LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday 24 April 2001 (Afternoon) Session 1 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2001. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Tuesday 24 April 2001 Col. ITEMS IN PRIVATE ................................................................................................................................ 1811 SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TENDERING) BILL: STAGE 1..................................................................... 1812 PETITION ............................................................................................................................................ 1833 SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION.................................................................................................................. 1834 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE 12th Meeting 2001, Session 1 CONVENER *Trish Godman (West Renfrew shire) (Lab) DEPU TY CONVENER Dr Sylvia Jac kson (Stirling) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Mr Kenneth Gibson (Glasgow ) (SNP) Mr Keith Harding (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) *Mr Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) *Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP) *Iain Smith (North-East Fife) (LD) *attended WITNESSES Iain Dickson (Scottish Construction Industry Group) Bruce Dixon (Association for Public Service Excellence) Stew art Gilchrist (Association for Public Service Excellence) Paul O’Brien (Association for Public Service Excellence) John Park (Scottish Construction Industry Group) Sid Patten (Scottish Construction Industry Group) Peter Peacoc k (Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government) Christie Smith (Scottish Executive Development Department) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Eugene Windsor SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Irene Fleming ASSISTANT CLERK Craig Harper LOC ATION Committee Room 2 1811 24 APRIL 2001 1812 Scottish Parliament 13:50 Local Government Committee Meeting continued in public. Tuesday 24 April 2001 Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill: Stage 1 (Afternoon) The Convener: I thank the witnesses for coming [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 13:32] early. I hope that you have had a good break and that you are fresh and raring to go, as we are— that is what I am saying, at least, although the Items in Private committee does not seem to support me on it. We have with us Peter Peacock, who is the The Convener (Trish Godman): Okay Deputy Minister for Finance and Local comrades, now that we are quorate, we will start. I Government, Christie Smith, who is the head of hope that you all had a pleasant break over Easter the local government finance and performance and that you have come back refreshed, although, division of the Scottish Executive, and Mary looking at Kenny Gibson, I have to say that it does Newman, who is the head of best value in the not look like it. local government finance and performance Members will not like the next bit. I am going to division. I welcome them to the committee. The ask you to agree to take items 2 and 7 in private. procedure will be the same as before: the minister The reason for taking item 2 in private is to allow will make some comments, after which I will open Professor Arthur Midwinter to speak to us. He up the meeting for questions. Over to you, cannot speak to us in a public session, because minister. the item concerns proposals for witnesses for the The Deputy Minister for Finance and Local budget process inquiry, which might be sensitive. Government (Peter Peacock): I will be brief, Moreover, we may not wish the Executive to know because I know that members will have questions. at this point exactly what we are going to do. Item The Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill is a 7 is to be taken in private because we will be short, two-section bill, which contains no new considering the conclusions of a report. Do policy proposals. It is designed to remove the limit members agree to take items 2 and 7 in private? on the period during which the competition Members indicated agreement. provisions in the Local Government Act 1988 may be modified. The reason for doing that is so that the widely supported moratorium on compulsory 13:33 competitive tendering does not end on 31 Meeting continued in private. December 2001 in respect of those defined activities that are associated with direct service organisations. To have effect, the bill has to commence by 31 December 2001, which means that royal assent is required before the end of November. DSO managers in local authorities believe that the earlier we can make the change that the bill proposes, the better, as it will mean that they are not by default put to the unnecessary effort of preparing for a reintroduction of compulsory competitive tendering. In effect, the bill will allow ministers to continue the moratorium until we can replace the current regime with the best-value framework, which we are planning. I want to make it clear that, in that framework, we firmly intend to repeal the CCT legislation. We intend to publish our detailed legislative proposals on best value in the autumn. Work on the preparation of those proposals is well under way. I am happy to answer any questions on that as well as on other aspects of the issue. 1813 24 APRIL 2001 1814 The Convener: We have a written submission Peter Peacock: Our firm intention is to publish from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, our detailed legislative proposals in autumn this which suggests that another way round the issue year. Our preparations for briefing draftsmen on is to abolish CCT altogether. Why did you not do the bill are well under way. Members will be aware that? If the proposals for the development of best that the proprieties and protocols of Parliament value to replace CCT are well in advance, why did prevent ministers from saying what will definitely you not include a later date in the bill, rather than be in a future legislative programme. I am having no date at all? constrained by that. However, members will no doubt have got the drift of what I am suggesting. Peter Peacock: I stress that we regard the bill We would not be doing all the detailed preparation as a technical measure. There is a question of work, which is now beginning to take place, if we timing. In essence, if we were to take no action were not firm in our intentions. Whether we get now, CCT would return by default by January, time for the legislative process will be subject to which is just before we want to abolish it. That parliamentary procedure. would happen for the reason that I gave in my opening remarks. Iain Smith (North-Ea st Fife) (LD): To what extent is the Executive’s linking of best value with The best-value regime that is being prepared, powers of community initiative, for example, which has been the subject of a lot of discussion in behind the delay in introducing the best-value local government and in the wider community of regime? Is the delay also caused by the fact that those who are involved in managing best practice, you are considering extending the best-value represents a major set of changes to principles regime to the public sector in one go? and practices and will be the subject of a complex bill. It will raise many practical issues, which will Peter Peacock: On the latter point, we are still have to be teased out through the legislative considering what would be required in extending process. It will also raise issues of principle, which the regime to the rest of the public sector. We are I am sure members will wish to test through the clear that the principles of best value ought to legislative process. There may be many probing apply across the whole public sector. It is the amendments and amendments to change the bill precise legislative provisions that present the that we will eventually introduce. difficulty. Quite simply, there is no space in the current You ask whether the best-value process is being legislative programme to do justice to that process held up because it is linked to other aspects of a and to pass what will be a complex piece of future bill relating to the power of community legislation. Total repeal at this stage was not an initiative and community planning. The answer is option, which is why we have introduced this bill to no. Had we been considering best value as a allow us to continue with the status quo until we standalone item, the complexities of the bill would can make all the necessary preparations. I still have had an impact on whether we could get it reiterate that we firmly intend to present our passed in this parliamentary year. The process proposals to ensure that the change to best value was not going to work like that. takes place. However, there is a connection between what You asked why we did not make use of a later will form part of best value as we currently date. That was an option, but if the legislative envisage it and aspects of community planning programme altered in any way, we would have and the power of community initiative. Depending had to come back with a similar proposal to on the final structure of the bill, there may be change the date again. We thought that it was compliance requirements in a number of expedient simply to remove the date from the aspects—in community planning and in best statute, which will allow ministers discretion to value, for example.