Official Report 202KB pdf
Item 3 on the agenda is rural petrol pricing. Our reporters have attended the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. A meeting has taken place and the issue has been discussed again since we last spoke about it. Can anyone give us a quick report of what happened?
There is a written report at the back of the papers, which covers everything that was discussed.
Are there any questions on the report, or comments that members want to make?
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will take evidence in private, and will get the Scottish Parliament information centre to conduct some research. It will then hang fire until the Office of Fair Trading's report, and will consider the recommendations from the OFT on how to proceed—if it is necessary to proceed at all.
If the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is taking evidence in private we will not be able to send reporters to its meetings.
Only one or two members of the committee were going to hear evidence, because of the nature of that evidence. It was agreed that it would be kept as close as possible. Shell UK has offered to give that committee information.
Is Elaine Murray a member of that committee?
Yes.
Are you likely to be involved in that discussion?
Yes.
So we have someone to keep an eye on that committee.
The main problem was that, although the oil companies were prepared to give initial evidence, they were prepared to give it only in private because of its commercial sensitivity.
If that evidence is to be taken in private, would it be appropriate to ask Elaine Murray to continue to monitor progress, so that at an early opportunity we can inform our reporters of the investigation's progress?
Are our reporters able to attend a private meeting?
No.
I understand the argument about commercial sensitivity. However, that raises a fundamental issue about parliamentary committees taking evidence in private and the committee being expected to draw inferences from evidence that it will not hear. I have qualms about whether that is the most appropriate way in which to proceed. As a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, I am not happy about sending reporters to a meeting at which they cannot hear the evidence on an issue that is of fundamental importance to people in rural areas. I would like to register my disquiet about that.
Similar comments were made at the meeting of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee when the matter was discussed. However, it is a question of getting the evidence or not getting it. Although the committee was unhappy about taking the evidence in private, with only a limited number of members in attendance, it felt that the priority was to obtain the information that was on offer.
I accept the committee's decision, but I question the value of evidence given in private by commercial companies. We will be asked to make a judgment on evidence that will be presented to somebody else, and I am not at all happy about that.
I share your concerns, but this is an issue for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
I share Mike Rumbles's concern, but I accept that each committee must be responsible for its own decisions. However, if we as committees of the Parliament appoint members as reporters on another committee of the Parliament, on what basis are those reporters excluded from meetings? If the oil companies—which might have their reasons for wanting to protect commercial confidentiality—are prepared to provide the information to members of the Scottish Parliament who are members of the appropriate committee, how can members of this committee who report from that committee not be worthy of the same trust? It is not for the oil companies to determine which members of Parliament should attend a meeting of a parliamentary committee. Presumably, it is for the Enterprise and Lifelong Committee to determine whether it wishes to exclude our reporters. If it did, I would want to know why.
Would it be appropriate for me to write to John Swinney, indicating the concerns that have been expressed by members of the committee? That would ensure that he understands that we wish to be kept informed and that we have a number of concerns relating to this issue.
In this case, we are fortunate that there is a member who sits on both committees, but the situation is not satisfactory.
I will raise the issue in two ways. First, I will pass on Lewis Macdonald's concern about the problem that this raises for the relationship between committees, and secondly, I will indicate that we wish to continue working jointly on the petrol price inquiry.
Previous
Petitions