We move to agenda item 5, which we have decided to take in public. Before we discuss the paper that is before us, do members agree that, given that we are about to discuss it in public, it should be made public?
Do members have any comments on the paper that has been prepared in advance of our informal meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?
How long do we have with the secretary of state? Am I right in thinking that we have 30 minutes of his time?
He is coming at half-past 3 on 27 March. The time constraints are actually on both sides, because we will need to keep an eye on decision time. I am not sure precisely how long we will have with him.
There has been no clear indication of time as yet.
So, he might stay with us until decision time.
He might. You never know.
Yeah, right.
It might help you to make some decisions.
I think that we will avoid commenting on that.
The paper certainly reflects the committee’s discussion about how we would deal with the matter. The important point is that although the meeting will not be on the record we have made it quite clear—and apparently it has been accepted—that anything that comes out of it will be put in the public domain as clarification and to allow us to write our letter.
We took the same approach to similar meetings with UK ministers.
The amount of time that we have will be critical in determining priority areas for questioning. Now that the paper is in the public domain, I am sure that the secretary of state’s officials will be swarming all over it. I suggest that, if a genuine time issue emerges, we should attempt to prioritise our areas of questioning. I am happy to leave that to the convener and deputy convener but suggest that we invite written responses to the questions that we might not have time to ask.
That suggestion is helpful. All I would say is that we do not want to limit the range of questions that members might want to raise.
I thank the clerks for their paper, which has been quite good for guidance. It would be useful to know what time we will have for this informal, off-the-record meeting. I reiterate my view that it should have been a formal meeting without time limits so that we could get to grips with the questions about the welfare changes that the people out there are asking us.
In fairness, that last point has been more or less agreed and it has been made clear that we will follow up on any areas that need to be clarified. On the question of time, I am sure that the clerks will seek to clarify with DWP officials how long the secretary of state will be with us. Finally, the committee’s position about having an on-the-record discussion has been well made and I am sure that it will continue to reflect on that and proceed as it sees fit.
I, too, agree with Jackie Baillie. Even if we have a lot of time, we need to prioritise issues and ensure that we address them in a structured way and get the most important points dealt with.
I am sure that that goes for the whole committee.
You have left us all stunned, Alex.
I am sure that the clerks will reflect on what has been said. I close the meeting.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation