation—the letter tells us the outcome, which is another matter for concern.

The Government is entitled to make further proposals.

I do not deny that, Ian, but we all agree that it is also obliged to consult pre-legislatively on these proposals. It has not done that in the same way as it consulted on the rest of the proposals in the draft bill.

Unfortunately, the issue arose following the publication of the draft bill—that is why the proposal was added. However, we all seem to share Nicola's concerns about the way in which this matter has been handled. We may wish to pick up that point when we consider the bill.

We must emphasise the point that this letter went out for consultation on 11 November, but the statement on which it is based was made on 22 September. Why did it take six weeks to set up a 19-day consultation period?

Okay. Thank you.

Meeting closed at 12:32.