The second item on our agenda is consideration of our draft annual report for the parliamentary year 11 May 2012 to 10 May 2013. The annual report is in a standardised format with a set number of words. It is supposed to be an accurate account of the issues that we have considered. Unless anyone can highlight any omissions or factual inaccuracies, are we content with the draft report? Does anyone have any comments?
I hesitate to prevent our just nodding it through, but I have a comment about paragraph 23. Rightly, there is an acknowledgement of the committee’s concern about the unwillingness of Whitehall ministers to give evidence. Again this morning, we had the issue of the non-availability of Atos and decision makers to give evidence. I wonder whether it is worth registering that in the report.
I ask the clerk whether we have used up the 1,500 words or whether we can fit something in.
I think that we have room.
You take that executive decision, Catherine.
There is one thing that could usefully be added, unless I have missed it. In the paragraph on the commissioned research from Sheffield Hallam University, perhaps we should point out at the end that we had a debate in Parliament on that topic, and give the date.
Is everybody happy with that?
Other than those two minor changes, are we happy with the report?
Congratulations to the clerks.
That concludes our meeting.
Previous
Impact of Welfare Reform in Scotland