Official Report 422KB pdf
I am anxious to move on, as I know that people are pushed for time.
Partly, but my problem is that I am not yet entirely sure what we have to do. I understand that we have to make our comments to the Finance Committee by the end of May. Will the committee have the opportunity to discuss whether we want to take evidence from anybody else at this stage? I ask that because I know that some other committees have been doing that—for example, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee took evidence from a range of people last week, and some other committees seem to be a bit ahead of us. If the first time that we consider this matter is when the minister comes, that does not leave us any time to take any supplementary evidence before the end of May. Are we not leaving things a bit late?
Part of the problem with scheduling was that we had already timetabled our discussions of the bill, which led to difficulty fitting things in. I think that there is also uncertainty about when we are expected to make our submission. I believe that there was a slight delay in that.
I have not been told about any changes to the timetable; I believe that we are still working to the same timetable. The committee discussed this a few weeks ago and—because of the difficulty of scheduling evidence taking alongside all the other business—it agreed that it was happy to have a session with the minister after perhaps only a discussion among committee members. If the view of the committee has changed, that can be reconsidered—although there is now very little time to schedule other evidence. Different committees take different approaches, depending on what they have on their agendas.
Gillian is right—we did have that discussion. However, I am only just beginning to understand all that is involved in this process. Before we meet the minister, I would like us to consider the issues and decide whether we are happy to hear from only the minister. I know that timing is tight, but could we schedule something?
The paper by Karen and Gillian will flag up issues that they think we might want to pursue with the minister. We will have an opportunity to consider the paper and add to it before the minister comes to the committee. If you are suggesting that, following that meeting with the minister, we should take further evidence, we would need to consider that once we know what our timetable will be.
I am suggesting that, in the light of Karen's paper, we will need to consider whether we want to take further evidence. It may be that we do not, but I do not think that we have to wait until after we have seen the minister to make that decision. When will we get Karen's paper?
There are a number of questions to which we think it would be helpful to get factual answers from the Executive before the minister comes, so that members' time is not wasted by just asking what certain figures mean. We intend to draw up a paper tomorrow in which we will ask the Executive for answers; it would be unreasonable to give the Executive less than a week or two to give those answers, so our report will only be ready in time for the meeting before the one at which the minister is scheduled to attend.
I suggest that discussion of the Executive's answers be put on the agenda for the meeting prior to the minister's attendance. We can decide whether we feel that we need further evidence, or further clarification, before we see the minister.
The minister is not my only concern. However, for very understandable reasons, I feel that we have got into a situation where we have no room for manoeuvre.
I have said at the conveners group—we have said it in this committee—that our timetable is very tight because of our other commitments. We may not be able to give this matter the time that we might want. That is unfortunate, but I like to think that we will have time to pick up on the most pertinent points. I hope that, in future years, we will spend more time on this process.
Will you confirm that we will have the discussion of Karen's paper on the agenda for the meeting before the one on 23 May?
Yes—on Monday 15 May we will discuss the budget review.
I would like to raise the issue of the spirit in which we have in camera discussions on the reports that we produce. Last week, when the Parliament debated the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill, I was surprised to find that Nicola Sturgeon felt it right to mention our report's conclusions on that bill while hiding behind our in camera discussions to suggest that I was in favour of the unqualified repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Of course, anyone who attended the meeting of the committee at which we discussed the report will recall that I was initially intent on recording my dissent. However, in order to get a form of words on which we could all agree and to produce a unified report, we found a solution that met with everyone's agreement. I was rather surprised to find that that was thrown back in my face. I was unable to intervene to correct Nicola's comments.
I do not think that I can add anything to Brian's comments. We have discussions in private to try to reach agreement. I do not know whether people are any more likely to say what they really think in private than they are in public. I am not sure whether there is any inconsistency—perhaps there is for some members.
Clearly there is for some members.
You have made your point, Brian.
And it has been recorded.
Members will be aware that we have a timetable of visits for our special educational needs inquiry. Anyone who has not yet done so should advise the committee clerks as soon as possible about their availability for those visits—I must admit that that includes me—so that we can organise them.
Meeting adjourned at 12:02.
On resuming—