Official Report 139KB pdf
Welcome to the 10th meeting this year of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys.
I suggest that we wait until the Government responds to the report, which will take a maximum of seven weeks, although I hope that it will be sooner.
We need to get to the next stage first, which is to agree to request that the Government responds. We have not done that yet. However, I take your point. Are there any other views?
I was very disappointed that all the information that was released yesterday in response to freedom of information requests was not released and made available to the committee in the context of its inquiry. Had that information been released then, we would have had a number of pertinent questions that we might have been able to ask witnesses. There are certainly other factors that we might have taken into account in framing our conclusions, although the information that was released gives me no cause to review the conclusions because, by and large, it confirmed the judgments that the majority of the committee made. Nonetheless, it would have been better for the evidential record had all this new information been put into the public domain earlier.
I would like to ask a few questions, particularly about the amount of time that committees usually get for a committee debate in the chamber. It would be more appropriate for the committee to have a debate on the findings of our forthcoming child poverty inquiry. If we are to bid for chamber time for a committee debate, I can think of subjects that are far more worthy of debate than the investigation into the Menie estate application processes, which has dragged on. Child poverty is a much more important issue for this committee to discuss in the chamber.
I am sure that the committee will be able to discuss in the chamber the report that we will agree in future following completion of our evidence taking on child poverty. I do not think that asking for a committee debate in the chamber on the Menie estate report would militate against our getting a debate on child poverty—it would not be a case of getting one or the other, Bob.
I hoped that we could seek guidance on whether a bid from this committee for a debate in the chamber would be likely to succeed, given the pressures on time in the chamber, and on whether we could get one debate only, or two or three. Instead of burning up our time in the chamber with a debate on the Trump application, I would prefer us to have a debate on child poverty, fuel poverty or some other issue. Do committees get a number of parliamentary debates over a session?
The Conveners Group will welcome bids for debates from committees. There is a lot of time for committees to have debates, and it is very wrong to suggest that any inquiry or work that we have not yet completed would be put at risk if we ask for a debate on this issue.
That is not what I was trying to say, convener. I am trying to get some—
Bob, other members have indicated that they want to speak. Given what the Scottish National Party group and you in particular have said over the past couple of weeks, I fully understand why you are anxious not to debate the issue in the chamber. I certainly understand your strong views on the matter—
Perhaps we could finish our discussion—
I call Patricia Ferguson.
That is very unhelpful, convener.
Given that, apart from the odd legislative consent motion, practically no legislation is going through the chamber—which, incidentally, also means that there are very few committee reports to debate—I suspect that the Conveners Group will be almost grateful if we ask for a debate on this report. I, too, hope that we will have debates on the reports that we might produce on fuel poverty, child poverty, housing or any other issues that fall within our remit.
Convener, I believe that you said that the SNP group was anxious about this report coming before the chamber. With respect, I want to put that right. As Bob Doris has indicated, we feel that having such a debate is probably not the best use of parliamentary time, but we are in no way anxious about having a debate on such a thin and poor report.
If we are going to have a debate, we should wait until we have received the Government's response so that our discussion is fully informed. We are certainly not anxious about the issue; indeed, I think that most people are bored rigid by the whole thing. The application has now gone to a public inquiry and I do not think that there is any great clamour outside this building for a debate. To me, it is all about feeble party-political point scoring. Given that no rules or laws were broken, I do not see why there is such pressure for a debate on the matter. After all, one of the party leaders in the Parliament actually broke the law, and I see no one clamouring for a debate on that.
It is incorrect to say that no rules were broken. The committee could not come to that conclusion because, as it recognises in its report, it has no powers to investigate the ministerial code.
My view is that it is not about having a debate—
So you will vote against the proposal.
Well, I will, because it is not the right time for a debate.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 2. The proposal is agreed to.
Of course, only the SNP group was politically motivated in that vote.
The second matter, which Kenny Gibson mentioned earlier, is whether the committee agrees to request a formal response from the Scottish Government to the report. As he pointed out, if we request that, the Government will be obliged to provide a report within eight weeks. That would provide us with an opportunity to get by the behind-the-hands briefings that have been taking place against the integrity of the committee in the past couple of weeks. We would wish any report to be considered and to address the concerns raised in the inquiry about the transparency of the process, the quality of the decision making and the legal advice that was taken. We look forward to that.
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes item 1. I suspend the meeting for a few minutes until the minister comes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—