Official Report 303KB pdf
The final item on our agenda is the committee's work programme, including stage 2 scrutiny of the Scottish Executive's budget for 2007-08. The clerk has produced a paper that sets out the timetable for our work programme and proposes a series of evidence-taking sessions and round-table discussions, including sessions on the sport 21 strategy. I ask the clerk whether there are any points that he wants to make on that.
The main things that the committee asked the clerks to do at the previous meeting were to put together a possible round-table discussion on the employment framework and strategy for those who are not in employment, education or training, and to do likewise for the issues relating to the development of creative Scotland and the issues facing the creative industries in Scotland. We have done those things in annexes B and C to the paper.
Thank you very much. Do members have any comments to make on annexes B and C to paper EC/S2/06/20/3, which deal with proposed round-table discussions? The proposals are indicative at this stage.
I want to clarify something about the proposed round-table discussion on the employment framework and the NEET strategy. I am all for a round-table approach, but I am not clear about when and how ministers will be questioned. Ministers are listed as witnesses; would they be around the same table as the other witnesses?
That would be up to the committee. Procedurally, there would be no difficulty in inviting ministers to take part in a round-table discussion. Alternatively, the committee may wish to invite ministers' officials to a round-table discussion and subsequently take separate evidence from the ministers. It is up to the committee to decide the best approach.
It is important that we speak to ministers rather than only officials at some point because there has been no opportunity to question them about the strategy since it was published—the parliamentary debate preceded the publication of the strategy. I like the idea of ministers being around the same table as other witnesses, because we ought to be able to discuss that kind of subject in such a way. I would be interested in the views of other members.
I am attracted to the idea of having a discussion before we see the ministers because some of us may have slightly different points of view on matters. However, if other members disagree, I shall accept their decision.
If there were ministers at a round-table discussion, would it be in public?
Yes.
That might impede their comments.
Should we suggest witnesses now or discuss them later?
We can discuss them later.
I am probably in favour of having public round-table discussions without a minister being present, simply because I fear that if the minister is present, some witnesses may feel a bit inhibited and will not be as candid as they would like to be. A round-table discussion that the minister would join later may be a way of overcoming that. Some individuals may be put off saying what they want to say if a minister is present. I do not mean anything personal against the ministers, but people may not be as candid as we would like them to be.
Our examination of the detail of the bill, and perhaps also the result of any consultation, may lead us to agree that it is not necessary for us to allocate that much time to scrutiny of the bill. I am sure that the committee will be delighted if spare time is found in which we can do other things.
I concur with the comments that Jamie Stone and Michael Matheson made on the round-table format. My preference is to have a round table without ministers being present, as that would be more productive. I understand that all the evidence will be given in public and that everything will be in the Official Report, but the psychology of the meeting may be such that it would be better if ministerial evidence were to be taken subsequently.
My feeing is quite the converse of Michael Matheson's view. I fear that the poor ministers might feel quite intimidated—it could be open season on ministers. Our dialogue with witnesses would be better if the round table were separate from ministerial evidence taking. At times, there is a wish on the part of ministers to defend robustly when what is needed is open debate. I propose that we pursue the matter on the basis that we see ministers separately. The clerks will come back to us with more information. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next matter is the evidence-taking sessions on the sport 21 strategy. Given that we will be into the new year before we have anything on which we can take evidence, I suggest that we leave the proposal on the table for now. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Finally, I turn to the matter of evidence taking from the national collections. I declare an interest as the chair of the Scottish Libraries and Information Council. I suggest that we take evidence from the National Library of Scotland, which is a huge, major collection with a significant budget. The national library is moving quite quickly from being the guardian of a closed national repository to that of a national resource that is available to all. The national library collections are now available to libraries in our communities and to individuals other than academics.
Members indicated agreement.
I hope that I am not too late to return to the matter of the employment framework, convener. If members have other comments and suggestions to make about potential witnesses, can we make them to the clerks?
Yes. This morning, I met staff members from the Scottish Parliament information centre to discuss further our proposal for a piece of research into the economic impact of European Union funds. SPICe will prepare a paper for the committee.
Am I allowed to return briefly to annex A, convener?
No. Obviously, you were not involved in our earlier discussion.
You can, Jamie. Go on.
The question is for our clerks. I assume that we will be the lead committee for the proposed national register of tartans bill. Do we really have to spend three days on that?
We have had that debate. Perhaps you were out of the room at the time, Jamie. We agreed that we may not need all that time. Michael Matheson raised the matter.
My apologies. We were of like mind but in different rooms, Michael.
The committee will have another opportunity to consider its work programme and the need for evidence-taking sessions.
Meeting closed at 16:49.