Agenda item 6 is a report from the Standards Committee on accessing the Parliament. I draw members' attention to the last line of paragraph 4 in paper PR/01/6/6, which says that we need not discuss the report. We can simply accept it as part of the evidence that we gather in our investigation of the CSG principles. I am always happy to accept evidence, especially when it comes from such an eminent source as the Standards Committee.
Words in print do not always reflect irony, but that certainly sounded ironic, convener.
You are slow today; you missed the reference to the division bell as relating to Pink Floyd's 1994 album.
That was a fallow period for that band—old geezers like you appreciate that kind of stuff.
The last time that I was at a concert, I saw you there.
At least I have the decency still to look like a mod.
You were a mod the first time round. This is becoming ridiculous.
Agenda item 7 is for information, except in one respect. The paper asks for members' views on taking public meetings out to the rest of Scotland, which means that we would try to spread three or four meetings across parts of Scotland, to take views from the community at large. I suspect that we might be on a bit of a hiding to nothing, in that people will make all sorts of points that do not relate to the CSG principles. However, the point is made that in drawing up its principles and doing all the preparatory work, the CSG held a series of local meetings, which are summarised in the paper. It might be useful for us to get out there and smell the coffee.
I understand from your deliberations that people in Australia might be interested in hearing what we have to say. What about meeting in Australia?
If you can persuade the SPCB to fund a trip to Australia, we who are about to have our allowances investigated will salute you. We will take the opportunity to speak to visiting Australians when they are here—that relates to agenda item 8.
How will we determine which areas, towns or cities we visit?
If we are to have three meetings, I suggest that we have one in the central belt and that we also go somewhere that is reasonably remote. The Borders, the north-east and the west are suggested in the paper. Other possibilities are the south, west central Scotland and the north. Could we consider places that have not had a parliamentary committee visit and try to plug some gaps?
That would be a reasonable approach. It is a good idea, if we can do it.
Some of the venues that have been suggested have hosted several meetings. We should perhaps think of going to places that are either particularly difficult physically—where people feel physical separation—or to communities where people feel that they have problems or issues that are not easily articulated, or where they feel that they have not been influencing us enough, for example Frank McAveety's constituency.
I support the suggestion that we should take parliamentary committees where they have not been before. I do not know whether any committees have been to Orkney or Shetland yet. They probably have, but there will be lots of communities in which there has not yet been a parliamentary committee meeting. Committees have been to many places, however. Dumfries and the Borders have been visited, as have the major cities.
I echo the convener's point about going somewhere that is not necessarily physically remote, but where people might not be socially included and therefore do not normally access the Parliament. Holding committee meetings in such a place would make it physically easier for people who live there to come and speak to us. I am thinking of several of the estates in Glasgow and the surrounding area.
So you are thinking of somewhere in Glasgow, Paisley, Greenock, Dumbarton or elsewhere on Clydeside.
It should be somewhere other than Glasgow, but in the west. I do not know whether the Parliament has been to such places as Elgin, Keith or Huntly; parliamentary committees have certainly been to Aberdeen and Dundee.
And to Inverness.
Yes, a committee has been to Inverness. Perhaps we could consider somewhere else in the north-east corner of Scotland, such as Peterhead or Banff.
If members are happy to accept a social-cum-geographical spread in considering places we have not previously been, and to trust us with the task of coming up with a rota of meetings, I expect that when we fix those meetings, every member of the committee will want to attend one or two of them. We will spread it about a bit; we should all be involved subject to availability, diary spaces and so on.
In spite of the fact that we could have bad weather at the turn of the year or after new year, I think that we ought to hold the remote meetings after new year, rather than during the autumn. When we have received the views of those who have to come and talk to us here, we will be in a better position to deal with members of the public, as the report suggests. I do not think that we should get too hung up about travel difficulties or about slight delays in producing reports. I would prefer to do that after we received evidence, instead of trying to cram everything into as short a time as possible.
During the previous discussion on the matter, I issued a semi-stricture against committees binding themselves through over-tight deadlines—that is a fair point. Do you have any view on that, John?
The third last line in the annexe suggests three dates in November, on the bases that the alternative was December, and that the committee's intention was to report at about the turn of the year. If the committee is content to report later next year, that will give us more flexibility to arrange meetings and avoid bad weather. We could consider the end of January, February or whenever.
It is always difficult to predict when there will be bad weather. We are just as likely to have bad weather in November or December as in January or February.
You will recall that, this year, we had snowstorms in the Borders and in the north-east in February. There were still difficulties even in March.
I never thought that I would say this, but I wish that Lloyd Quinan were on the committee. Maybe he would be able to help us.
I think that Lloyd was just the messenger. [Interruption.] Oh, be quiet.
I have not read the annexe yet, but it would be helpful to know the feelings of people who attended CSG meetings on the issues of contact, accessibility and so on. We do not want to repeat a mistake that the CSG might have made, which resulted in questions being asked about why certain locations were chosen. That might make things more difficult.
We are in touch with the people who organised such matters in the then Scottish Office. We have done a bit of research.
I think that we have agreed a course of action on that.
Previous
Decision Time (Timing)Next
Committee Business