Local Government and Communities Committee, 27 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Official Report 301KB pdf

---

Meetings (Frequency)

Item 2 on our agenda is consideration of the frequency of future meetings. Kenny Gibson has strong feelings on the issue. The matter was discussed at a brief meeting of the Conveners Group. At this stage, there seems to be a general view across the board—not an instruction—that committees will meet fortnightly. I do not know whether that is becoming a reality in all committees. I seek the clerk's advice on the matter.

It is for the committee to determine the frequency of its meetings. Weekly slots are available, if that is what the committee wants. The committee may want to discuss the issue at its away day, or it may want to decide today to meet fortnightly or weekly—either option can be accommodated. There is a general feeling among conveners that fortnightly meetings would be preferable, if possible.

There should be a presumption that we meet weekly; if there were not sufficient business, the meeting would be cancelled. If we opt for weekly meetings, the dates will be in members' diaries. We must be rational and logical about what we do in committee.

My concern is that if we move to fortnightly meetings and then discover that we have more business, the pressure will be on not to have an extra meeting. Committee activity is such a critical part of our work that we should be logging in our diaries a presumption in favour of committee work. The time does not have to be spent in formal committee meetings; we can go on visits or have round-table discussions with stakeholders. I would prefer to have a weekly slot and to give the convener and the clerks the authority to cancel if the agenda is light.

We will go around the table for views.

I agreed entirely with Johann Lamont.

I take a slightly different view. I am happy to look at holding weekly meetings when they are necessary, but the majority of business can be got through and given the required detailed analysis on a fortnightly basis. I would not want it to drift any further than that because we would start to lose impetus.

If weekly meetings are in our diaries and we are not required to meet every week, that would be a bonus as we would have a window in which do something else. If we stick it in our diaries, we ring fence the time, which is important.

Johann Lamont makes a fair point about weekly meetings being in the diary, but that does not mean that we need to meet weekly.

I agree with the emerging consensus. Having been used to meeting weekly with the predecessor committee, and having seen the scale of the ministers' portfolios in this morning's discussions, we should start with the presumption of a weekly meeting and see how it goes.

You know my view, convener. The workload is going to be very high and, as Johann Lamont and others have said, there are a lot of organisations and stakeholders. We should get off on the right foot and start by meeting once a week.

I can sum up the consensus there. There should be a presumption that we meet weekly. Obviously, the available slots will be part of our discussions on the work programme and we can confirm that when we get the opportunity. We seem to have agreement there.

We will now move into private—

I apologise for cutting you off in your prime, convener, but there was a wee bit of confusion earlier when Jim Tolson said he did not get an advance copy of something the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing had. It was just a circular. There was no preferential treatment.

That was useful. There might be some problem with the hard copies because I got an e-mail saying that I had the circular and I would receive a hard copy. We might need to confirm where those hard copies should be sent. These things just happen.

I did not want to harp on about it.

Meeting closed at 11:48.