Hansard

Thank you—it is a pleasure to be in front of the committee again. I hope that this goes as well as the last stage 2 that I attended at the committee. Alex Rowley has set out his view on how Parliament should be involved, and we have the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that the Scottish Parliament should have a more active scrutiny role in relation to national outcomes. I agree with both that the scrutiny role of the Scottish Parliament in the process should be strengthened. I believe that the way to do that is through consultation under rule 17.5 of the Scottish Parliament’s standing orders. That process best reflects the separation of powers between an Executive that is responsible for setting the strategic direction of Government and a Parliament that is responsible for holding the Government to account for its progress. Therefore, I do not think that the procedure that Alex Rowley proposes is the best one. I will go through my amendments in detail but, in summary, they would require Scottish ministers to consult the Parliament when determining, and when reviewing, national outcomes. The effect of amendment 1003 is that, having consulted “such persons as they consider appropriate” in order to determine the draft national outcomes, Scottish ministers must then consult the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 1004 is in consequence of amendment 1003 and provides that the national outcomes cannot be published until the Scottish Parliament has been consulted. Amendment 1005 sets the period for parliamentary consultation at 40 days, beginning with the day the consultation document is laid before the Parliament or otherwise provided to the clerk. The process set out at rule 17.5 of the Scottish Parliament’s standing orders will apply to the consultation. I do not propose to go into further detail on that, unless members would find that helpful. Amendment 1008 provides that, in any review of the national outcomes, “the Scottish Ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.” Amendment 1012 removes the previous, more restricted, provision on that point, which had limited the consultation to where revisions were to be made. Amendment 1009 provides that the Scottish Parliament is to be consulted in any review of the national outcomes. If, after a review has taken place, revisions to the national outcomes are proposed, that amendment provides that the Scottish Parliament will also be consulted on those revisions. If, after a review has taken place, no revisions are proposed, the Scottish Parliament will still be consulted on the existing national outcomes. Amendment 1014 specifies that the period for the parliamentary consultation is 40 days. The process set out at rule 17.5 of the Scottish Parliament’s standing orders would apply to the consultation. Amendments 1010 and 1011 provide that national outcomes may not be republished until after the 40-day period of consultation with the Scottish Parliament. There are some concerns about Alex Rowley’s proposal for a list of consultees. By identifying certain individuals and groups, the scope of the consultation is unavoidably narrowed, with some persons given greater significance in statute than others. For example, the list gives prominence to some organisations, such as those that work for children and young people, but not organisations that work in other sectors, such as those that work for homeless people or equality organisations. The current wording allows flexibility for the consultation process to be appropriate to different situations. For example, where a review focuses on a specialist issue, it may be more appropriate to limit the scope of consultation to those who have expertise, experience and interest in that area. On the other hand, we anticipate that all Governments would want to consult widely and inclusively on the national outcomes as a whole. The duty needs to be carried out reasonably and, as such, entails that anyone who could reasonably expect to be consulted will be consulted. We also propose amendments that extend the requirement for consultation when the national outcomes are reviewed. The amendments ensure that, in the course of any review of the national outcomes, Scottish ministers are required to consult. Both Alex Rowley and Drew Smith propose legislating for the provision of a report on the consultation process. I agree with the principle behind that proposal, but I do not agree that it requires legislation. When the national outcomes are provided to the Parliament, we would, as a matter of good practice—as I believe any Government would—provide a note on the process and findings of the consultation. That would give the Parliament an opportunity to comment on the consultation process. Finally, I turn to Alex Rowley’s proposals for reporting on the national outcomes. I do not think that it is appropriate to legislate for how and when future Governments will report on the national outcomes, because the format and timing of the reporting should be for the Government of the day to decide. The way in which we communicate and receive information is moving at such a pace that we would rather allow for future innovative approaches to reporting. There have been recent discussions in Parliament about the appropriateness of certain timescales for the reporting of data, and such a timescale should be something that can be adapted in the light of experience. For example, a case could be made for reporting on progress at any time of the year, at the beginning or end of the parliamentary session, before or alongside the draft budget, and so on. As such, I believe that it is best to leave the timescales flexible and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Government reports through the Scotland performs website, which provides an up-to-the-minute picture of progress towards the national outcomes. Updates are continually made available as soon as the latest data is published, so Scotland performs always shows the most up-to-date information. We also provide a Scotland performs update to support the draft budget scrutiny process, including performance score cards and narrative to show performance against national outcomes. That is how we currently undertake our annual reporting. 09:45 We would rather not limit future Governments to an inflexible model by prescribing the format and timing of reporting. I do not think it is appropriate to ask that the Scottish ministers consult those listed in preparing any report on progress towards national outcomes. Any report on progress would be a factual statement based on evidence. Consultation on that does not seem appropriate in this context. I therefore invite Alex Rowley to withdraw amendment 1043 and ask him and Drew Smith not to move their other amendments in the group. I ask the committee to support amendments 1003 to 1005, 1008 to 1012 and 1014.