Official Report 255KB pdf
Item 4 on the agenda is the Scottish utilities forum nomination from the Transport and the Environment Committee. The Scottish Executive is establishing a utilities forum for Scotland to address major utilities issues such as customer service, investment, the environment and growth opportunities. A paper has been circulated to members and the committee has the opportunity to nominate a member of that forum.
I suggest that we nominate Andy Kerr.
I second that.
Thank you very much. I would be happy to take on that responsibility.
Yes. The time for the next three meetings will be 9 o'clock. Andy Kerr will seek the committee's permission to go into private session. Questions will then be put to the witnesses at 9.30 am as the committee proceeds to evidence taking. Andy Kerr must propose that they are taken in private.
What must I propose?
That the areas of questioning to witnesses over the next three meetings should be taken in private.
During private sessions at the beginning of meetings, we must agree a line of questioning with which all members are happy.
I suggest that we call them informal sessions, rather than private sessions.
I do not know what they are. I think that there are rules in standing orders.
The committee is developing. The guidance will state that, before meetings at which evidence is to be considered, the committee could meet formally in private. That is why we have followed that route. I suggest that we do that, unless we receive further guidance from the clerks.
To avoid doubt, we should make it clear that the meeting is to go into private session following the legal advice that we have received.
Yes.
I wondered how much of what took place in the earlier meeting needed to happen in private. The justification for having private sessions was that we would save on official report and broadcasting time. However, the official reporters and the broadcasting people were present throughout that session. I do not think that we would have been remotely damaged if the briefing by Stephen Curtis had been delivered in public. We did not need to have it written down. I am not sure what the point of this morning's privacy was. I do not say that in a disputatious or combative way—the reason was just not obvious to me.
We must agree our line of questioning. To do so in public, before those who are submitting evidence to us arrive, is a bit daft. I wanted to highlight that aspect rather than matters of presentation and so on—it was more to do with the scope and direction of our questioning.
Such sessions are surely more about discussing tactics.
I would pursue the course of sending witnesses our questions in advance. We want the best answers to our questions—we do not want to catch them out. What would be the point of that?
To be fair, Robin, we let them know what the scope of the questions would be. They would have expected all the questions we asked them today. In the private session, we are more involved in sorting out the question structures.
We should have a time scale for that. If we took only 10 or 15 minutes, it would not look like we were meeting in private.
I have one more question. Now that we have all the details, could we send questions to Lynn Tullis, the clerk, in advance?
There would be no problem with that, if you think that certain areas should be addressed.
I thank members for their hard work this morning.
Meeting closed at 12:25.
Previous
Invitations