Official Report 154KB pdf
The next item concerns the Procedures Committee's inquiry into the application of consultative steering group principles in the Scottish Parliament. The committee is asked to consider whether it wishes to make a submission to the Procedures Committee's inquiry. Members will note that there is no obligation to make such a contribution and that the views of MSPs and staff will be sought individually through a survey, which we have all received. If members wish to make a submission, they should pass their comments to the clerk. Those comments will form the basis of a discussion on 18 June. I caution members that we have some fairly detailed items of business to attend to at the meetings of 18 June and 26 June. We need to be very strict on time scales.
There is nothing in particular that the Transport and the Environment Committee would have to say about the application of the CSG principles, although other committees might. Individual members can make their own points.
Perhaps this is an opportunity to assess and audit the way in which the Executive has given information to the committee. Ensuring openness is part of our job as a committee.
That issue could be brought into the process, but I am not sure how much we could achieve in assessing that between now and the deadline. I have my doubts about whether we could do that within the required time scale. However, it is not an issue that we should ignore and I would be happy to consider it as another item of business in the future. We will have a meeting in the autumn on committee priorities—perhaps it could form part of that discussion.
One of the key points is that the Scottish Executive should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament. I would be interested to hear from Murray Tosh about the committees' role in that. The Executive is accountable to the Parliament through committees' business. I understand the difficulties and what you have said about time scales and inputs, convener, but the role of the committees in relation to accountability is a key part of the inquiry.
Perhaps Murray Tosh can assist us. We are discussing the Procedures Committee inquiry on the application of the CSG principles. I have said that we can do something on that but that it must be fairly tight, given the time that is available. Do you have any views on that? We have narrowed our interest down to the Executive and its relationship with committees in respect of openness, transparency and access to information. Those issues are highlighted in the paper from the Procedures Committee. Is there another vehicle for pursuing those matters somewhere further down the line?
Members can contribute to the report as individuals. The idea of speaking to the committees is that the Procedures Committee would like to hear views on confidentiality and so on.
Those points are fair enough, but I am not sure that they are relevant to the work of our committee. There might be an appropriate submission to be made by, let us say, conveners of the subject committees about common issues that have emerged in relation to Fiona McLeod's point, for example. However, I would struggle to find anything from the Transport and the Environment Committee's experience that I could put forward. I do not see that there is a particular argument for the Transport and the Environment Committee using its time in that way. Perhaps individuals or conveners should get together to highlight issues that affect all subject committees. That would be a good arrangement.
We are talking about generalities. Some examples would be useful, so that we can get a handle on matters.
Let us consider the budget process and some of the difficulties that were experienced by the committee the first time round, which have been replicated. The budget process changes; it is not presented in the same format year-in, year-out. We must carry out our work as a collegiate group. If the scrutiny process were rectified, accountability, accessibility and openness would be improved. That is a specific area that we could include in our response.
Does any member want to raise other specific issues?
Our consideration of the northern isles ferry services comes to mind, which we had to consider at the last minute. It was almost as though we had been told, "This is your only chance. Take it or leave it."
We should highlight difficulties that we remember.
Yes, but I am trying to dig deeper into members' thinking about such matters. I am happy that some concrete examples are being given.
The thrust of the problem is that we are trying to speak to the Scottish community outwith the Parliament. We recognise that, on the system and in relation to how people have been working, there might be issues that should be ventilated. I hope that a good response is received from individual members, even if it is to say that matters are fine and that everything is going according to plan—or not, as the case may be.
I think that Bruce Crawford made that point off the top of his head. We do not have a lot of time to deal with the matter. Shelagh McKinlay tells me that we have until close of play on Thursday. If members can think of issues and e-mail their ideas to her, we shall try to get a first draft together for our next meeting. Following that, perhaps we can nail down the matter and deliver it to the Procedures Committee. We might be a day behind schedule, but I am sure that Murray Tosh will look after us. Are members content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
As the committee is aware, item 6 is mainly the responsibility of Robin Harper, because he introduced the issue and I responded to him. However, he is not with us today. We opted at the start of the meeting to defer consideration of the item until another meeting when he is with us, which I hope will be next week.
Meeting continued in private until 16:57.