Finance Committee, 21 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Official Report 144KB pdf

---

Decision on Taking Business in Private

In the third item on the agenda, I seek the committee's decision on whether to take in private our consideration of the draft report on the 2007-08 budget process next week and at subsequent meetings. Our usual practice is to conduct such deliberations in private until the report is published. Do members agree to continue that practice over the coming weeks?

I think that in the interests of openness we should have these discussions in public.

What do other members think?

I take a different position. As we are discussing certain issues in substantial detail, we should conduct our deliberations in private and try to reach some rounded and conclusive views.

Do members have any other views? You will notice that I have a bias towards the bottom end of the table, which will no doubt continue for a couple of weeks. As a result, I will start at that end and move up.

Andrew, do you wish to contribute to the debate?

Yes, convener. I am happy to consider the draft budget report in private.

The rule should be that reports are considered in public as far as possible, unless there is a strong reason to consider them in private. I have not yet heard a strong enough set of reasons for considering the report in private. We ought to take the issue seriously and try to be as transparent as possible, unless there is some overriding reason not to be.

I am torn on the matter. We are about to discuss in private items that, to be honest, we could have quite easily discussed in public. I guess that the matter was simply nodded through. As far as the report is concerned, I am quite happy to discuss it in public.

I very much agree with Mark Ballard's comments. Given that we have a climate in which the Howat report, for example, has been denied us, it would be very healthy to discuss the report in public.

That is a complete red herring; I do not think that this has anything to do with the Howat report. We have such discussions in private because they very often involve technical questions about the way in which paragraphs have been structured and how points have been expressed. They might well also involve criticisms of the people who drafted them, which do not necessarily need to be on the public record. If we discuss such reports in private, we can have a franker and more honest discussion about our feelings than we can if we discuss them in public.

I am keen to discuss the report in public. After all, we have to work out many important issues with regard to the budget process.

I have to say that I differ with Elaine Murray on whether the Howat report has anything to do with this; in fact, I feel that it lies at the heart of the issues that we have to chew over. The Howat review was set up to make recommendations on current programmes that are not working, which is material to our discussion on the budget report. It would be healthy to discuss the matter in public and to set a good example for the Executive on how to deal with such issues.

Perhaps one advantage of starting at the bottom of the table is that the convener gets the last word. I had not fully appreciated that fact when I began.

Actually, we have noticed that tactic already.

Is that not a character trait, convener?

The clerks have rightly pointed out that decisions on taking items in private are made on a case-by-case basis, so we should not overstate the importance of this particular decision. It applies only to our consideration of the draft budget report.

As convener, I want to make an observation that perhaps relates to my responsibilities. The Finance Committee has such a high reputation in Parliament—it is described as one of the most powerful parliamentary committees—because we have tried to operate on a cross-party basis and have succeeded in publishing budget reports to which all parties have agreed. Given that we all represent different political parties, that is no mean achievement. Inevitably, any budget report will reflect a balance of criticism of the Executive that will be stronger from members of Executive parties and perhaps not as strong from—I am sorry; I mean that the criticism will be stronger from members of the Opposition and not as strong from those from Executive parties.

I do not know; it could be the other way round. I am sure that we will be quite amenable in those circumstances.

I think that, particularly given the politically charged months ahead, the chances of our achieving cross-party agreement in certain delicate negotiations about what constitutes appropriate criticism with regard to a total budget of £25 million might be diminished if we hold this discussion in public. Of course, at the end of the day, the report will be published and, as the Deputy Convener has pointed out, that has not always been a pleasant experience for the Executive parties. Indeed, in the past, the committee has been robust in its views.

Given that we usually have such deliberations in private and then publish our report, I am inclined to stick with what has worked for us in the past. As I have said, if we do not do so, our chances of pulling together a cross-party report of the kind that has given the committee the stature that it has will be much diminished.

I am happy to take further comments on this matter.

I take your comments seriously, convener. I am certainly anxious for the committee to focus on the core evidence and arguments on the budget. If that is how we will approach the stage 2 draft report on the budget, I am happy to follow normal practice and ensure that we stick to that approach.

I am very grateful for that, deputy convener. If no one else has any comments, I thank the committee for reaching a decision. We will follow the practice as before.

We now move to agenda item 4. As previously agreed, we will move into private session to consider our draft reports on the financial memorandums to the Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill and the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill.

Meeting continued in private until 11:19.