Finance Committee, 09 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 9, 2003

Official Report 185KB pdf

---

Item in Private

The second item on the agenda is to seek the committee's agreement to consider our draft report on the financial memorandum to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill in private at our next meeting. It is clear that there are concerns within the committee about aspects of the financial memorandum. In my view, consideration of those concerns in detail in private would be the appropriate mechanism for arriving at a consistent shared report. Do members agree?

I expect that I will be in a minority—perhaps of one.

Possibly two.

"Things can only get better", as someone once said.

I am struggling to understand why we need to go into the cloisters to have a secret discussion. If the Holyrood inquiry has revealed anything, it is that there is far too much secrecy. I am completely mystified about why we need to have a secret discussion on the financial memorandum to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. I would have thought that it would benefit democracy if people could see how we arrived at our conclusions.

That is of particular relevance to the bill in question, because it has been accepted—to a greater extent than with any previous bill—that the sums might be seriously wrong. Strong arguments have been made, not least by the convener, that the Executive's estimate of the numbers of orders that will follow the classification of additional learning needs is seriously skewed. If that is the case—I hope that I am not misrepresenting any member—it is more important than ever that our discussions should be in public. Before the election, civic bodies gave a great deal of support to the idea of considering matters in public.

My opinion has nothing to do with party politics; some people in my party take the opposite view. I am genuinely disappointed that the committee has decided on every occasion that we should go into secret session when we consider a report. I do not see what we all have to hide.

On a matter of principle, I back that up 100 per cent. If the report is not open to public scrutiny, we should not even be talking about it.

When we are considering draft reports on legislation, it is important that we have an opportunity to discuss all the issues on a non-partisan basis in the hope that we will reach consensus. Collective committee scrutiny of the legislation is crucial. There is clear disagreement between members of the committee.

I know that the Procedures Committee was looking at the matter. Has it come to a conclusion yet?

I am not aware whether it has reached a conclusion.

Perhaps we should find that out as a matter of interest.

I know that the Conveners Group was in favour of dealing with such reports in private. However, we must deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

We will put the matter to a vote. The proposal is that we discuss the committee's draft report in private at the next meeting. Are members agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)

Against

Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

It is agreed that we will discuss the committee's draft report in private at the next meeting.

That was not held in secret.

We now move into private—

Just before we move into private session, I want to make a statement for the Official Report about the next item—it is not in any sense about decisions on individuals, as I agree entirely that we should discuss those in private. I register my concern that we are embarking on an inquiry that is not a sensible use of our time. I regret that that is the case and I have tried to put my arguments in previous meetings. We will not be making the correct decision if go on with that piece of work.

We move into private session to consider a paper that outlines proposals for commissioning external research for the committee's cross-cutting expenditure review on economic development. No members of the public are present.

They do not realise what they are missing.

Meeting continued in private until 11:16.