Local Government and Communities Committee, 26 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Official Report 207KB pdf

---

Interests

Good morning and welcome to the Local Government and Communities Committee. The first agenda item is a declaration of interests, for which we welcome Patricia Ferguson as a new member of the committee.

Thank you. I do not believe that I have any interests to declare.

I have a point of procedure. The committee is aware of the lengthy discussion at First Minister's question time last week about the content of discussions at our previous meeting. I do not expect the committee to rehearse the rights and wrongs of those arguments, but I notice that Ms Alexander claimed to quote when she said:

"Why, then, did the Minister for Communities and Sport admit yesterday that the Scottish National Party Government is now reviewing the scheme"—

the central heating scheme—

"with targeting or means testing the likely outcome?"—[Official Report, 20 September 2007; c 1970.]

That claim was said to be based on discussions in this committee, although the Official Report does not seem to have been consulted, because it makes it clear that the minister made no such claim.

I merely ask about a procedural point. What view do the committee, the convener and his officials take on the quotation of committee discussions when that is not based on the actual discussions and has no basis in the Official Report? Would it help to write to tell Ms Alexander that she could save herself some trouble if she followed the idea that members who quote committee discussions should bother to find out what was actually said?

That is not a point of procedure but a political point of view. I understand why you make that political point. Committee proceedings, as well as being in the Official Report, are televised and anyone can watch them.

I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that the Official Report of the meeting had not been published when Ms Alexander made her comments at First Minister's question time. She must therefore have watched our proceedings live on holyrood.tv or spoken to a committee member, or she would have had no basis on which to make her assumption. For the committee's integrity, it is important to write to her to seek clarification of how she reached her conclusion. That is not a political point but a point of fact, on the basis of the committee's Official Report. The committee's integrity is important and we should write to Ms Alexander.

It is inappropriate for politicians of any stripe to quote discussions that did not take place. You said that the point was political, convener, but the reality is that it does the committee no good if its proceedings are misquoted—it does Ms Alexander no good, either. I support what my two colleagues said about clarifying the matter. She was the one who ended up with egg on her face, but what happened did not look good for the committee or for committee members who might have raised the matter with her.

I do not know exactly—

I understand that comment is free. Some of us did not think that the minister made the SNP Administration's position on the central heating programme terribly clear—far from it. I would have taken what was said as a reasonable interpretation of reviewing a measure with a view to making it more effective. We intend to pursue that.

It is odd that SNP members of the committee want to pursue the matter. Are we saying that we cannot draw conclusions about what the Government might be doing from evidence that is given to a committee? To pursue that further in the committee would not be a productive or wise approach.

I think that that approach would be wise and productive. It is sensible to wait until the Official Report is published, after which people can draw their own conclusions by reading directly from the Official Report. To pre-empt that is wrong. The people of Scotland were deliberately misled about what the minister said at the committee meeting.

I appreciate that the point has been raised, but we are here to get on with the business of the committee for which we have asked people to come along. I do not agree with some of my colleagues who feel that the committee's integrity has been called into question by what happened last week. There is more than one source for what was said at the committee; members can watch the meeting being televised live or ask other members what they felt was said. It is not the integrity of the committee that could possibly be called into question; it is the minister whom we were interviewing last week. The convener is right to say that the point that has been raised is political. We should just get on with the business that we are here to do.

I am sorry, but why is the minister's integrity under discussion?

Kenny, please speak through the convener.

Sorry, convener.

Alasdair, you have raised your point and I have given members some indulgence in discussing it. If you want to raise a point of order about the Official Report, you need to do so in the chamber.