Welfare Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Official Report 428KB pdf

---

Decisions on Taking Business in Private

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2013 of the Welfare Reform Committee. The observant among you will notice that I am in the chair today. Sadly, the convener is at a funeral and is unable to attend the meeting. He has sent his apologies. I welcome Jackie Baillie, who is substituting for him on behalf of the Labour Party.

I remind everyone to either switch off their mobile phones and other electronic devices or switch them to airplane mode. I am not quite sure what “airplane mode” is, but if you know what it is, feel free to utilise it.

First, we have two items of administrative business to consider. Under agenda item 1, I invite members to consider whether we should take item 5 in private.

I have a question, convener. We got the private paper for committee members only, but I think that I saw it online in Holyrood magazine. Was it online in Holyrood magazine? Are the clerks aware of that?

Yes. We discussed the matter with the clerks the other day. I think that the paper was inadvertently published online and that Holyrood magazine picked up on it.

As the paper has been made public, is it right that we should discuss its contents in private?

I am relaxed either way, but I am happy to ask for views from other members.

I understand exactly the point that Kevin Stewart has made, but I would reverse it. It would be inappropriate for us to change our decisions as a result of a paper that may have been published accidentally, or a paper that is perhaps leaked in future in similar circumstances. We should stick to the plan rather than have circumstances dictate to us.

Okay. I remind members that we have not yet made a decision, but I appreciate Alex Johnstone’s perspective.

Do other members have anything that they want to say on the matter?

I want to pick up on something that Alex Johnstone said. Can it be clarified how the paper ended up in the public domain? The word “leaked” has just been used.

I did not say—

Hold on, Alex. To be clear, there was simply an administrative error.

Okay. Fair enough.

Probably everybody knows the committee’s view that it would rather have a formal session than an informal session with Mr Iain Duncan Smith but, unfortunately, Westminster ministers continue to fail to come forward and give evidence in public. I am sure that the people of Scotland would want to see that, too.

On this occasion, having heard that an administrative error was made, I hope that every other body, including the media, will have access to the private paper, as it went out inadvertently. I am happy to have the discussion in private on this occasion, but I feel that, if something has been in the public domain, it should go to every organisation, not just one, if it went to it inadvertently.

Okay. The clerks can correct me if I am wrong about this, but I do not think that the paper went to Holyrood magazine inadvertently. I think that it was inadvertently published online, and Holyrood magazine was eagle-eyed and happened to notice it. Therefore, it was available universally, albeit briefly.

What is the feeling among members on whether we should take item 5 in private? I am relaxed either way.

Based on the discussion that we have just had, I do not think that there is any need to have the discussion in private.

Like the convener, I am pretty relaxed either way.

I am relaxed, too, but I would probably err on the side of having the discussion in public, as the document is in the public domain. I do not see what the logical point would be of discussing a document in private that has already been published.

Okay. I sense that the feeling is that we should take the discussion in public. Is the committee relaxed about that approach, notwithstanding Alex Johnstone’s comments?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is a decision on whether to take in private our future consideration of the evidence that we hear at the next few meetings on the regulations on passported benefits and any draft report on the regulations. Do members agree to take those discussions in private?

Members indicated agreement.