Official Report 311KB pdf
I welcome members of the committee, the public and the press to today's meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee. I also welcome the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Tom McCabe. This is his first appearance before the committee since his promotion. Supporting Mr McCabe are Graham Owenson and Andrew Rushworth from the Scottish Executive.
I do not have an item 4 on my agenda.
I hope that we have only two items on the agenda.
Sorry, an amended agenda was sent out. For those members who did not receive it, I clarify that under item 4 we will consider the possible contents of our report on the budget process and give guidance to our adviser on the key issues that come out of today's evidence.
What is item 3?
Item 3 is on Audit Scotland's report "Maintaining Scotland's roads", which was published recently.
Could we actually see the agenda for this meeting, convener?
Item 1 is the item in private.
Yes.
So item 2 is item 1 on the agenda that the rest of us have, on the budget process. Item 3 is on the Audit Scotland report and item 4 is the new item that has been added to the agenda.
Yes.
Could it possibly be circulated? I presume that this is not an innovation.
None of us has received it.
For the record, I note my dissent to meeting in private.
Okay. The—
Before we move on—
Sorry. We will deal with the agenda first. Are members other than Tommy Sheridan content to take item 4—our discussion on the potential contents of our report—in private?
Not really, convener. I am a relatively new boy, although I am aging rapidly, and I wonder whether there is an opportunity to have a general debate about whether it is correct for us, as elected representatives, to go into secret session and have private, unreported discussions. I have argued on other committees that that is not what we are here for. Could we not have a general debate on the budget process in public, particularly as we are talking about the spending of vast sums of public money? I know that the public are interested in that. I have taken part in debates on meeting in private and I have lost every single battle but, like Robert the Bruce, that does not mean that I will give up fighting.
I do not propose that we have a wide-ranging debate on the issue here and now because we want to make progress with other business. It has been standard practice for this committee to discuss draft reports in private. When the report is finalised and published, it will be a public document and there will be a full debate on the Executive's budget in the Parliament, so there will be plenty of opportunities for you. If you are indicating your dissent to taking the item in private, we can have a vote on it, but I do not want us to have a wide-ranging debate today that detracts from the rest of our business.
I do not want to be uncharacteristic and make waves but I did not know that the item was on the agenda because the agenda that I have is different from the one that we now discover is the agenda for the meeting; otherwise, I would certainly have raised the matter with you and voiced my views before the meeting, so as not to keep the witnesses waiting.
The committee has debated the discussion of draft reports before, prior to your becoming a member of it. On that occasion, the vast majority of members, including at least one member of your party, agreed with the protocol that they should be discussed in private. Tommy Sheridan has been consistent in opposing that approach, but the majority of members of the committee agreed with it.
Very good. I gave notice that I wanted briefly to raise two other matters—
Sorry. To finalise the matter, are there just two members who indicate dissent?
On a small point, it is worth noting for the record that the committee has debated the issue before; the reason why I am not asking for a wide-ranging debate on it is that we have debated it. I believe that taking items in private should be the exception rather than the rule and that we take too many items in private, but we have had that debate and I lost. I wanted to clarify that it is not the case that we have not had that debate.
I note and recognise that. The position is that we will discuss the item in private and two members wish to note their dissent. Is that agreed?